,LE l E 3 9015 00236 311 0 University of Michigan - BUHR STATEMENi tI Aurv DjUMMEiNTS RELATIVE TO THE ISLE OF PINES TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CUBA PUBLISHED BY THE CUBAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW), HAVANA, CUBA 1925 / ' -' X:.. — ^ - ^. - *_ -?I 6,., Or r ^, " i;:* i!- E - W. -. ' 0 - 1 W'M ^-~~~~~~~~~ WS I s n ' I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' V~~~~~~~~_` STATEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS RELATIVE TO THE ISLE OF PINES TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CUBA PUBLISHED BY THE CUBAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW), HAVANA, CUBA 1925 NOTE ON PUBLISHED MATERIALS RELATIVE TO THE ISLE OF PINES TREATY 1. Senate doc. No. 205, 59th Cong., 1st sess.-"Adjustment of title to Isle of Pines"-1906, 277 pp. (Contains the majority and minority reports from the Committee on Foreign Relations, with numerous documents, as appendixes). 2. Senate doc. No. 166, 68th Cong., 2d sess.-" Isle of Pines. Papers relating to the adjustment of title to the ownership of the Isle of Pines." -1924. 319 pp. (Contains a reprint of doc. No. 205, and of a few other documents, previously published by the Senate, together with the report by Senator Lodge, Dec. 11, 1922, and Feb. 15, 1924, in favor of ratification of the treaty.) 3. "The Title of the Republic of Cuba to the Isle of Pines." Washington, D. C., 1924, 56 pp. (Contains various materials prepared by the late Cuban Minister to the United States, Sefior Gonzalo de Quesada; an article by him, which was published in the " North American Review"; and the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court, case of Pearcy v. Stranahan. Other published materials are brought together in the present pamphlet. In Cuba, studies of the Isle of Pines question have been published, among others, by Aurelio Hevia, Luis Machado, Evelio Rodriguez Lendian, and Fernando Ortiz. 2 M n.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O N W IM 0 Q QH 0 F N to 0d td ow 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 ~~$IB~~~~ ~~i::L:~~~~~...~NINN CONTENTS PAGE Note on published materials relative to the Isle of Pines Treaty............... 2 Resolutions adopted by the Cuban Society of International Law............. 4 Text of the Treaty signed March 2, 1904, pending before the Senate.......... 5 Summary of the grounds for ratification of the Treaty...................... 7 Examination of the facts and questions involved in the Treaty............... 12 Geographical situation and other data relative to the Isle of Pines............ 31 Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, February 15, 1924, advising ratification of the Treaty................... 34 Decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Pearcy v. Stranahan, decided April, 1907................................................. 38 Quotation from Hall's "Treatise on International Law," 1895................ 50 Letter of the Marquis of Villa-Urrutia, one of the plenipotentiaries of Spain who negotiated and signed the treaty of Paris in 1898....................... 51 Article by Dr. James Brown Scott, in the "American Journal of International Law," January, 1923........................................ 52 Article by Dr. Fernando Ortiz, in "The Cuba Review," December, 1924.... 56 Article by Frederic J. Haskin, published in a number of newspapers of the United States, December 12-15, 1924................................. 65 Extract from "Cuba and the Intervention," by A. G. Robinson, 1905......... 67 Editorials of the Press of the United States, 1905 to 1924................... 68 American Investments in Cuba. Trade of the United States with Cuba...... 80 3 RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE CUBAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW At the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Cuban Society of International Law, March 2, 1922, the following Declarations and Resolutions were adopted: "DECLARATIONS OF PRINCIPLES.-(1) The Isle of Pines is in fact and by right Cuban territory. (2) Cuba will never consent to transfer any part of its territory to a foreign nation. "RESOLUTIONS.-(1) Be it resolved that the foregoing Declarations of Principles be transmitted to the President of the Republic of Cuba; that he be reminded that the Treaty relative to the Isle of Pines, signed at Washington, March 2, 1904, and ratified by the Cuban Senate on the 6th of June of that year, is still unratified by the Senate of the United States; and that he be requested to put forth every effort to the end that the American Senate may definitely ratify said Treaty, favorably reported by its Committee on Foreign Relations on the 16th of February, 1906, and which is the complement to the treaty relative to the lease of naval stations, already ratified by both countries. (2) To begin a national campaign to enlighten public opinion respecting the Isle of Pines problem, so as to cooperate with the President in his efforts. (3) The Executive Council is fully authorized to carry out this resolution, by taking such steps and by such means as may seem advisable, reporting same to the Society at its next Annual Meeting." The Executive Council, at a special meeting held December 31, 1924, unanimously adopted, on motion of Dr. Enrique Hernandez Cartaya, one of the Vice-Presidents of the Society and Rector of the University of Havana, the following resolutions: "!. To reiterate all resolutions previously adopted by the Society in support of Cuba's sovereignty over the Isle of Pines. 2. To declare that it entertains the hope that the United States will definitely recognize, by ratifying the Hay-Quesada treaty, the status of the Isle of Pines as Cuban territory under the rule of the Cuban Constitution, from which it has never been excluded, thus confirming the view that it is historically an integral part of the Cuban community, and thereby strengthening the lofty declarations contained in the Joint Resolution of April 20, 1898, of the American Congress, and which are the basis of the constitutional law of Cuba and of its territory proclaimed by Article I of the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898. 3. That a Committee be appointed, consisting of Doctores Antonio Sanchez de Bustamante, Enrique Hernandez Cartaya, and Emilio Roig de Leuchsenring, President, Vice-President, and Secretary, respectively, of the Society, to have charge of publishing, for the Society, as full information as possible, using for this purpose documents and evidence which the Society has gathered showing the indisputable right of Cuba to the ownership of the Isle of Pines; and that this information be widely distributed among those persons and institutions in the United States to whom it may be of interest. 4 Treaty Between the United States and Cuba, Signed March 2, 1904, for the Adjustment Of Title to the Ownership of the Isle of Pines (Senate doc. 166, 68th cong., 2d sess., p. 317.) The United States of America and the Republic of Cuba, being desirous to give full effect to the Sixth Article of the Provision in regard to the relations to exist between the United States and Cuba, contained in the Act of the Congress of the United States of America, approved March second, nineteen hundred and one, which Sixth Article aforesaid is included in the Appendix to the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, promulgated on the 20th day of May, nineteen hundred and two and provides that "The Island of Pines shall be omitted from the boundaries of Cuba, specified in the Constitution, the title of ownership thereof being left to future adjustment by treaty;" have for that purpose appointed as their Plenipotentiaries to conclude a treaty to that end: The President of the United States of America, John Hay, Secretary of State of the United States of America; and The President of the Republic of Cuba, Gonzalo de Quesada, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Cuba to the United States of America; Who, after communicating to each other their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles: ARTICLE I The United States of America relinquishes in favor of the Republic of Cuba all claim of title to the Island of Pines situate in the Caribbean Sea near the Southwestern part of the Island of Cuba, which has been or may be made in virtue of Articles I and II of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris on the tenth day of December eighteen hundred and ninety-eight. ARTICLE II This relinquishment, on the part of the United States of America, of claim of title to the said Island of Pines, is in consideration of the grants of coaling and naval stations in the Island of Cuba heretofore made to the United States of America by the Republic of Cuba. 5 6 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba ARTICLE III Citizens of the United States of America, who, at the time of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall be residing or holding property in the Island of Pines shall suffer no diminution of the rights and privileges which they have acquired prior to the date of exchange of ratifications of this treaty; they may remain there or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce and professions being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to other foreigners. ARTICLE IV The present treaty shall be ratified by each party in conformity with the respective Constitutions of the two countries, and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the City of Washington as soon as possible. In witness whereof, we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty and hereunto affixed our seals. Done at Washington, in duplicate, in English and Spanish this second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and four. (SEAL) JOHN HAY. (SEAL) GONZALO DE QUESADA. SUMMARY OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY I. The Isle of Pines, distant 30 nautical miles from the Cuban mainland, from which it is separated by a shallow sea inclosed by keys, is geographically within the boundaries of Cuba, and always formed an integral part of the Spanish colony of Cuba, in exactly the same way as any other district or municipality of the Island. II. In Spanish documents, as in the various treaties made by the United States with Spain during the 19th century, the Spanish colony of Cuba was interchangeably denominated Cuba, or Island of Cuba, and in either case embraced the islands, islets and keys adjacent to the mainland. III. The Isle of Pines is the largest of the many small islands adjacent to the Cuban coast, and it has always been inhabited by Cubans, who, as such, during Spanish rule, voted in Cuban elections and were subject to the same laws and authorities as the other inhabitants of Cuba. IV. The Cubans while fighting for their independence regarded the adjacent islands as part of the territory of Cuba. V. The Protocol of August 12, 1898, which determined the basis of peace between the United States and Spain, in Article IV, included with Cuba the adjacent Spanish islands, and made a clear distinction between Cuba and the adjacent Spanish islands, as one territory, and "the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies," as another territory. The latter Spain ceded to the United States, while over the former she relinquished her sovereignty. VI. The United States in the Joint Resolution of April 20, 1898, disclaimed any intention of exercising sovereignty, jurisdiction or control over the Island of Cuba (which 7 8 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba meant Cuba and its adjacent islands), and this purpose was firmly maintained against Spanish proposals during the peace negotiations at Paris and was reiterated in the act of Congress of March 2, 1901, generally known as the "Platt Amendment," in which the relations of the United States with Cuba were laid down. VII. The United States could not violate its pledge and take from the Cuban people a part of Cuban territory, inhabited by Cubans, as was the Isle of Pines. That this was the view of the United States is shown by the Act of March 2, 1901 (the "Platt Amendment"), which provided for the sale or lease by Cuba to the United States of lands for coaling or naval stations, and for a treaty with Cuba to adjust the title to the Isle of Pines. VIII. Neither in the Treaty of Peace itself nor in the negotiations at Paris was the Isle of Pines mentioned at all, and there are recent letters from the only two plenipotentiaries now living, the Honorable George Gray and the Marquis de Villa Urrutia, which contradict any statements which may have been made to the effect that it was understood that the Isle of Pines was being ceded to the United States by that instrument. IX. When in 1907 the American residents on the Isle of Pines brought up before the United States Supreme Court the political status of the Isle of Pines, in a test case involving the application of the tariff laws (Pearcy v. Stranahan, 205 U. S., 257, decided in April, 1907), Chief Justice Fuller, in delivering the opinion of the Court declared: "The record of the official acts of the Spanish government from 1774 to 1898... all show that the Isle of Pines was, governmentally speaking, included in the specific designation 'Cuba' at the time the treaty (of Paris) was made and ratified, and the documents establish that it formed a municipal district of the province of Havana. In short, all the world knew that it was an integral part of Cuba, and in view of the language of the tWie of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 9 joint resolution of April 20, 1898, it seems clear that the Isle of Pines was not supposed to be one of the 'other islands' ceded by Article II. Those were islands not constituting an integral part of Cuba, such as Vieques, Culebra and Mona Islands adjacent to Porto Rico." Among the justices who took part and concurred in this decision was William R. Day, who, as President McKinley's Secretary of State, signed the Protocol of August 12, 1898, and was chairman of the United States peace commissioners at Paris, a circumstance which makes the decision as authoritative as it could possibly be. X. The United States has never taken any step to occupy or hold the Isle of Pines as American territory. It was treated by the military government (1898 to 1902) simply as a part of Cuba, and was left under the de facto government of the Republic of Cuba when the military government of the United States came to an end on May 20, 1902. Acting under the law of March 2, 1901, which provided that the title to the Isle of Pines should be "left to future adjustment by treaty," the Roosevelt administration promptly entered into a treaty with Cuba, signed at Havana, July 2, 1903, relinquishing all claim of title in favor of Cuba. This treaty-which lapsed-resubmitted to the Senate, March 3, 1904, has been upheld by every administration since then and supported by Secretaries of State of such international fame as jurists, among others, as John Hay (its author), Elihu Root, and Charles E. Hughes. The Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, whose opinion cannot be lightly dismissed, has on three occasions favorably reported the ratification of this treaty, and jurists, writers of note, and diplomatic representatives of the United States to Cuba, have defended Cuba's title to the Isle of Pines and advocated the ratification of the Treaty. The decision of the Supreme Court already referred to, while it did not determine the future status of the Island-a matter reserved to the treatymaking power of the United States-did state that the Isle 10 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States ~and iCvbq of Pines had always been, governmentally speaknan integral part of Cuba, that it was so at the time the:Treaty of Paris was made, and that, in view of the joint resolution of April 20, 1898, it seemed clear -that it was not supposed to be one of the "other islands" ceded by Article, II of the Treaty of Paris. XI. The Isle of Pines, it is said, cannot be ceded to Cuba by a treaty, but only by an act of Congress. This is based on a misunderstanding of the case. In the firSt place, the Isle of Pines has never been United States tefritory, and the Supreme Court in the decision before referred to, said: "It must be treated as foreign, for this Government has never taken, nor aimed to take, that possession in fact and in law which is essential to render it domestic." In the second place, the act of Congress of March 2, 1901 ("Platt Amendment"), provided in Article VI, that the title to the Isle of Pines "should be- left to future adjustment by treaty," and this article, together with the others constituting the "Platt Amendment, has been incorporated into a permanent treaty with Cuba, ratified July 1, 1904. The Congress of the United States -and the Senate itself have thus expressly determined that the title to the Isle of Pines shall be adjusted by a treaty with Cuba. XII. Objection has at times been made to the second article of the pending treaty on the ground that the United States relinquishes title to the Isle of Pines "in consideration of the grants of coaling and naval stations in the Island of Cuba." But neither in Article II or elsewhere, does the treaty say that the United States relinquishes title, to the 'Isle of Pines, but only "all claim of title... which has been or may be made in virtue of Articles I and II of the Treaty of Paris." So the Government of the United States, which Secretary of State Root said, in 1905, "has n o substantial claim to the Isle of Pines, and as the late President Harding declared "has no intention ever to make claim to any title to the Isle of Pines," simply recognized, by Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 11 Article II of the Treaty, t;hat since it had obtained from Cuba the lands for naval stations which it desired, there existed no reason for asking Cuba to cede the Isle of Pines to the United States for use as a naval base, which was the purpose which Senator Platt had in mind when he provided, by Article VI of his Amendment to the act of March 2, 1901, for a treaty with Cuba to adjust the title to the island. XIII. The claim that the treaty ought not to be ratified because Americans acquired property there on the faith of American ownership will not bear scrutiny. The first time it seemed probable that the United States might claim the Isle of Pines was on March 2, 1901, when Congress passed the Platt Amendment, providing there and then that the title to the island should be "left to future adjustment by treaty." This status was written into the Cuban Constitution on June 12, 1901, and into the permanent treaty between the United States and Cuba proclaimed July 2, 1904. But after the pending treaty was negotiated in 1903, and after the communication by Secretary Root, widely published, dated November 27, 1905, the prospect of United States ownership became remote. In 1899 President McKinley ordered a census of Cuba to be taken, and the enumeration of the population of the Isle of Pines showed that there were then only 14 inhabitants born outside of Cuba and Spain. When, in 1900, this census was published, it was stated therein that the Isle of Pines had been and was territory of Cuba. American citizens who after this time settled in the Isle of Pines or acquired property there cannot, therefore, in fairness make the claim that they acted under the belief that the island had been ceded to the United States. By far the greater part of the investments of Americans in the Isle of Pines were made, moreover, subsequent to the year 1903, at which time President Roosevelt negotiated the treaty with Cuba relinquishing in her favor all claim of title to the island." EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS AND QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THE TREATY Dates of signature of treaty and of action of the U. S. Senate thereon.-The treaty for the adjustment of the title to the Isle of Pines was first signed at Havana, July 2, 1903, submitted to the Senate by President Roosevelt, on November 10, 1903, and favorably reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations. The Senate, however, did not dispose of it before February 2, 1904, when it expired by virtue of the provision in Article IV reading "the ratifications shall be exchanged in the city of Washington, within seven months from this date." A treaty exactly similar in terms,' except that no limit was fixed as to the time of exchange of ratifications, was signed a month later, on March 2, 1904, by Secretary Hay and the Cuban Minister in Washington, Senor Gonzalo de Quesada.2 President Roosevelt transmitted it to the Senate on the following day, and it has since then been reported three times by the Committee on Foreign Relations, namely, on February 1, 1906, on December 7, 1922, and on February 15, 1924, the report being invariably favorable to ratification.3 Substance of the treaty.-By the terms of the treaty before the Senate, "the United States of America relinquishes in favor of the Republic of Cuba all claim of title to the Island of Pines situate in the Caribbean Sea near the southwestern part of the Island of Cuba, which has been or may be made in virtue of Articles I and II of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight" (Art. I); and "this relinquishment, on the part of the United States of America, of claim of title to the said Island of Pines, is in consideration of the grants of coaling and naval stations in the Island of Cuba heretofore made to the United States of America by the Republic of Cuba" (Art. II). The third article relates to the rights acquired by American citizens prior to the date of exchange of ratifications, which rights and privileges, it is provided, shall suffer no diminution. Authoritative approval given to the treaty.-It may be stated that not only has the ratification of the treaty been recommended to the Senate on four occasions by its Committee on Foreign Relations, the late Senators J. B. Foraker and H. C. Lodge being among its strongest advocates in that body, but that it has also been upheld by every administration, from that of President Roosevelt to that of President Coolidge, having been approved and urged by Secretaries of State John Hay, Elihu Root, Charles E. Hughes and others. The Supreme Court of the United States, too, before which the question of the status of the Isle of Pines was brought by proponents of American ownership, 1 In the text of this treaty, which was printed by the Senate as a document of the 58th Cong., 1st sess., Executive B, Confidential (made public Nov. 24, 1903), Art. I makes reference only to Art. II of the Treaty of Paris. Yet the original treaty signed by H. G. Squiers and Jose M. Garcia Montes, at Havana, reads "in virtue of Articles I and II of the Treaty of Peace," as in the Hay-Quesada treaty. 2 The full text is printed on p. 5. 3 See 68th Cong., 2d sess., Senate doc. 166 (1924). 12 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 13 declared that the Isle of Pines had always been, governmentally speaking, an integral part of Cuba, that it was such at the time the Treaty of Paris was made, and that, in view of this fact, it was to be assumed that said treaty did not intend to segregate it from Cuba and to cede it to the United States.4 Claim for United States inferred from language of the Treaty of Paris.-The claim of United States ownership has rested simply on an interpretation of Articles I and II of the Treaty of Paris, which read: "Art. I. Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba... Art. II. Spain cedes to the United States the Island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies." It has been held that the Isle of Pines was one of those "other islands," and was, therefore, ceded to the United States, which implies that the term "Cuba," as used in Article I, did not comprise the Isle of Pines. This is really the only question at issue, although it has frequently been obscured by the stress laid upon the fact that a number of American citizens have settled on the island and acquired property there. Official acts claiming United States ownership enumerated.-The following official acts have been regarded as establishing the claim to ownership of the Isle of Pines by the United States: (1) Letters signed by, or written at the direction of, the Assistant Secretary of War, Mr. G. D. Meiklejohn, in August, 1899, and January, 1900; (2) the inclusion in the land maps of the United States of 1899 and 1902, of the Isle of Pines as territory of the United States; and (3) Article VI of the amendment to the Army appropriation bill, approved March 2, 1901, which provided "that the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." Views of the War Department from 1899 to 1901.-An examination of the material printed in Senate document No. 205, of the 59th Congress, 1st session (1906), and reprinted in No. 166 of the 68th Congress, 2d session (1924), shows that from February of 1899 inquiries began to be received by the War and other executive departments with regard to the ownership of the Isle of Pines. The first official statement to the effect that it was territory of the United States was contained in a letter of August 14, 1899, (page 72),5 written at the direction of the Assistant Secretary of War, Mr. G. D. Meiklejohn, which stated that "this island was ceded by Spain to the United States and is therefore a part of our territory, although it is attached at present to the division of Cuba for governmental purposes." Up to this time the War Department had not committed itself on the question. On the 15th of March, 1899, it had given out to the press an extended description of the Isle of Pines, based on a report by Captain Fred S. Foltz (pp. 56-66). This statement contains nothing which could be interpreted to mean that the island was territory ceded to the United States. Copies of this description, or of Captain Foltz's report, were generally sent to those who made inquiries concerning the island. On January 13 and January 15, 1900 (pp. 74 and 75), the Assistant 4 See text of decision, Pearcy v. Stranahan (205 U. S., 257), on pp. 38-49 and views regarding the significance of this decision, pp. 34-35 and 55. 5 Page references are to Senate doc. No. 166. 14 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba Secretary of War again replied to inquiries regarding ownership of the Isle of Pines, in exactly the same terms as those he had directed to be used in the letter of August 14, 1899, above referred to. But after this date the records show that a different answer was given to such inquiries. A letter dated January 31, 1900 (p. 75), addressed to the Secretary of War, by William 0. McDowell, asking-"Is the Isle of Pines United States as Porto Rico is United States, or is it Cuba?" -was referred to Mr. Charles E. Magoon, Law Officer, who reported as follows (undated memorandum, p. 79) to Colonel C. R. Edwards, Chief of the Division of Customs and Insular Affairs: "I can not answer the interrogatory propounded in this letter. The political branches of this Government-to wit, the Congress and the Executive-are to determine the territorial extent of the sovereignty and dominion of the United States and the particular territory over which such sovereignty and dominion shall be assertedi' ' I suggest that no answer be attempted by this Department under the conditions at present existing. If an answer to this letter is imperative, I suggest that Mr. McDowell be informed that as at present advised this Department considers the Isle of Pines subject to the jurisdiction of the military forces of the United States now in charge of civil affairs in the island of Cuba, if such is the fact." As a result of this legal opinion, the Division of Customs and Insular Affairs of the War Department, on March 21 (p. 80), August 17 (p. 85), and December 22, 1900 (p. 87), replied to different inquiries concerning the status of the island as follows: "that the Department at present considers the Isle of Pines subject to the jurisdiction of the military forces of the United States now in charge of civil affairs in Cuba; that this being a political question, it is not to be decided by this Department." Meanwhile the Assistant Secretary of War, Mr. G. D. Meiklejohn, had, on April 28, 1900, written as follows to the Attorney General (p. 75): "As numerous inquiries have been made to this Department regarding the present status of the Isle of Pines, I have the honor to request an expression of your views upon the question of the present ownership thereof." But from an official memorandum, which is printed on page 76, it appears that the above request made to the Attorney General "was afterwards verbally withdrawn, because the matter was for diplomatic consideration rather than a question for the decision of his Department." Consequently, the following answer was given by the Chief of the Division of Customs and Insular Affairs, on July 3, 1900, to Mr. E. C. Harrington (p. 84): "I beg to advise you that this is a question not to be decided by this Department, and therefore the request for an opinion of the honorable the Attorney General was withdrawn." It is also recorded in the memorandum (p. 76) above mentioned that-"on the 27th of July (1900), Mr. Harrington wrote from Havana to General Fitzhugh Lee asking him to say if the Isle of Pines was United States territory and if the public domain, formerly Crown lands under Spanish rule, could now be located upon by the squatters until such time as Congress should legislate upon the subject. This letter was forwarded by General Lee on the 30th of July to the Adjutant General, Division of Cuba, for the consideration of the military governor, General Lee stating that he did not "know Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 15 the present status of the Isle of Pines." The letter was then referred, on the 2d of August, by direction of the military governor, to the Secretary of State and Government of Cuba, Diego Tamayo. On August 10, 1900, Senor Tamayo returned the following report: "That the Isle of Pines is an integral part of the territory of the Island of Cuba and constitutes a municipal termino under the jurisdiction of the civil governor of the province of Habana, of which it forms a part in conformity with the first annexed note of the royal decree of the 9th of June, 1878, and it pertains also to the judicial district of Bejucal within the jurisdiction of the audiencia of Habana." There is another memorandum of the Division of Customs and Insular Affairs of the War Department, subsequent to Mr. Magoon's opinion, but without date or signature, inserted at page 80, which contains the following: "It appears that there are certain environments of the Isle of Pines which complicate the question as to whether it is a part of Cuba or not. While there is a separation from the mainland by water nearly 30 miles in width, this water is so shallow that the use of the island as a penal colony had to be abandoned, because with certain conditions of wind and tide it was possible for the convicts to wade from the island to Cuba. Some of the most intelligent Cubans are represented by a recent newspaper article as holding that the Isle of Pines has always geographically been treated as a portion of Cuba, and that the military government of Cuba has uniformly evaded a decision of the question." After Congress had, on March 2, 1901, approved the Platt Amendment to the Army appropriation bill, containing the provision that "the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereof being left to future adjustment by treaty," the War and State Departments transcribed this provision, without comment, in reply to all inquiries regarding the status of the island. The assertion of United States ownership made by the Assistant Secretary of War, Mr. Meiklejohn, was, therefore, maintained only for a short time-that is, between August, 1899 and January, 1900-the Department thereafter taking the position that it was not competent to decide the question. And it appears that the Assistant Secretary of War gave the opinion without any legal advice or authority, for not until March of 1900 (see documents on pp. 79 and 80) was the view of Mr. Magoon, Law Officer, attached to the office of the Assistant Secretary, requested and given, and the Attorney General was not consulted by Mr. Meiklejohn until April 28, 1900. Secretary Root's opinion.-There is a letter from the Secretary of War, Mr. Elihu Root, dated December 18, 1903, to Senator T. C. Platt (p. 284), which throws further light on the change in the viewpoint of that Department which took place with respect to the question of ownership of the Isle of Pines. In that letter Secretary Root said: "I never advised prospective purchasers of property on the Isle of Pines, but when the subject was first brought to me, early in 1900, I directed a reply to be made to all inquiries that the question of the status of the Isle of Pines was one which it was not the province of the War Department to answer. I have since learned that a former Assist 16 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba ant Secretary of Warl had previously, without my knowledge or, authority, directed an Assistant Adjutant General to say that the island belonged to the United States. I never thought so. It had been for several centuries, in common with the hundreds of other islands Suirrounding the coast of the mainland of Cuba, included in the political division of the Spanish Kingdom known as Cuba. It had long been a part of the province of Habana, which was a political division of Cuba. I think it was included under the term of 'Cuba' as used in the treaty of Paris, and, therefore, not in the description 'Porto Rico and other islands.' I think at the time the treaty was made it was as much a part of Cuba as Nantucket is a part of Massachusetts." Attitude of the Military Government in Cuba.-The military government of the United States in Cuba at no time took the position that the Isle of Pines had been ceded to -the United States and thereby separated from Cuba. This fact is substantiated by the statement (pp. 76 and 172), July 30, 1900, of General Fitzhugh Lee, Governor of the Department of Western Cuba, quote'd above, that he did not know the status of the Isle of Pines, and by the endorsement thereon of Senor Tamayo, Secretary of State and Government, above transcribed. General Wood, on November 17, 1902 (p. 147), stated the following: "Colonists going to the Isle of Pines, whenever they consulted me, were always informed that the ownership of this island was a matter for future settlement;" and under date of February 20, 1903, (p. 159) he wrote: "At the time those people purchased property they understood distinctly that the question of ownership of the Isle of Pines was one pending settlement, and in locating there they took the risks incident to the situation." A memorandum,'by General Wood's Aide-deCamp, Lieutenant Frank R. McCoy, dated February 18, 1903, contains the following statements (p. 163): "During the American intervention, there were no United States troops in that island. Military authority was exercised through the civil governor of Havana and the alcalde of the municipal district.... Colonists going to the Isle of Pines during American intervention usually asked questions as to, the sovereignty of the, island, and were always informed that the ownership was a matter for future settlement between the American and the Cuban: Governments." American settlers in the Isle of Pines failed to get suffcient official assurance to satisfy them that it was United States territory.-It. appears from -the correspondence inserted in Senate document'No. 166, that even. after Mr. Meiklejohn's statement of: August 14, 1899, declaring that the Isle of Pines had been ceded to the United States, was written, and given much publicity, many Americans still felt doubtful regarding the status of the Isle of Pines, as appears from the inquiries regarding ownership made by the following: L. C. Leith, on December 20, 1899; A. C. Goff, on January 6, 1900; Win. 0. McDowell, on January 31, 1900; H. P. Snyder, on February 5, 1900; E. C. Harrington, on February 14 and 27, March 12, April 20 and November 28, 1900; the Honorable R. K. Polk, on April 28, 1900; Jos6 M. Tarafa, on August 10, 1900; Seminole C. Co., on December 12, 1900; and Ira A. Brown, on February 21, 1901. The latter, who was president of the Isle of Pines Land and Development Co., on February 21, 1901, a few days before the passage Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 17 of the "Platt Amendment," March 2, 1901, addressed a letter (p. 88) to President McKinley saying: "Myself with a party of others have just returned from the Island of Pines, where we have purchased a large tract of land with a view of starting a strictly American colony. The question now arises, Will the Island of Pines become American or Cuban property if the island of Cuba is or does not become annexed to the United States? I have not been able to get any definite information as to this. There seems to be some dispute as to whether it will be Cuban or American property. Can you give me any light on the subject? If so, it will be very much appreciated by me, as I am financially interested. Anything you may write me about it will be kept strictly confidential if you so desire." There is evidence that American citizens were taking it for granted that the Isle of Pines belonged to the United States by cession even before they had the authority of the Assistant Secretary of War for believing this to be so;6 but not being supported in this belief by the military government of the United States in Cuba, and being unable to obtain official confirmation of the view of Assistant Secretary Meiklejohn, they felt all the time considerable uncertainty as to the final disposition of the island. When the amendment to the Army Appropriation bill was passed, March 2, 1901, it was understood by everyone that the status of the island remained undetermined. It is well to call attention to the foregoing facts, because a good deal has been said to the effect that American citizens were encouraged by the Government to settle in the island under representations that it was United States territory. Some may have thought that it was, but there is every reason for affirming that the great majority never felt sure of it, and simply figured that the chances were good that the United States would remain in control of the island in order to convert it into a naval base. Placing of the Isle of Pines on the map of the General Land Office as United States territory.-The second official act which has been considered as establishing the claim of the United States to ownership of the Isle of Pines, consisted in placing the island on the map of the General Land Office of the Department of the Interior of the years 1899 and 1902 (no maps for 1900 and 1901 having been issued), in an inset in the same color as the United States, thus indicating that it was United States territory. The Commissioner of the General Land Office at that time afterwards explained (p. 301 and "Congressional Record," Dec. 8, 1903), that in an interview with President McKinley, the President directed him to place the Isle of Pines on the map as United States territory. But no written instructions or orders, either from the Chief Executive or any Department, to this effect, were issued. The Commissioner of the Land Office, on January 25, 1906, reported e This is shown by letters to the War Department from the following: E. H. Gale, February 24, 1899, who said it was "ceded to us by the Spanish treaty" (p. 67); Wm. Sigismund, Jr., March 19, 1899, who described it as "the new territory recently acquired by the United States," (p. 68); E. N. Myers, March 27, 1899, who stated that it had been "recently acquired from Spain" (p. 69); and G. W. Reed, Vice-President of the Chicago Colony, Isle of Pines, wrote the War Department from Chicago, Ill., on April 20, 1899, as follows (p. 71): "Your kind favor of March 17 received, with inclosure-report by Captain Foltz on the Isle of Pines.... Any official information in reference to the island you can give us will be highly appreciated. What interests us the most now is, Will the island belong to the United States, and does the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain so imply? We are going on the principle that it does." 18 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba as follows (p. 49) to the Secretary of the Interior: "I am unable to state why this island was placed upon the map of 1899, but it is assumed that verbal instructions must have been given to the former chief of the drafting division, who had charge of the compilation of the United States map, it being hardly probable that he would assume the authority of placing such inset map upon the map of the United States without instructions of some kind. However, no such instructions, as noted above, are a matter of record." Article VI of the amendment to the Army appropriation bill, March 2, 1901.-The third official act which has been regarded as claim of the United States to ownership of the Isle of Pines, was the passage by Congress, on March 2, 1901, of the amendment (generally known as the Platt Amendment) to the Army appropriation bill, in which it was stipulated: "VI. That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereof being left to future adjustment by treaty." This stipulation did not, of course, create any right of ownership which did not previously exist. It was, on the contrary, a definite admission on the part of the Congress of the United States that it could not assert that the United States had acquired title to ownership of the Isle of Pines through cession by Spain, for in this case it would not have made provision for adjusting said title by a treaty with Cuba. The settlement of the question of ownership of the island was at the same time expressly left by this act of Congress to the treaty-making power, which was authorized to adjust title to the island, either in favor of the United States or of Cuba, without further legislation by Congress. The pending treaty, based on this act of Congress, was defended, in its legal and constitutional aspects, by Secretary Hay in a lengthy statement sent to Representative Jenkins of Wisconsin, toward the end of 1904. Referring to this document, the "Washington Post," of December 26, 1904, stated: "Representative Jenkins has recently received from Secretary Hay a carefully prepared statement of the situation from the standpoint of the Government. In brief, the Secretary holds that our authority over the island is of such a character that no action by the House of Representatives is necessary to transfer it formally to the authority of the Cuban government and that the pending treaty, negotiated of course with Mr. Hay's full knowledge and under his immediate direction, is entirely in accord with the constitution and law of the land." Senator Platt's explanation.-The reasons for including the matter of ownership of the Isle of Pines in the future relations of the United States with Cuba have been explained by Senator 0. H. Platt himself, in a letter dated November 5, 1902 (p. 285), as follows: "I think it is a very fair question as to whether the cession of 'Porto Rico and other islands' embraces the Isle of Pines. I have always maintained that it did, although I recognized the force of the other contention. There are a great many islands adjacent to Cuba which it is acknowledged go with Cuba. The Isle of Pines is larger than any of the others and situated farther from Cuban shores, and I have never been able to see what other island or islands the treaty referred to, but the Cuban people have claimed that it was always within the administrative juris Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 19 diction of Cuba and belonged to Cuba the same as other adjacent islands; consequently, when preparing the amendment to the army bill, which has come to be known as the 'Platt Amendment,' I inserted a clause to the effect that the title should be subject of treaty negotiations. I feel that it is of the utmost importance that it shall be ours. It will give us the most advantageous point from which to defend the entrance of the isthmian canal. I supposed, when I provided that it should be the subject of treaty negotiation, that unless we could satisfy the Cuban government that it passed to us in the cession, that it would come to us by purchase, and that is still my belief." The Isle of Pines considered a naval base for United States defense. -That strategic considerations influenced the insertion of the matter of Isle of Pines ownership in the Amendment to the Army appropriation bill, is, therefore, clear from Senator Platt's letter. This view is supported by the fact that the article immediately following that relative to the Isle of Pines in said amendment provided that "to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the Government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States;" and also by the fact that the second article of the pending treaty with Cuba relinquishes claim of title to the Isle of Pines "in consideration of the grants of coaling and naval stations in the Island of Cuba heretofore made to the United States of America by the Republic of Cuba." Senor Quesada called attention to this factor in the problem in his article in the "North American Review" for December, 1909, when he wrote: "As a member of that Convention (the Cuban Constitutional convention) and of the committee in charge of fixing the political relations between Cuba and the United States, I recollect that when the other provisos, afterwards included in the Platt amendment, were suggested7 nothing was said as to the Isle of Pines, but the general opposition shown by the Cuban people to the granting of coaling stations undoubtedly caused the matter of the Isle of Pines to be included, some believing, in the United States, that the Isle of Pines could be made the basis of defense for American interests in the Caribbean Sea, or that, if the Isle of Pines was found unsuitable-as it was afterwards shown to be-for coaling and naval purposes, it could be made the basis of negotiation for the acquisition of other sites." But the authorized opinion now is "that whatever prospects of strategic value for naval operations the Isle of Pines may have had, it has practically none now."8 The question of ownership goes back invariably to the Treaty of Paris.-In considering the various official acts by which claim on behalf of the United States has, in one way or another, been made to the Isle of Pines, the same question of fact has been found to be involved in each one of them, namely, Was it the intention of the Treaty of Paris 7 The reference is to the provisions which Mr. Elihu Root, Secretary of War, considered that the Cuban Constitutional Convention should incorporate in the Constitution determining the future relations of Cuba with the United States, and inserted in a letter addressed by him to the Military Governor of Cuba, Feb. 9, 1901 (Civil Report of Brig. Gen. Leonard Wood, 1901, pp. 10-11). 8 "The Isle of Pines Controversy," by Capt. Elbridge Colby, U. S. A., in Bulletin of the Pan. american Union, Oct., 1924. 20 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba to cede the Isle of Pines to the United States as one of the "other islands under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies," or was it intended that the Isle of Pines should be comprised in the term "Cuba?" Light thrown on the question by Article IV of the protocol.-The protocol of August 12, 1898, embodying the terms of a basis for peace, shows clearly that with Cuba were included the adjacent Spanish islands, and that the "other islands under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies" did not comprise the islands adjacent to Cuba. In Article IV provision was made for the evacuation of two separate territories, one described as "Cuba and the adjacent Spanish islands" and the other as "Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies," which is the same language used in Article II to describe the territory ceded to the United States. The fourth article of the Protocol reads: "Spain will immediately evacuate Cuba, Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies; and to this end each Government will... appoint Commissioners, and the Commissioners so appointed shall... meet at Havana for the purpose of arranging and carrying out the details of the aforesaid evacuation of Cuba and the adjacent Spanish islands; and each Government will... also appoint other Commissioners, who shall. meet at San Juan, in Porto Rico, for the purpose of arranging and carrying out the details of the aforesaid evacuation of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies." In order to give effect to these stipulations, President McKinley on August 26, 1898, appointed Major General Wade, Admiral Sampson and Major General Butler, Commissioners on the part of the United States "to meet Commissioners on the part of Spain at Havana, for the purpose of carrying out the details of the immediate evacuation of Cuba and the adjacent Spanish islands." At the same time other Commissioners were appointed to meet at San Juan, Porto Rico, "for the purpose of arranging and carrying out the details of the evacuation of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies." The protocol, on which the Treaty of Paris was based, thus distinguished most unequivocally between "Cuba and the adjacent Spanish islands" on the one hand, as the territory referred to in Article I, and "Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies," on the other, as the territory referred to in Article II. The separation of these two territories-one to be occupied by the United States in trust for the people of Cuba, and the other to be taken possession of as a cession made to the United States-was maintained in the establishment of two distinct military governments, one, the Division of Cuba, "consisting of the geographical departments and provinces of the Island of Cuba," and the other, the Department of Porto Rico, embracing the island of Porto Rico and the adjacent islands.9 The Isle of Pines treated as an integral part of Cuba by the Military Government.-On December 13, 1898, by direction of the President (General Orders, No. 184), there was created a military division "to be known as the Division of Cuba, consisting of the geographical departments and provinces of the Island of Cuba," thus embracing the 9 General Orders, No. 1, Oct. 18, 1898, of Major General John R. Brooke, Commanding the Department of Porto Rico. Isle of Fines Treaty Between the United, States and Cutba 21 Isle of Pines and other adjacent islands and keys which formed part of the municipalities into which the provinces were subdivided. The Isle of Pines which for centuries had been under the jurisdiction either of the Western Department of Cuba or of the Province of Havana, became, in 1880, a municipality of said province, and so continued under the military government of the United States, which treated it in all respects exactly as any other municipality of the island. When mayors were appointed for the various municipalities by the military Governor, Cubans, and not Americans, were appointed for the Isle of Pines, by Order No. 131 of August 4, 1898, namely, Juan Manuel Sanchez, as mayor;,Manual G. Blanco, as first assistant-mayor; and Francisco J, Junco, as second assistant-mayor. The Census of Cuba of 1899, as every previous Census of Cuba, included the Isle of Pines and its inhabitants, and the Report on this census published by the War Department in 1900, begins with the following paragraph: "The government of Cuba has jurisdiction not only over the island of that name, but also over the Isle of Pines, lying directly to the south of it, and more than a thousand islets and reefs scattered along its northern and southern coasts." In this census, in the table showing birthplace (p. 218), the inhabitants of the Isle of Pines are given as follows: total population, 3,199; Cuba, 2,990; Spain, 195; other countries, 14. In the table showing citizenship (p. 225), the inhabitants of the Isle of Pines are given as follows: total population, 3,199; Cuban, 2,818; Spanish, 32; in suspense (referring to those who under the terms of the Treaty of Paris could retain their Spanish citizenship), 334; other citizenship, 15. The natives of the Isle of Pines were thus described by the census as Cubans, from the standpoint of birthplace as well as of citizenship. As Cubans they participated in the various elections held in Cuba under the military government of the United States, as they bad, under the Spanish regime, voted for deputies to the Spanish parliament from the province of Havana and for members of the Cuban insular parliament created by the Constitution promulgated for Cuba by Spain, November 25, 1897.10 Order No. 164 of the military government, dated April 18, 1900, provided for elections in each municipality of Cuba, to be held on June 16, 1900, and the Isle of Pines, being one of such municipalities, elected its mayor, city councilors and other officials,1' the qualifications for suffrage being among others: " 1. The voter must be a native male Cuban, or the son of a native male Cuban, born while his parents were temporarily residing abroad; or a Spaniard included within the provisions of Article 9 of the Treaty of Paris, who has not made declaration of his decision to preserve his allegiance to the Crown of Spain." As Cubans, the qualified electors of the Isle of Pines also elected their own municipal officials in the second municipal elections held by the military government, on June 1, 1901. They likewise voted in the elections held September 15, 1900, for eight delegates from the province of Havana to the Constitutional convention, which was called to frame and adopt a constitution for the people of Cuba, and in the elections, held December 31, 1901, they voted for presidential and senatorial electors, for 10 "The Title of the Republic of Cuba to the Isle of Pines,' (Wash., D. C., 1924), pp. 21, 32, 33 and 35. n1 Civil Report of Brig. Gen. Leonard Wood, 1901. Report of the Secretary of State and Government, for the six months ending Dec. 31, 1901, P. 89. 22 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba members of the House of Representatives, and for Governor and members of the provincial council of Havana Province. First official reports of United States military officers in 1898 and 1899.-The first officials of the United States to visit the Isle of Pines were a Commission composed of Major Wm. E. Almy, Major M. C. Butler, Jr., and Captain J. S. Hart, whose report (Senate doc. No. 166, p. 179), dated November 25, 1898, contains the following: "At the wharf was gathered nearly the whole male population of the town (Nueva Gerona), about 350 people, who were most enthusiastic in their greeting, shouting 'Viva la Comision Americana,' 'Viva Cuba Libre,'12 etc., waving their hats, throwing themselves into each other's arms, and fairly going wild with enthusiasm... Captain Hart addressed the enthusiastic populace in a speech, meeting with much approval by both the Spanish and Cuban sympathizers." The records show that the island was visited in February, 1899, by Major General Fitzhugh Lee, who, under date of February 9, made a report (p. 185) in which he stated that he had found a company of 60 insurgents under a captain there. About the same time, on February 22, 1899, Captain Fred S. Foltz, also made a report (pp. 57 and 192) of his visit of inspection to the island and mentioned the fact that the military governor of the island at the time was an officer of the Cuban Army. Captain H. J. Slocum, in a report dated April 20, 1900 (p. 170) relative to his visit to the Isle of Pines, stated: "I was informed by the alcalde (mayor) that Captain Gerhardt, U. S. Army, who recently visited the Isle of Pines inspecting jails, had some unofficial conversation with the civil officials as to whether or not the people of the Isle of Pines preferred to belong to the Island of Cuba or the United States, which seems to have aroused in the minds of those people and officials some question as to the exact status of the Isle of Pines. They seemed to be quite suspicious about this matter and did not understand the situation, but expressed a strong preference toward belonging to the island of Cuba if any issue should arise. I told them that, so far as I knew, such a question had not arisen." It thus appears that the people of the Isle of Pines welcomed the American officers with cries of "Long live Free Cuba," that there was actually a group of insurgents on the island, at about the beginning of 1899, and that the people expressed a strong preference to remain Cubans rather than to be under the government of the United States. Who were the inhabitants of the Isle of Pines?-Cubans.-The inhabitants of the Isle of Pines have always been considered to be, racially and juridically, Cubans, and were enumerated as such in the Census of 1899, as in all censuses of Cuba taken by Spain.'3 The Americans who have settled in the island have always spoken of them as Cubans, and no one would dispute the fact that they were as much 12 "Long live the American Commission"; "Long live Free Cuba." 13 Attention may also be called to the following: Natives of Spain who lived in the territories over which Spain relinquished or ceded her sovereignty, and who did not make a declaration within the period of time stipulated in Article IX of the Treaty of Paris (extended by the protocol with Spain proclaimed April 28, 1900) of their decision to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain, were considered to have renounced such allegiance and to have adopted "the nationality of the territory in which they may reside." Now, natives of Spain, residing in the Isle of Pines who did not, by making such a declaration, retain their Spanish citizenship, became Cubans and not subjects of the United States. Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 23 Cubans as the natives of any other part of Cuba. It follows, then, that the territory of the Isle of Pines must have been a part of Cuba. The Joint Resolution, approved April 20, 1898, "for the recognition of the independence of the people of Cuba," certainly did not contemplate that any portion of the people of Cuba, or any part of the territory of Cuba, should be separated from the rest and incorporated into the United States. Yet this would be precisely the result of interpreting the Treaty of Paris so as to exclude the Isle of Pines from the term "Cuba," regarding it as one of the "other islands" ceded to the United States. American colonists of Isle of Pines admitted that it was an integral part of Cuba.-Even advocates of American ownership have recognized that the Isle of Pines was an integral part of Cuba at the time of the Treaty of Paris. Thus the Prospectus issued by the Isle of Pines Co. (printed in Senate doc. 166, p. 97) says: "The Isle of Pines is the very latest of Uncle Sam's territorial acquisitions. By the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded to the United States all of her island possessions in the West Indies except the island of Cuba; but as the Isle of Pines had, for administrative purposes, always been a part of Cuba, it became necessary, in order to carry out the intent of the treaty, to expressly separate the Isle of Pines from Cuba; this was effected through the Platt resolution, which was accepted by the Cuban constitutional convention completely." Spanish official documents prove conclusively that the Isle of Pines was an integral part of Cuba.-In the pamphlet, "The Title of the Republic of Cuba to the Isle of Pines" (Washington, D. C., 1924), there can be found, on pages 15 to 35, a list and analysis of numerous official Spanish documents which prove beyond any question that in political, administrative, judicial, fiscal and other governmental matters the Isle of Pines was an integral part of Cuba, just as much as the city of Havana itself. It is unnecessary to examine this evidence in detail, as the fact cannot be seriously questioned and was abundantly demonstrated many years ago by Senor Quesada in his article in the "North American Review," November, 1909 (reproduced in the pamphlet just mentioned, pp. 48 to 56).14 The evidence from maps and geographies, showing that the Isle of Pines was always considered a part of Cuba, will also be found summarized in Senor Quesada's article, and on pages 7 to 14 of said pamphlet. The Cubans in arms against Spain regarded it as part of the territory of "Free Cuba."-Article I of the "Laws for the Civil Government and Administration of the Republic," approved by the Constitutional Assembly of the Cubans in arms and promulgated on October 18, 1895, reads: "The Republic of Cuba comprises the territory occupied by the Island of Cuba from Cape San Antonio to Point Maisi and the adjacent islands and keys." And similarly, the first article of the Constitution promulgated on October 29, 1897, at La Yaya, by the Cubans declared: "The Republic of Cuba embraces all the territory occupied by the Island of Cuba and the adjacent islands and keys." Both of these documents, with others of a similar nature having to do with the revolu14 The article by Fernando Ortiz, reprinted below, also gives convincing proofs of the complete union of the Isle of Pines to Cuba in every way. 24 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba tion in Cuba, were translated into English and printed at that time for the use of Congress, as 54th Congress, 1st session, Senate doe. No. 166, and 55th Congress, 2d session, Senate doc. No. 129. This shows that the adjacent islands (the largest and most important of which was the Isle of Pines) were looked upon by the Cubans in arms, as they were by the Spanish Government, as a part of the territory of Cuba. In framing the Constitution for the Republic of Cuba, in 1901, the Constitutional Convention naturally included the adjacent islands as a part of the national territory, article 2 reading as follows: "The territory of the Republic is composed of the island of Cuba, as well as the adjacent islands and keys, which, together therewith, were under the sovereignty of Spain until the ratification of the treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898." The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Isle of Pines was an integral part of Cuba.-Chief Justice Fuller, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Pearcy v. Stranahan, to which reference has been made before, declared that there was complete evidence that the Isle of Pines was an integral part of Cuba at the time of the Treaty of Paris, as the following paragraphs from his opinion show: "The record of the official acts of the Spanish government from 1774 to 1898 demonstrates that the Isle of Pines was included in the political division known as 'Cuba.' The first official census of Cuba, in 1774; the 'Statistical Plan of the Ever Faithful Isle of Cuba for the year 1827'; the establishment by the Governor General, in 1828, of a colony on the island; the census of 1841; the budgets of receipts and expenses; the census for 1861, 1877, 1887, and so on, all show that the Isle of Pines was, governmentally speaking, included in the specific designation 'Cuba' at the time the treaty was made and ratified, and the documents establish that it formed a municipal district of the province of Habana. In short, all the world knew that it was an integral part of Cuba, and in view of the language of the joint resolution of April 20, 1898, it seems clear that the Isle of Pines was not supposed to be one of the 'other islands' ceded by Article II. Those were islands not constituting an integral part of Cuba, such as Vieques, Culebra and Mona adjacent to Porto Rico." Mr. Justice Day's concurrence in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pearcy v. Stranahan.-The Supreme Court thus stated, in very definite terms, first, that the Isle of Pines was, governmentally speaking, an integral part of Cuba at the time the Treaty of Paris was made, a fact which "all the world knew"; and, secondly, that this being so, the Isle of Pines was not to be regarded, in view of the joint resolution of April 20, 1898, as one of the "other islands" ceded to the United States by Article II of said treaty.15 These conclusions are highly important, not to say decisive, because of the authority which is universally accorded to the pronouncements of the highest judicial tribunal of the United States, and also because among the justices who sat in the case and accepted without reservation the decision delivered by Chief Justice Fuller, was the Hon. William R. 15 Secretary Hughes, who has been an associate justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, holds that this decision sustains the contention that the Isle of Pines was an integral part of Cuba.-Letter to Senator McCormick, Oct. 16, 1922 (Senate doc. No. 166, page 2.). Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 25 Day, who had been Secretary of State under President McKinley, in 1898, and Chairman of the United States Peace Commissioners at Paris in the same year. As Secretary of State, Mr. Day, under date of July 30, 1898, on behalf of President McKinley, in a communication to the Ambassador of France at Washington, enumerated the conditions under which peace would be accepted by the United States, and it is in this document (55th Cong., 3d session, Senate doc. No. 62, pt. II, pp. 273-274) that the first official mention was made of the cession to the United States of "the Island of Porto Rico and other islands now under the sovereignty of Spain in the West Indies." Mr. Day's communication, after reciting that the United States would require: "First, the relinquishment by Spain of all claim of sovereignty over or title to Cuba," set forth the second condition of peace as follows: "Second: The President, desirous of exhibiting signal generosity, will not now put forward any demand for pecuniary indemnity. Nevertheless he cannot be insensible to the losses and expenses of the United States incident to the war or to the claims of our citizens for injuries to their persons and property during the late insurrection in Cuba. He must, therefore, require the cession to the United States and the immediate evacuation by Spain of the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under the sovereignty of Spain in the West Indies." Inasmuch as the United States demanded and obtained from Spain the cession of the island of Porto Rico and the "other islands" on the grounds stated, is not this fact of itself sufficient proof that the territory ceded to the United States under Article II of the protocol and the Treaty of Paris could not comprise any part of Cuba, the Isle of Pines, like the numerous other islands and keys adjacent to the main island, being historically, governmentally and in every other respect a portion of the territory of Cuba? If the Isle of Pines was intended to be embraced with the "other islands" ceded to the United States, the consequence would be that the Cuban people, for whose independence the United States declared war against Spain, would have been required to surrender a portion of their territory to compensate the United States for a part of the expenses of the war and of the injuries done to the properties of its citizens. Such a theory would be inadmissible. The Government of the United States would not for a moment have thought of asking Spain to cede any part of the territory of Cuba to the United States, in order to make good the losses suffered by the United States, which generously and nobly went to the assistance of the people of Cuba, asserting the determination to leave to them the government and control of the Island after its pacification had been accomplished, as was done when the Republic of Cuba was constituted on the 20th of May, 1902. Mr. Day, as Secretary of State, also concluded and signed, on August 12, 1898, the protocol embodying the terms of a basis of peace between the United States and Spain, by which Spain agreed to relinquish all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba, and to cede to the United States "the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies"; and this protocol, when providing, in Article IV, for the evacuation of those territories, described the former as "Cuba and the adjacent Spanish islands" and the 26 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba latter as "Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies." Moreover, as chairman of the United States peace commissioners at Paris, Mr. Day insisted, in the negotiations, that the Treaty should reproduce literally the language employed in Articles I and II of the protocol. In assenting fully to the statements above quoted, made in the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Pearcy v. Stranahan, delivered by Chief Justice Fuller, Mr. Day therefore gave to those statements an approval which was equivalent to the most authoritative sanction that they could receive from any source, and established the fact that the second article of the treaty of Paris, did not embrace the Isle of Pines among the "other islands" ceded to the United States by Spain in compensation for the expenses of the United States in the Spanish-American war and for the losses suffered by its citizens during the insurrection in Cuba.16 Negotiation of the Treaty of Paris.-No direct evidence can be found in the report, protocols and papers relative to the Treaty of Paris (published as Senate doc. No. 62, of the 55th Cong., 3rd sess.) to show that there was the intention of ceding the Isle of Pines to the United States as one of the "other islands" then under Spanish sovereignty. The Isle of Pines was not specifically mentioned in any of the written or verbal proceedings. But in a memorandum presented by the Spanish commissioners at the session of October 21, 1898, the following passage occurs (p. 83): "The United States made a demand on Spain and afterwards declared war on her that Cuba might become free and independent... They did not make the same demand regarding Porto Rico, and did subsequently claim the sovereignty of the latter island and of the others surrounding Cuba (which will render impossible its independence without the will and gracious consent of the United States, which will always have it at their mercy owing to their control over the islands surrounding it like a band of iron) in the way of indemnity for the expenses of the War and of the damages which they said American citizens had suffered during the colonial insurrection." It has been contended (Senate doc. No. 166, p. 227) that this passage proves that the Spanish commissioners at Paris regarded the Isle of Pines as one of the "other islands" ceded to the United States by Article II of the treaty. But this view overlooks the fact that the commissioners of Spain, in the passage quoted, were giving their interpretation of the meaning of the language of the protocol and of Secretary Day's communication, on behalf of the President, to the Ambassador of France at Washington, dated July 30, 1898, in which the Spanish Government was informed that the United States would demand, "first, the relinquishment by Spain of all claim of sovereignty over or title to Cuba," and that the President "cannot be insensible to the losses and expenses of the United States incident to the war or to the claims of our citizens for injuries to their persons and property during the late insurrection in Cuba. He must, therefore, require the cession to the United States and the immediate evacuation by Spain of the Island of Porto Rico and other islands now under the sovereignty of Spain in the West Indies" 16 Annex to protocol, No. 10, p. 107, 55th Cong., 3d sess., Senate doe. No. 62, pt. II. Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 27 (Senate doc. No. 62, Pt. II, p. 143). It was only by a stretch of imagination that the Spanish commissioners could speak, as they did, of the islands surrounding Cuba, for neither the protocol nor Secretary Day's communication made any mention of islands surrounding Cuba. On the contrary, when referring to the evacuation of Cuba, it has been shown that Article IV of the protocol expressly includes with Cuba the adjacent Spanish islands, and with Porto Rico the "other islands under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies." If the contention were true, the United States would have been asking for the cession not only of the Isle of Pines, but also of the islands of Turiguano, Cayo Romano, Cayo Cruz and all the other islets and keys which indeed surround the island of Cuba "like a band of iron,"-which is absurd. From another aspect, the deduction drawn from the passage in the Spanish commissioners' memorandum is untenable. Is it conceivable, in view of the Joint Resolution of April 20, 1898, that the United States should have laid claim to a part of Cuba's territory (namely, to the islands surrounding Cuba) "in the way of indemnity for the expenses of the war?" There is, moreover, nothing to show that the United States commissioners accepted the interpretation which the Spanish commissioners attempted to give, in the passage quoted, to the words of the protocol and to Secretary Day's communication, but, on the contrary, the entire memorandum in which said passage occurs was refuted by them (Annex to protocol No. 10). It should also be noted that the first and second articles of the Treaty of Paris dealing, respectively, with the relinquishment of sovereignty over Cuba and the cession to the United States of Porto Rico and other islands, were not negotiated at Paris, but were laid down in the protocol and incorporated without change into the treaty. In addition to the contention based on the passage in the memorandum of the Spanish commissioners, above quoted, it has been stated (Senate doc. 166, p. 227) that the Hon. Wm. P. Frye, one of the United States commissioners, declared to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that "the commissioners of the United States did not regard the Isle of Pines as being a part of Cuba, but as a separate island that was ceded to the United States in Article 2 of the Treaty of Paris." A similar opinion is attributed to the Hon. Cushman K. Davis, another of the American commissioners, 'of whom it is said that "he was finally reconciled to pay Spain twenty million dollars, as we were getting the Isle of Pines, which contained a harbor large enough to shelter the navies of the world" (Pamphlet entitled "In re Treaty of Isle of Pines: an appeal to the United States Senate, by American Citizens," 1924? p. 3). On the other hand, the only commissioners now living, the Hon. George Gray, and the Marquis de Villa Urrutia, have stated, the former in a letter to the late Senator H. C. Lodge, and the latter in a letter dated May 6, 1924, to the Cuban Minister at Madrid, both unpublished, that in the negotiations of the Treaty of Paris the question of the cession of the Isle of Pines to the United States was not considered. In his letter the Marquis de Villa Urrutia says, in part: "I did not recall that in the negotiations of the Treaty of Peace with the United States, the Isle of Pines should ever have been mentioned, and much less that it should have been ceded to the United States and not embraced in the political and geographical term Cuba. The documents 28 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba comprising the records which I have examined (in the Ministry of State of Spain) contain no data which modifies the recollection which I preserved of the conferences at Paris, in which I took part as a plenipotentiary. 17 Summary of the arguments for noncession to the United States.(1) The first article of the Treaty of Paris uses the term "Cuba," which, in every historical, geographical, and political sense, comprised the adjacent islands and keys, of which the Isle of Pines was the largest; (2) the fourth article of the protocol of August 12, 1898, shows that the territory termed "Cuba" in Article I of said protocol (which became Art. I of the Treaty of Paris) included the adjacent Spanish islands as territory distinct and apart from "the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies," which by Article II were ceded to the United States; (3) the inhabitants of the Isle of Pines, being juridically Cubans, were covered by the pledge contained in the joint resolution of April 20, 1898, to make the people of Cuba free and independent; (4) the "other islands" mentioned in Article II of the Treaty of Paris were part of the Spanish possessions in the West Indies ceded to the United States as compensation for expenses incurred in the war and damages to the properties of American citizens, and could not, therefore, refer to the Isle of Pines, which belonged to the territory of Cuba and was inhabited by Cubans, since the United States had no intention of exacting from the Cuban people any cession of any part of their territory as payment toward the expenses incurred in securing their independence; and (5) the United States, through its executive branch, has amply recognized that Cuba has a legitimate title to the ownership of the island, and has declared recently, through the late President Harding, that "it is manifest that this Government has no intention ever to make claim to any title to the Isle of Pines."18 Connection between the Isle of Pines treaty and the lease of naval stations by Cuba to the United States.-Senator Platt's Amendment to the Army appropriation bill, approved March 2, 1901, which provided for the adjustment of the title to the Isle of Pines by a treaty with Cuba, also stipulated, in Article VII, that "the Government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States." A treaty or convention was consequently concluded at Havana between the plenipotentiaries of the United States and Cuba, by which certain areas of land and water for naval or coaling stations were leased to the United States at Guantanamo and at Bahia Honda. On the same day, July 2, 1903, and by the same plenipotentiaries-that is, the American Minister to Cuba, Mr. H. G. Squires, and the Secretary of State of Cuba, Senor Jose M. Garcia Montes-the Isle of Pines treaty was signed, providing, in Article II that "this relinquishment, on the part of the United States of America, of claim of title to the said Island of Pines, is in consideration of the grants of coaling and naval stations in the Island of Cuba heretofore made to the United States of America by the Republic of Cuba." The 17 The text of this letter is inserted at p. 51. I8 Letter to the Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, Nov. 28, 1922, in Senate doc. No. 166, 68th Cong., 2d sess., p. 1. Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 29 Isle of Pines Treaty was not ratified by the Senate of the United States within the time specified for the exchange of ratifications and expired on February 2, 1904, whereas the other treaty was ratified by the President of Cuba on August 17, 1903, and the ratifications were exchanged at Washington on October 6, 1903. It would seem then that it is only natural that Cuba should expect, as a matter of reciprocity, that the treaty dealing with the Isle of Pines should be ratified by the United States.'9 It would be a mistake, however, to interpret the second article of the pending treaty to mean that title to the Isle of Pines was conferred upon Cuba by the United States in return for the lease of coaling and naval stations at Guantanamo and Bahia Honda. Cuba is under obligation, by the Appendix to its Constitution and by the permanent treaty with the United States, ratified July 1, 1904, to make said leases to the United States without receiving any benefit in exchange therefor, except that the United States shall thereby be enabled "to maintain the independence of Cuba and protect the people thereof" and that payment shall be made by the lessee of whatever rental is stipulated. The Isle of Pines treaty does not say that the United States cedes the island to Cuba in consideration of the grants of naval stations, but only that the United States "relinquishes in favor of the Republic of Cuba all claim of title... which has been or may be made in virtue of Articles I and II of the Treaty of Peace." As Secretary Hughes has said, the United States "wished to quitclaim in favor of Cuba any shadow of title it might have under that treaty,"20 which is substantially different from ceding the Isle of Pines to Cuba. And, inasmuch as the United States had obtained from Cuba the lands which it desired to have for naval and coaling stations, the possible reason which existed for negotiating with Cuba for the adjustment of the title to the Isle of Pines in favor of the United States had disappeared,2' and, therefore, the latter relinquished, as stated, in Cuba's favor, all claim to said island. American interests in the Isle of Pines.-Toward the beginning of the year 1899, a few American citizens, so to speak, "rediscovered" the Isle of Pines. They did not hesitate to claim the title for the United States and to advertise the island far and wide as a veritable paradise for those in search of fortune or of health, while at the same time proclaiming its inestimable value to the United States as a base for naval defense. When the Census of Cuba was taken by the military government, in October of 1899, the American colonists on the Isle of Pines, had not yet reached one score, for the inhabitants were found to be, by birthplace: Cuba, 2,990; Spain, 195; other countries, 14; total population, 3,199. By January of 1903, these settlers had increased to 300, and there were said to be in addition about 200 nonresident American landowners, while American invested interests were estimated at half a million dollars (statement by Mr. James E. Runcie, attorney, representing the Americans on the Isle of Pines; Senate doc. No. 166, p. 165). This was then the extent of American interests in the Isle of Pines shortly before the treaty relinquishing the claim of title to ownership 19 The agreements are printed in Senate doc. 166, pp. 305-312. 20 Letter to Senator McCormick, Oct. 16, 1922, in Senate doc. No. 166, p. 2. 21 "The Isle of Pines Controversy," by Captain Elbridge Colby, U. S. A., in Bulletin of the Pan American Union, Washington, D. C., Oct., 1924. Also Senate doc. 166, p. 208, for an official statement of the Navy Department of the United States, Dec. 9, 1903, that "the Isle of Pines is of no value to the United States for naval purposes." 30 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba by the United States was signed at Havana, July 2, 1903. It might be supposed that these interests, which have claimed to be so unfavorably affected by being under the Government of Cuba would have declined, or at best increased but slightly, after the signing of this treaty and after Secretary Root's widely quoted letter of November 27, 1905, to the President of the American Club of the Isle of Pines (Senate doc. 166, p. 4), in which he declared: "Nor would the rejection of the pending treaty put an end to the control of Cuba over the island. A treaty directly contrary to the one now pending would be necessary to do that, and there is not the slightest prospect of such a treaty being made. You may be quite sure that Cuba will never consent to give up the Isle of Pines, and that the United States will never try to compel her to give it up against her will." But it was precisely after United States ownership of the island had been virtually renounced, after the prospects of American sovereignty over the island had become very remote, that a great expansion of American interests in the Isle of Pines took place, and the number of settlers increased up to about 700 at the present time, there being, according to the Census of 1919, 4,228 inhabitants, of which 3,161 were born in Cuba, 187 in Spain, 386 in the United States, and 512 being set down as of other countries and of unknown birthplace. It thus appears that there is not much ground for the claim, so insistently and vigorously made, that American interests existing in the Isle of Pines were created in the belief or expectation that the island would become territory of the United States, for the expansion of these interests has occurred almost entirely under the administration of the Republic of Cuba, from 1903 to this day, in the face of the pending treaty recognizing Cuba's title to the island. But whatever may be the situation of American interests in the Isle of Pines, whether they are recent or remote in time, large or small, important or insignificant, these circumstances in no way affect the right of title to ownership of the island. The claims of the United States, if they are valid, would be just as strong had not a single dollar been invested by its citizens in the island and had not a single American set foot on the Isle of Pines. Action upon the Treaty is most desirable.-On February 6, 1903, General Wood wrote: "I believe it is desirable the status of the Isle of Pines be definitely settled at as early a date as possible" (Senate doc. No. 166, p. 164); and on March 18, 1903, the American Minister to Cuba, Mr. H. G. Squires, made the following official recommendation: "No matter how the question of the status of the island is to be settled, I cannot too strongly recommend that it be done without delay. The longer the matter is allowed to drift on, the larger will become the number of Americans who will settle there and who will insist upon their claims and embarrass the Government in case Cuba is to retain the island" (Senate doc. 166, p. 189). It has since that time become increasingly evident that both the interests of the United States and of Cuba demand that a final settlement of the question be reached. It is therefore to be hoped that, out of consideration for the cordial and close relations which exist between the two nations, if the pending treaty is just, it will before long be ratified. GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION AND OTHER DATA The Isle of Pines lies in the Gulf of Bataban6, which is described as follows in "West India Pilot," Vol. I, 3d edition, 1918, page 268, published by the Hydrographic Office of the United States Navy Department: "The Gulf of Batabano, formed between Point Padre, Cochinos Bay, and Cape Frances, 160 miles apart east and west, is fronted by a series of reefs, cays, and islands, the largest being the Isla de Pinos. To the northward of this chain of cays and reefs, forming numerous and intricate passages, are almost innumerable cays and sand banks."1 The extreme northwest point (de los Barcos) of the Isle of Pines is 30 nautical or 3412 statute miles southeast of Punta de Carraguao (Pinar del Rio) on the Cuban mainland.2 The water from the mainland to the Isle of Pines is very shallow, "so shallow," says a recent description, "that the narrow channel is marked by stakes, just as they marked oyster beds by bean-pole on the Atlantic coast" years ago.A The area, as given in the Census of Cuba, 1899, page 21, is 840 square miles. The island consists really of two islands, separated by a tidal swamp.4 "The southern third of the island, locally called the 'South Coast,' is mostly an uninhabited wilderness with a scanty fringe of population. In the interior valuable hardwood timber grows in pockets of rich soil among jagged coral rocks. The 'South Coast' is, in general, not suited for cultivation. The northern two-thirds of the island, which is what is generally meant when the Isle of Pines is spoken of, consists of a plain slightly undulating in parts, out of which rise abruptly several small mountain ranges and peaks of no great height, the tallest reaching an elevation of not over 1,300 feet. The soil ranges from clay loam to sand and is gravelly in certain localities. It varies greatly in fertility and adaptability for different crops. Generally speaking, fertilization is necessary for growing fruits and vegetables."5 The climate of the island is among the healthiest known. The range of temperature between summer and winter rarely exceeds a mean of 11 degrees. Although south of Cuba, its temperature is lower on account of the winds which are always blowing, and there are numerous mineral springs which have long been famous for their curative properties.6 In the Cuban census of the year 1774, the Isle of Pines was credited with 78 inhabitants; in that of 1841, with 621; in that of 1861, with 2,067; in that of 1877, with 2,478; in that of 1887, with 2,040; in that of 1899, with 3,199; in that of 1907, with 3,276; in that of 1919, with 4,228; and according to the latest data published by the National Census Office of Cuba, the population on December 31, 1923, was 4,680. The Census of 1899 showed that the population by birthplace was then as follows: Cuba, 2,990; Spain, 195; other countries, 14. The Census of 1907, distributed the inhabitants by place of birth as See p. 35 and 50 following and also maps here printed. 2 "The Isle of Pines," published by the U. S. War Department, 1902, reprinted in Senate doc. 166, of the 68th Cong., 2d sess., p. 110. State Senator Ralph Metcalf, in "Tacoma News Tribune," Tacoma, Wash., Oct. 17, 1924. 4 U. S. War Department, "Military notes on Cuba," 1898, p. 204. 5 Report by United States Consul Charles Forman, Nueva Gerona, Isle of Pines, Jan. 9, 1923. 6 U. S. War Department, "The Isle of Pines," 1902 (Senate doc. cited, pp. 116-117). 31 32 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba follows: Cuba, 2,489; Spain, 176; United States, 438; other countries, 173. In the last Census, 1919, the figures showed 3,161 born in Cuba; 187 in Spain; 386 in the United States; and 495 in other countries or not known. The United States Consul at Nueva Gerona, Isle of Pines, has estimated that in 1919 about 60 per cent of the population of the island were Cuban citizens of Spanish descent, 20 per cent were Englishspeaking whites, mostly citizens of the United States together with a few Canadians and British, and 20 per cent were persons of the negro race or colored persons, the latter being of various nationalities.7 The same official declared that the English-speaking white population numbered, in January, 1923, "between 700 and 800 persons." The four paragraphs which follow are taken from his report, January 9, 1923: "The American settlements in the Isle of Pines were principally promoted by a number of American land companies which bought up large tracts of land and sold to settlers in tracts of various sizes. "The American colonies were established shortly after the SpanishAmerican war and at the beginning of the World war in 1914 considerable progress had been made. Estimates of the number of Americans who resided in the island in 1914 differ so widely that it is impossible to form any conclusion on the subject, but it may be said that the number was unquestionably larger than at present. "The material progress of the island was considerably retarded during the period 1914-1918, owing to interference with transportation, increase in freights and production costs, the loss of many young men who entered the American Army and Navy, and especially by a severe storm in September, 1917, the height of the fruit-shipping season, which destroyed a great deal of property. No lives were lost in the storm, but many persons became discouraged and returned to the United States.8 "Since the Armistice conditions have gradually improved so that transportation conditions are normal, freight and farming expenses have been greatly reduced, and the future prospects of the island appear bright." According to an official report of Maj. Gen. E. H. Crowder, United States Ambassador to Cuba, dated January 26, 1923, "the value of American-owned property in the Isle of Pines would not exceed $15,000,000."9 "As many land titles have never been recorded by American landowners in the local registry office, it is only possible to estimate the total number. From the best available sources of information it is estimated that about 10,000 Americans own Isle of Pines land and that their holdings aggregate 90 per cent of the whole island. As only about 700 Americans reside permanently in the island, it is obvious 7 Report cited. 8 Contrast with these facts set forth by the United States Consul, the following statement which appeared in various newspapers of the United States in a cispatch dated Washington, Dec. 9, 1924: "The Isle of Pines contains nearly 1,00C square miles, southwest of Cuba. About 95 per cent of the land is owned by Americans. There have been as many as 20,000 Americans there. Their number has dwindled to about 1,000, because, they allege, of the abuse and persecution they have suffered from the Cuban military, which has governed the island since the departure of General Leonard Wood 20 years ago." The Isle of Pines-be it said-is governed in the same manner as the other municipalities of the Republic, in accordance with the Constitution, by tne officials elected for the purpose, under the control of the Governor of Havana Province and the Central Government, and subject to the organic municipal law of the Republic and other legislation. 967th Cong., 4th sess., Senate doc. No. 295. Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 33 that the great majority of the landowners reside in the United States."10 The value of exports, virtually all to the United States, from the Isle of Pines for the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 is given in the report of the United States Consul at Nueva Gerona, dated January 9, 1923, as follows: 1920 1921 1922 Grapefruit................... $592,559 $500,546 $553,983 Oranges..................... 2,466 34 2,603 Vegetables.................. 39,443 27,799 71,459 $634,468 $528,379 $628,045 "There are no other exports of importance," says the Consul. The above figures do not include the value of the various products shipped into Cuba. Practically all exports of the Isle of Pines are shipped to Batabano and thence across Cuba to Havana, going to the United States either by way of Key West or to New York and other northern ports. There is some direct transportation between the Isle of Pines and southern ports of the United States, but it is infrequent and irregular. It should be stated that the products of the Isle of Pines when imported into the United States enjoy the benefit of the reduction of 20 per cent of the customs duties accorded to Cuban products by the Reciprocity Treaty, which also allows the free entry of all articles which were on the free list of the United States Tariff of 1897. Goods from the Isle of Pines, of course, pay no duties on entering Cuba. The following paragraphs, from the article by the Hon. Ralph Metcalf already cited, give an interesting picture of the resources and possibilities of the Isle of Pines: "The northern two-thirds of the island is level, about 100 feet above sea level, with two ridges of crystalline marble rising nearly 1,000 feet. This marble is commercially valuable, and the beds were being worked when we visited them. Palms and pines grow all over the island. Grapefruit, oranges and pineapples are the principal products..... The entire production of the island is relatively small.... "Opportunities for prospective settlers are much better in Cuba proper. A good deal, a very considerable area, of the Isle of Pines is waste land, uncultivable. For the best land, fertilizer is essential, just as it is to the truck-grower in Europe, who buys his fertilizer before he buys his seed. The Cuban soil is infinitely better, deep, rich, productive soil, probably the best in the world. Cuban producers are right at the gate of the great market of Havana and have far better transport to the markets of the United States. I am quite impressed with the belief that it will be as a playground, and not as busy truck and fruit farms, that the Isle of Pines will appeal. There are and will continue to be successful fruit and vegetable farmers in any event. "... It seems to be waiting for some Florida or California promoter, gifted with imagination and vision and unlimited couragefor Atascadero Lewis, perhaps-to organize a company with sufficient millions of capital to make this little island, blessed by nature, the favorite playground of America's vacationists." 10 67th Cong., 4th sess., Senate doc. No. 295. Report of American Consul at Nueva Gerona, Jan. 13, 1923. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE U. S. SENATE, FEBRUARY 15, I924, ADVISING RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY1 [February 15, 1924, Ordered to be printed and injunction of secrecy removed] Mr. Lodge, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred Executive J, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session, a treaty between the United States and Cuba, signed on March 2, 1904, for the adjustment of title to the ownership of the Isle of Pines, having had the same under consideration, report it with the recommendation that the Senate advise and consent to its ratification. The ratification of the treaty was urged by President Harding in the last Congress in the following letter to the chairman: THE WHITE HousE, Washington, November 28, 1922. Hon. HENRY CABOT LODGE, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR LODGE: I am writing to call your attention to the treaty negotiated between the Government of Cuba and that of the United States March 2, 1904, which has not been ratified by the Senate. This treaty relates to the relinquishment of all claims of title to the Isle of Pines on the part of the United States, which possible claim was suggested by the language of the treaty of peace with Spain. I am inclosing to you herewith a review of the treaty status and our relationship to the Isle of Pines, as recited in a letter by the Secretary of State to Senator McCormick. It is manifest that this Government has no intention ever to make claim to any title to the Isle of Pines, and, as the Secretary says in the letter to which I have above referred, it seems altogether desirable that the ratification of the treaty be made and thereby remove any possible cause of friction between the two Governments, and put an end to any uncertainty in the minds of the inhabitants of the island concerning its relationship to the Government of Cuba. Very truly yours, WARREN G. HARDING. [Inclosure.] OCTOBER 16, 1922. MY DEAR SENATOR MCCORMICK: With further reference to your letter of July 28, addressed to the Assistant Secretary, in regard to the Isle of Pines, I beg to advise you as follows: The Isle of Pines is situated about 50 miles from the coast of Cuba, and, therefore, as was indicated by the Supreme Court of the United States in its opinion in the case of Pearcy v. Stranahan (205 U. S. 257), under the principles of international law applicable to such coasts and shores as those of Florida, the Bahamas, and Cuba, it would ordinarily be regarded as an integral part of Cuba. Prior to 1898 the Isle of Pines was a Spanish possession, apparently governed as a municipal district of the Province of Habana, Cuba. With respect to Cuba, the joint resolution passed by the Congress of the United States April 20, 1898, provides (4) "That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or control over said island, Printed in Senate doc. No. 166, 68th Cong., 2d sess., 1924, pp. 1-4. 34 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 35 except for the pacification thereof; and asserts the determination when that is accomplished to leave the government and control of the island to its people." (38 Stat. 378.) i The treaty of peace between the United States and Spain proclaimed April 11, 1899, makes no specific mention of the Isle of Pines, but by Article I of the treaty "Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba," and by Article II, " Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and to the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones." During the military occupation of Cuba by the United States the Isle of Pines was apparently administered as a municipal district of the Province of Habana. (Report of Census of Cuba published by War Department in 1900.) When the Government of Cuba was turned over to the Cubans May 20, 1902, there was an exchange of communications between the military governor and the President of Cuba to the effect that the Isle of Pines was to continue de facto under the jurisdiction of the Government of Cuba subject to treaty arrangements as to future disposition. The Platt amendment (Article VI), and Article VI of the treaty with Cuba proclaimed July 2, 1904, provide that the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, "the title thereof being left to future adjustment by treaty." March 2, 1904, a treaty was signed by which the United States relinquished all claims of title to the Isle of Pines under the said treaty of peace with Spain. The Senate of the United States has never consented to the ratification of this treaty. It therefore appears that the United States has never taken possession of the Isle of Pines as having been ceded by the treaty of peace with Spain, and that it has been uniformly governed by the Republic of Cuba since that Republic came into existence, the United States recognizing Cuba as rightfully exercising de facto sovereignty until otherwise provided for. In the case of Pearcy v. Stranahan, before mentioned, the court considered that it was justified in assuming that the Isle of Pines was always treated by the, representatives in Cuba of the President of the United States as an integral part of Cuba. The court added that this was "no doubt to be expected in view of the fact that it was such at the time of the execution of the treaty and its ratification, and that the treaty did not provide otherwise in terms, 'to say nothing of the general principles of international law before mentioned.'" The political department of the Government has apparently, as indicated by the treaty it concluded with Cuba March 2, 1904, and its other dealings with this subject above referred to, taken the ground that under the treaty of peace with Spain the Isle of Pines was not one of the "other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies" and ceded to the United States by the treaty, but was an integral part of Cuba over which Spain relinquished claim to sovereignty by the treaty. In any event, the United States has undoubtedly indicated that it did not desire to assert any title to the island under the treaty of peace with Spain, but wished to quit claim in favor of Cuba any shadow of title it might have under that treaty. It can not be doubted that in adopting this attitude the Government of the United States was influenced by the proximity of the island to Cuba and the consequently applicable principles of international law, and by the fact that the Isle of Pines had uniformly been administered as an integral part of Cuba. Referring to the suggestion on this point in the attached letter to Mr. Wall to Colonel Rosenfeld, it may be said that there was no private agreement or understanding between the department and the Government of Cuba relative to the "pigeonholing" of the said treaty of March 2, 1904. I may add that the department considers it desirable in the interest of relations between the United States and Cuba that the treaty before the Senate should be approved. The ratification of the treaty would leave the situation with respect to Cuban exercise of authority over the island as it is at the present time. Possible causes of friction between the two Governments would be obviated and the uncertainty in the minds of the inhabitants of the island as to its status would be removed. In accordance with your request, I return the papers which accompanied your letter under acknowledgment. Sincerely yours, CHARLES E. HUGHES. 361, Isle of Pinecs Treaty Between the United States and Cuba The committee also prints as a part of its report the following correspondence from Hon. Elihu Root, then Secretary of State: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 8, 1906. Hon. SHELBY M. CJLLOM, Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR: I send you a note of the passage in Hall's International Law, to which I referred in our conversation the other day, relating to the Isle of Pines. It is to be found on pages 124 and 125 of the fifth edition, 129 and 130 of the fourth edition, and for greater convenience I inclose a typewritten copy of the passage. You will see that it contains a very good description of the physical conditions, and that, as I mentioned to you, the undoubted appurtenance of the Archipelago de los Canarios,' including the Isle of Pines, to the country called Cuba, is used as an illustration of the general proposition. I dare say the same thing is to be found in other writers, but I have not examined; I merely happened to notice this. This passage was written while Cuba still belonged to Spain, and undoubtedly would be accepted by international lawyers as correctly describing the status of the Isle of Pines at the time of the treaty of Paris. Very sincerely yours, ELIHU ROOT. [Inclosure.] Apart from questions connected with the extent of territorial waters, which will be dealt with later, certain physical peculiarities of coasts in various parts of the world, where land impinges on the sea in an unusual manner, require to be noticed as affecting the territorial boundary. Off the coast of Florida, among the Bahamas, along the shores of Cuba, and in the Pacific are to be found groups of numerous islands and islets rising out of vast banks, which are covered with very shoal water and either form a line more or less parallel with land or compose systems of their own, in both cases inclosing considerable sheets of water, which are sometimes also shoal and sometimes relatively deep. The entrance to these interior bays or lagoons may be wide in breadth of surface water, but it is narrow in navigable water. To take a specific case, on the south coast of Cuba the Archipelago de los Canarios' stretches from 60 to 80 miles from the mainland to La Isla de Pinos. Its length from the Jardines Bank to Cape Frances is over a hundred miles. It is inclosed partly by some islands, mainly by banks, which are always awash, but upon which the tides are very slight. The depth of water is at no time sufficient to permit of navigation. Spaces along these banks many miles in length are unbroken by a single inlet. The water is uninterrupted, but access to the interior gulf or sea is impossible. At the western end there is a strait 20 miles or so in width, but not more than 6 miles of channel intervene between two banks which rise to within 7 or 8 feet from the surface and which do not, consequently, admit of the passage of seagoing vessels. In cases of this sort the question whether the interior waters are or are not lakes inclosed within the territory must always depend upon the depth upon the banks and the width of the entrances. Each must be judged upon its own merits. But in the instance cited there can be little doubt that the whole Archipelago de los Canarios' is a mere salt-water lake and that the boundary of the land of Cuba runs along the exterior edge of the banks. (Pp. 124, 125, Hall on International Law, 5th ed.) DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 27, 1905. CHARLES RAYNARD, Esq., President of American Club, Isle of Pines, West Indies. DEAR SIR: I have received your letter of October 25, in which you say, "Kindly advise me at your very earliest convenience the necessary procedure to establish a territorial form of government for the Isle of Pines, West Indies, United States of America." It is no part of the duty of the Secretary of State to give advice upon such subjects. I think it proper, however, to answer your inquiry so far as it may be necessary to remove an error under which you appear to rest concerning the status of the Isle of Pines and your rights as residents of that island. There is no procedure by which you and your associates can lawfully establish a 1 Should read "Canarreos." Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 37 territorial government in that island. The island is lawfully subject to the control and government of the Republic of Cuba, and you and your associates are bound to render obedience to the laws of that country so long as you remain in the island. If you fail in that obedience you will be justly liable to prosecution in the Cuban courts and to such punishment as may be provided by the laws of Cuba for such offenses as you commit. You are not likely to have any greater power in the future. The treaty now pending before the Senate, if approved by that body, will relinquish all claim of the United States to the Isle of Pines. In my judgment the United States has no substantial claim to the Isle of Pines. The treaty merely accords to Cuba what is hers in accordance with international law and justice. At the time of the treaty of peace which ended the war between the United States and Spain the Isle of Pines was, and had been for several centuries, a part of Cuba. I have no doubt whatever that it continues to be a part of Cuba, and that it is not and never has been territory of the United States. This is the view with which President Roosevelt authorized the pending treaty, and Mr. Hay signed it, and I expect to urge its confirmation. Nor would the rejection of the pending treaty put an end to the control of Cuba over the island. A treaty directly contrary to the one now pending would be necessary to do that, and there is not the slightest prospect of such a treaty being made. You may be quite sure that Cuba will never consent to give up the Isle of Pines, and that the United States will never try to compel her to give it up against her will. Very respectfully, ELIHU ROOT. DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RELATIVE TO THE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE ISLE OF PINES PEARCY v. STRANAHAN, ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK No. 1. SUBMITTED MARCH 4, 1907. DECIDED APRIL 8, 1907. The averment that territory named in the complaint is a part of the United States is a conclusion of law and not admitted by a demurrer. The court takes judicial cognizance whether or not a given territory is within the boundaries of the United States, and is bound to take the fact as it really exists however it may be averred to be. Who is the sovereign de jure or de facto of territory is not a judicial, but a political, question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges as well as all other officers, citizens and subjects of that government. Jones v. United States, 137, U. S. 202. The Isle of Pines under the provisions of the Platt Amendment and the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba is de facto under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Cuba, and, as the United States has never yet taken possession thereof, it has remained and is foreign country within the meaning of the Dingley Tariff Act of 1897. DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1; United States v. Rice, 4 Wheat. 246. The facts, which involve the political status of the Isle of Pines and whether it is under the jurisdiction of Cuba or that of the United States, and whether merchandise therefrom is subject to duty, as coming from a foreign country within the meaning of the Dingley Tariff Act, are stated in the opinion. MR. JAMES C. LENNEY FOR PLAINTIFF IN ERROR: Up to the ratification of the second Treaty of Paris (April 11, 1899), the Isle of Pines was under the sovereignty of the Crown of Spain. It did not belong to, nor was it a part of, the Island of Cuba Spain acquired title to and sovereignty over the Isle of Pines by right of discovery. Spain, until A. D. 1899, retained the title and sovereignty thus acquired. Since a territory can have but one sovereignty at one time, it follows 38 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4................................................ d......MM l~~~~~~~ - lN M~~~~ 1M au\i g 7,...gw..... -. +. >W>N>s-......5W 0.g6MiX.+z.i. zjU H lgglXgllllmli! sllu~ lllllill l~ O... 3iv.M.... 6>jK =t M. 0 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i 1 11aIIIIIilii111i~111111111!1'11<''1 ' "111'1111111111111'311''1ill11111''1111'11111111 {1 1i1> 1 '1X wI lS I H; 0:; W 2* a ' X; 0 S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 0 S... Ms< 6avz.~-. w r,},,,v r+ } +4 1 '<" } 's td':'............................ '} }.>'...11 i A..... 8 } ', '"i '!g } 3< 1 '6} X3'3 _ ', } - 1,.I' ''"3 }}. t.'. 'S S X A8. } a1"y 8 ''. S''..i'-} '..v >... l <8 = 4.'/ >S =.6I~~~v~~il.... l~~~v.^ l i ii~~~li Ali. i~~ Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 39 that the Island of Cuba at no time prior to 1899 acquired any title to the Isle of Pines, either expressly or by implication. No authority has been found to hold that the maritime jurisdiction of one island can extend to another island located in the open sea forty miles distant from the nearest shore. Geographically, then, there appears to be no ground for holding that the Isle of Pines belonged to or was a part of the Island of Cuba. In the absence, therefore, of any express cession of sovereignty to Cuba, or of any impliable intention to include this isle as a part of Cuba, or of any good geographical reason for so doing it must follow that on April 11, 1899, Spain did own, and Cuba, a mere colony, did not own or include, the Isle of Pines. Under Article II of the said treaty-"Spain cedes to the United States the Island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies....-the Isle of Pines passed directly from the sovereignty of the Crown of Spain to that of the people of the United States. The only reasonable construction is that by Article II of the treaty, as above quoted, the United States acquired all the islands under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies except the Island of Cuba. The very language of the treaty itself, as explained in the protocols and construed according to its fair and ordinary meaning, is overwhelmingly in favor of this proposition. On or about August 14, 1899, the United States War Department, in an official letter stated: "The Isle of Pines...was ceded by Spain to the United States, and is, therefore, a part of our territory." The maps and other data prepared and issued by the General Land Office of the Department of the Interior indicate the Isle of Pines as being United States territory. The "Platt Amendment" provided: "That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba; the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." When Cuba was transferred to the government of its people, on May 20, 1902, the American military governor of Cuba was ordered by the United States Secretary of War to continue "the present government of the Isle of Pines" (which was American) "as the de facto government." By the terms of the proposed treaty, negotiated in 1903 and still pending in the United States Senate, our country's present ownership of the Isle of Pines is clearly recognized by the sections which provide for a transfer of our title to Cuba, the consideration being certain naval stations which we theretofore possessed. Under Article II of the treaty, the Isle of Pines was ceded directly to the United States. It is a historical fact that at this time Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies was limited to Cuba, Porto Rico, the Isle of Pines, and some very small, insignificant islands, mostly uninhabited and located 40 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba round about these three large ones. Such being the fact, the only reasonable conclusion from this language can be, that by the "other islands" phrase it was the intention of the parties to cede, and they did cede, the Isle of Pines direct from the Crown of Spain to the people of the United States just as plainly as Porto Rico, in the same article, was ceded. It cannot be too greatly emphasized that such is the only reasonable construction applicable to this phrase. Unless it refers to the Isle of Pines it means nothing, and certainly it would be a most serious imputation to hold that the learned commissioners deliberately inserted words meaning nothing or worse than nothing into so important a document of state. Official acts and declarations subsequent to the treaty support the same view. Not only did all the parties thus intend at the time of the making of the treaty, but subsequent acts and declarations for more than three years thereafter were almost uniformly in support of this view. We already have official declarations, both executive and legislative. The "Platt Amendment" expressly excludes the Isle of Pines from the boundaries of Cuba. Plaintiff calls attention to Article VI of the amendment to the Army Appropriation Bill, passed March 2, 1901, and widely known by the popular title "Platt Amendment." This amendment, which is stillin force, expressly provided "that the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." This clause is doubly significant, showing as it does, the attitude of both the republics. Up to this point we have been noting the acts of our own Government and the attitude of our own people. That the Cubans themselves claimed no conflicting title is clearly proven by their vote on June 12, 1901. Without discussion and without debate, the Cuban Congress incorporated this identical language into their own constitution. By so doing they expressly admitted, first, that the Isle of Pines was not then a part of the Cuban Republic, and, secondly, that the isle should not become Cuban soil unless granted to the Republic from the United States by good and valid treaty. The effect of this action must have been to leave the isle as theretofore, under American administration and control; for when the congresses of both countries have expressly declared that at present the Isle of Pines is not Cuban territory it must be territory of the United States. The Isle of Pines, not being a foreign country under the tariff law, but, like Porto Rico, a part of the United States, it follows that the seizure, etc., complained of by plaintiff and the detention after demand made was unwarranted, illegal, and an act of conversion. De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, 198 et seq.; Dooley v. United States, 182 U. S. 222; Armstrong v. United States, 182 U. S. 243. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND MR. OTIS J. CARLTON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR DEFENDANT IN ERROR, SUBMITTED: Whether the Isle of Pines be included within the boundaries of the United States is a political question, which cannot be decided by this court, being nonjudicial in its nature. Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 41 The question in this case resolves itself into a question of boundaries within the principle of the following cases: Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253: Garcia v. Lee, 12 Pet. 511; United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691. It is well settled that the courts of the United States are scrupulous to exercise no power not clearly judicial in its nature. Hayburn's case, 2 Dallas, 409; United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40; United States v. Yale Todd, 13 How. 52 (note); Gordon v. United States, 117 U. S. 697. If it be considered that the title to the Isle of Pines has been determined by the political departments to be in the United States, the fact that the question of ownership by mutual agreement between the United States and the Republic of Cuba is to be settled by arbitration, the adjudication to take the form of a treaty, excludes this court from its jurisdiction to decide the question of title in this case. While this court, as a general rule, will decide questions of individual rights, founded upon a treaty, by ascertaining and following the determination of the political departments upon political questions, still, if those departments, charged with the settlement of our relations with foreign powers, have directed that political questions be settled in a certain manner, that determination is conclusive on the courts. It is well settled that, even to determine questions judicial in their nature, special tribunals may be erected, their decisions to be final and conclusive on the courts. United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40; Murray v. Hoboken &c. Co., 18 How. 280; Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U. S. 109; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253. The Isle of Pines was not ceded to the United States by the treaty of peace, Article II, but was included within the term "Cuba" in Article I. The Isle of Pines is, by a well-settled principle of international law, a part of Cuba. Hall's International Law, edition of 1895, pp. 129, 130 We intervened in aid of the Cuban revolutionists from the highest motives of humanity, and not to wage a war of conquest. The term "Cuba," historically and politically, includes the Isle of Pines. This is shown by the official acts of the Spanish Government, which, from 1774 to 1898, treated the Isle of Pines, as included in the political division known as Cuba, just as the Island of Nantucket is included in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Conceding, for the purposes of argument only, that the Isle of Pines was ceded to the United States by the treaty of peace, as we have never taken possession of the island, and as it has been and is being governed by the Republic of Cuba, it has not ceased to be "foreign country" within the Dingley Act. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. Plaintiff brought his action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York against the then collector. of the port of New York to iecover the value of certain cigars seized by him, which had been brought to that port from the Isle of Pines, where they had been produced and manufactured. This seizure was made under the Dingley Act, so-called (act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 151, c. 11), and the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury thereunder. The Dingley Act provided foI the imposition of duties "on 42 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba articles imported from foreign countries," and in plaintiff's complaint it was asserted that the Isle of Pines was "in possession of and part of the United States," and hence domestic territory. The Government demurred, the demurrer was sustained, the complaint dismissed and the case brought here on a writ of error. Whether the Isle of Pines was a part of the United States is a conclusion of law not admitted by the demurrer. It was certainly not such before the treaty of peace with Spain, and if it became so, it was by virtue of that treaty. The court takes judicial cognizance whether or not a given territory is within the boundaries of the United States, and is bound to take the fact as it really exists, however it may be averred to be. Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202; Lincoln v. United States, 197 U. S. 419; Taylor v. Barclay, 2 Sim. 213. August 12, 1898, a protocol of agreement for a basis for the establishment of peace was entered into between the United States and Spain, which provided: "Article I. Spain will relinquish all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba. "Article II. Spain will cede to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and also an island in the Ladrones to be selected by the United States." 30 Stat. 1742. This was followed by the treaty of peace, ratified April 11, 1899, containing the following articles: "ARTICLE I. Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba. "And as the island is, upon its evacuation by Spain, to be occupied by the United States, the United States will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligations that may under international law result from the fact of its occupation, for the protection of life and property." "ARTICLE II. Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones." 30 Stat. 1754-1755. In Neely v. Henkel, 180 U. S. 109 (Jan. 14, 1901), the question was whether Cuba was a foreign country or foreign territory within the act of Congress of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat. 656, c. 793), providing for the extradition from the United States of persons committing crimes within any foreign country or foreign territory or any part thereof, occupied or under the control of the United States. And it was held that Cuba was within this description. Mr. Justice Harlan, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "The facts above detailed make it clear that within the meaning of the act of June 6, 1900, Cuba is foreign territory. It cannot be regarded, in any constitutional, legal or international sense, a part of the territory of the United States. "While by the act of April 25, 1898, declaring war between this country and Spain, the President was directed and empowered to use our entire land and naval forces, as well as the militia of the Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 43 several States to such extent as was necessary, to carry such act into effect, that authorization was not for the purpose of making Cuba an integral part of the United States but only for the purpose of compelling the relinquishment by Spain of its authority and government in that island and the withdrawal of its forces from Cuba and Cuban waters. The legislative and executive branches of the Government, by the joint resolution of April 20, 1898, expressly disclaimed any purpose to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or control over Cuba 'except for the pacification thereof,' and asserted the determination of the United States, that object being accomplished, to leave the government and control of Cuba to its own people. All that has been done in relation to Cuba has had that end in view, and, so far as the court is informed by the public history of the relations of this country with that island, nothing has been done inconsistent with the declared object of the war with Spain. "Cuba is none the less foreign territory, within the meaning of the act of Congress, because it is under a military governor appointed by and representing the President in the work of assisting the inhabitants of that island to establish a government of their own, under which, as a free and independent people, they may control their own affairs without interference by other nations. The occupancy of the island by troops of the United States was the necessary result of the war. That result could not have been avoided by the United States consistently with the principles of international law or with its obligations to the people of Cuba. "It is true that as between Spain and the United Statesindeed, as between the United States and all foreign nationsCuba, upon the cessation of hostilities with Spain and after the treaty of Paris was to be treated as if it were conquered territory. But as between the United States and Cuba that island is territory held in trust for the inhabitants of Cuba to whom it rightfully belongs and to whose exclusive control it will be surrendered when a stable government shall have been established by their voluntary action." If then, the Isle of Pines was not embraced in Article II of the treaty, but was included within the term "Cuba" in Article I, and therefore sovereignty and title were merely relinquished, it was "foreign country" within the Dingley Act. This inquiry involves the interpretation which the political departments have put upon the treaty. For, in the language of Mr. Justic/ Gray, in Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202 "who is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory is not a judicial but a political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any Government conclusively binds the judges as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that Government." By the joint resolution of April 20, 1898, 30 Stat. 738, entitled "Joint resolution for the recognition of the independence of the people of Cuba, demanding that the Government of Spain relinquish its authority and Government in the Island of Cuba, and to withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters, and directing the 44 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba President of the United States to use the land and naval forces of the United States to carry these resolutions into effect," the United States disclaimed any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty or control over Cuba, except in the pacification thereof, and asserted its determination, when that was accomplished, to leave the control of the island to its people. What was the signification of the word "Cuba" at that time? The record of the official acts of the Spanish Government from 1774 to 1898 demonstrates that the Isle of Pines was included in the political division known as "Cuba." The first official census of Cuba, in 1774; the "Statistical Plan of the Ever Faithful Isle of Cuba for the Year 1827"; the establishment by the Governor General, in 1828, of a colony on the island; the census of 1841; the budgets of receipts and expenses; the census for 1861, 1877, 1887, and so on, all show that the Isle of Pines was, governmentally speaking, included in the specific designation "Cuba" at the time the treaty was made and ratified, and the documents establish that it formed a municipal district of the province of Habana. In short, all the world knew that it was an integral part of Cuba, and in view of the language of the joint resolution of April 20, 1898, it seems clear that the Isle of Pines was not supposed to be one of the "other islands" ceded by Article II Those were islands not constituting an integral part of Cuba, such as Vieques, Culebra and Mona Islands adjacent to Porto Rico. Has the treaty been otherwise interpreted by the political departments of this Government? The documents to which we have had access, with the assistance of the presentation of the facts condensed therefrom in the brief for the United States, enable us to sufficiently indicate the situation in that regard, and we think it proper to do this, notwithstanding the determination of the case turns at last on a short point requiring no elaboration. The Spanish evacuated Havana January 1, 1899, and the government of Cuba was transferred to a military governor as the representative of the President of the United States. The President ordered, August 17, 1899, a census to be taken as a first step toward assisting "the people of Cuba" to establish "an effective system of self-government." In accomplishing this the island was divided into 1,607 enumeration districts. Three enumerators took the census of the Isle of Pines, which was described as a municipal district of Bejucal, in the Province of Habana. The report on the census, as published by the War Department in 1900, stated: "The government of Cuba has jurisdiction not only over the island of that name, but also over the Isle of Pines, lying directly to the south of it, and more than a thousand islets and reefs scattered along its northern and southern coasts.... The Isle of Pines, with an area of 840 square miles, is a municipal district of the Province of Habana.... The total population of Cuba, including the Isle of Pines and the neighboring keys, was, on October 16, 1899, 1,572,797." The population tables give the population of the Isle of Pines as a municipal district of Habana Province, and so of the statistics as to Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 45 rural population; sex, nativity and color; age and sex; birthplace; conjugal condition; school attendance; foreign whites; number and size of families; dwellings of families-these and like items are given as to the Isle of Pines as under the Province of Habana. In August, 1899, the Military Governor of Cuba appointed a mayor and first assistant mayor of the Isle of Pines. On June 16, 1900, an election was held throughout the island, at which the people of Cuba in all their municipalities elected their municipal officers, participated in by the inhabitants of the Isle of Pines, as is stated in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate Document No. 205, Fifty-ninth Congress, though this was denied in a minority report. A constitutional convention was called and the inhabitants of the Isle of Pines participated in the election of delegates thereto, September 15, 1900. The convention concluded its work by October 1, 1901, and December 31, 1901, an election was held to choose governors of provinces, provincial councillors, members of the house of representatives, and presidential and senatorial electors, under an order of General Wood of October 14, 1901, No. 218, approved by the War Department, which divided the Province of Habana into four circuits, the third being composed of several ayuntamientos, of which the Isle of Pines was one. February 24, 1902, the electors met, chose senators, and elected Seior Palma, President, and Sefior Romero, Vice-President. The government was transferred to Cuba, May 20, 1902, and in making the transfer, and declaring the occupation of Cuba by the United States and the military government of the island to be ended, the Military Governor wrote to "The President and Congress of Cuba," among other things: "It is understood by the United States that the present government of the Isle of Pines will continue as a de Jacto government, pending the settlement of the title to said island by treaty, pursuant to the Cuban constitution and the act of Congress of the United States approved March 2, 1902 (1)." On the same day President Palma replied: "It is understood that the Isle of Pines is to continue de Jacto under the jurisdiction of the government of the Republic of Cuba, subject to such treaty as may be entered into between the Government of the United States and that of the Cuban Republic, as provided for in the Cuban constitution and in the act passed by the Congress of the United States, and approved on the 2d of March, 1901." 31 Stat. 897. At that date the Isle of Pines was actually being governed by the Cubans through municipal officers elected by its inhabitants, and a governor of the Province of Habana, councillors, etc., in whose choice they had participated. And see Neely v. Henkel, 180 U. S/. 109, 117, 118. February 16, 1903, the Senate of the United States, by resolution, requested the President "to inform the Senate as to the present status of the Isle of Pines, and what government is exercising authority and control in said island." 46 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba In reply the President submitted a report from the Secretary of War, which stated: "The nature of the de facto government under which the Isle of Pines was thus left pending the determination of the title thereof by treaty is shown in the following endorsement upon a copy of the said resolution by the late military governor of Cuba: (Here follows the endorsement, dated February 20, 1903, of which the following is a part:) "'At the date of transfer of the Island of Cuba to its duly elected officials the Isle of Pines constituted a municipality included within the municipalities of the Province of Habana and located in the judicial district of Bejucal. The government of the island is vested in its municipal officers, subject to the general control of the civil governor of the Province of Habana, who is vested under the constitution of Cuba with certain authority in the control of municipal affairs. Under the military government of Cuba the Isle of Pines was governed by municipal officials, subject to the general authority of the civil governor, who received his authority from the Governor General. The Isle of Pines, as it had existed under the military government, was transferred as a de facto government to the Cuban Republic, pending the final settlement of the status of the island by treaty between the United States and Cuba. The action taken by the military government was in accordance with telegraphic orders from the honorable the Secretary of War. The government of the island to-day is in the hands of its municipal officers, duly elected by the people under general control of the civil governor of the Province of Habana and the Republic of Cuba. As I understand it, the government of the Isle of Pines is vested in the Republic of Cuba, pending such final action as may be taken by the United States and Cuba looking to the ultimate disposition of the island. No special action was taken to protect the interests of the citizens of the United States who have purchased property and have settled in the Isle of Pines, for the reason that no such action was necessary. All Americans in the island are living under exactly the same conditions as other foreigners, and if they comply with the laws in force it is safe to say that they will not have any difficulty or need special protection. At the time these people purchased property they understood distinctly that the question of ownership of the Isle of Pines was one pending settlement, and in locating there they took the risks incident to the situation."' We are justified in assuming that the Isle of Pines was always treated by the President's representatives in Cuba as an integral part of Cuba. This was indeed to be expected in view of the fact that it was such at the time of the execution of the treaty and its ratification, and that the treaty did not provide otherwise in terms, to say nothing of general principles of international law applicable to such coasts and shores as those of Florida, the Bahamas, and Cuba. Hall, 4th. ed., 129, 130; Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S. 1, 53; The Anna, 5 C. Rob. 273. Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 47 In August, 1902, the Treasury Department decided that duties should be assessed on goods coming from the Isle of Pines at the same rates as on similar merchandise imported from other places. On July 2, 1903, a treaty with Cuba was signed, relinquishing any claim by the United States to the Isle of Pines under the treaty of peace, but this failed of ratification, and on March 2, 1904, another treaty was signed, which relinquished all claim of title under that treaty. November 27, 1905, the Secretary of State wrote an American resident of the Isle of Pines: "The treaty now pending before the Senate, if approved by that body, will relinquish all claim of the United States to the Isle of Pines. In my judgment the United States has no substantial claim to the Isle of Pines. The treaty merely accords to Cuba what is hers in accordance with international law and justice. "At the time of the treaty of peace which ended the war between the United States and Spain, the Isle of Pines was and has been for several centuries a part of Cuba. I have no doubt whatever that it continues to be a part of Cuba and that it is not and never has been territory of the United States. This is the view with which President Roosevelt authorized the pending treaty, and Mr. Hay signed it, and I expect to urge its confirmation." There are some letters of an Assistant Secretary of War or written by his direction, and other matters, referred to, which we do not regard as seriously affecting the conclusion that the Executive has consistently acted on the determination that the United States had no substantial claim to the Isle of Pines under the treaty. The only significant legislative action is found in the proviso of the act of March 2, 1901, the Army Appropriation Act (31 Stat. 895, c. 803), commonly called the Platt Amendment (897), which reads: "Provided further, That in fulfillment of the declaration contained in the joint resolution approved April twentieth, eighteen hundred and ninety eight, entitled 'For the recognition of the independence of the people of Cuba, demanding that the Government of Spain relinquish its authority and government in the island of Cuba, and to withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters, and directing the President of the United States to use the land and naval forces of the United States to carry these resolutions into effect,' the President is hereby authorized to 'leave the government and control of the island of Cuba to its people' so soon as a government shall have been established in said island under a constitution which, either as a part thereof or in an ordinance appended thereto, shall define the future relations of the United States with Cuba, substantially as follows": Then follows eight clauses, of which the sixth is: "VI. That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." It appears that certain American citizens, asserting interests in the Isle of Pines, had contended that it belonged to- the United States 48 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba under the treaty, and the sixth clause of the Platt Amendment, while not asserting an absolute claim of title on our part, gave opportunity for an examination of the question of ownership and its settlement through a treaty with Cuba. The Republic of Cuba has been governing the isle since May 20, 1902-the present situation need not be discussed-and has made various improvements in administration at the suggestion of our Government, but Congress has taken no action to the contrary of Cuba's title as superior to ours. It may be conceded that the action of both the political departments has not been sufficiently definite to furnish a conclusive interpretation of the treaty of peace as an original question, and as yet no agreement has been reached under the Platt Amendment. The Isle of Pines continues at least de facto under the jurisdiction of the government of the Republic of Cuba, and that settles the question before us, because as the United States have never taken possession of the Isle of Pines as having been ceded by the treaty of peace, and as it has been and is being governed by the Republic of Cuba, it has remained "foreign country" within the meaning of the Dingley Act, according to the ruling in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, and cases cited; United States v. Rice, 4 Wheat. 246. There has been no change of nationality for revenue purposes, but, on the contrary, the Cuban Government has been recognized as rightfully exercising sovereignty over the Isle of Pines as a de facto government until otherwise provided. It must be treated as foreign, for this Government has never taken, nor aimed to take, that possession in fact and in law which is essential to render it domestic. Judgment affirmed MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA concurred in the judgment. MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE HOLMES concurred specially. MR. JUSTICE MOODY took no part. Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom was Mr. Justice HOLMES, concurring. My reasons for agreeing to the conclusion announced by the court are separately stated to prevent all implication of an expression of opinion on my part as to a subject which in my judgment the case does not require and which, as it is given me to see it, may not be made without a plain violation of-my duty. The question which the case raises, by way of a suit to recover duties paid on goods brought from the Isle of Pines, is whether that island, by the treaty with Spain, became a part of the United States, or was simply left or made a part of the Island of Cuba, over which the sovereignty of Spain was relinquished. I accept the doctrine which the opinion of the court announces, following Jones v. United States, 137 U. S., 202, that "who is the sovereign de jure or de facto of a territory is not a judicial but a political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges as well as other officers, citizens and subjects of that government." That the legislative and executive departments have conclusively settled the present status of the Isle of Pines as de facto a part of Cuba and have left open for future determination the de jure claim, if any, of the United States to the island, as the court now declares, is to me beyond possible Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 49 contention. Thus, by the amendment to the act of 1901, which was enacted to determine the de facto position of the island and to furnish a rule for the guidance of the executive authority in dealing in the future with the island, it was expressly provided "that the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." So, also, when the Island of Cuba was turned over to the Cuban Government by the military authority of the United States, that Government was expressly notified by such authority, under the direction of the President, that whilst the de facto position of the Isle of Pines as a part of Cuba was not disturbed it must be understood that its de jure relation was reserved for future determination by treaty between Cuba and the United States. And this notification and relation was in terms accepted by the President of the Republic of Cuba. If the opinion now announced stopped with these conclusive expressions, I should of course have nothing to say. But it does not do so. Although declaring that the de facto position of the Isle of Pines as resulting from legislative and executive action is binding upon courts, and although referring to the conclusive settlement of that de facto status and the reservation by the legislative and executive departments of the determination of the de jure status for future action, the opinion asserts that it is open and proper for the court to express an opinion upon the de jure status, that is, to decide upon the effect of the treaty. In doing so it is declared that all the world knew that the Isle of Pines was an integral part of Cuba, this being but a prelude to an expression of opinion as to the rightful construction of the treaty. To my mind any and all expression of opinion concerning the effect of the treaty and the de jure relation of the Isle of Pines is wholly unnecessary and cannot be indulged in without disregarding the very principle upon which the decision is placed; that is, the conclusive effect of executive and legislative action. In other words, to me it seems that the opinion, whilst recognizing the force of executive and legislative action, necessarily disregards it. This follows, because the views which are expressed on the subject of the meaning of the treaty amount substantially to declaring that the past action of the executive and legislative departments of the government on the subject have been wrong, and that any future attempt by those departments to proceed upon the hypothesis that the de jure status of the island is unsettled will be a violation of the treaty as now unnecessarily interpreted. Mr. Justice HOLMES concurs. QUOTATION FROM WM. EDWARD HALL'S "TREATISE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW" William Edward Hall, a leading authority on international law, in his "Treatise on International Law," 4th Edition, London, 1895, wrote: "The territorial property of a State consists in the territory occupied by the State community and subjected to its sovereignty, and it comprises the whole area, whether of land or water, included within the definite boundaries ascertained by occupation, prescription, or treaty, together with such inhabited or uninhabited lands as are considered to have become attendant on the ascertained territory through occupation or accretion, and, when such area abuts upon the sea, together with a certain margin of water" (page 106). * * * "Apart from questions connected with the extent of territorial waters, which will be dealt with later, certain physical peculiarities of coasts in various parts of the world, where land impinges on the sea in an unusual manner, require to be noticed as affecting the territorial boundary. Off the coast of Florida, among the Bahamas, along the shores of Cuba, and in the Pacific, are to be found groups of numerous islands and islets rising out of vast banks, which are covered with very shoal water, and either form a line more or less parallel with land or compose systems of their own, in both cases enclosing considerable sheets of water, which are sometimes also shoal and sometimes relatively deep. The entrance to these interior bays or lagoons may be wide in breadth of surface water, but it is narrow in navigable water. To take a specific case. "On the south coast of Cuba the archipelago de los Canarreos stretches from sixty to eighty miles from the mainland to la Isla de Pinos. Its length from the Jardines bank to Cape Frances is over a hundred miles. It is enclosed partly by some islands, mainly by banks, which are always awash, but upon which the tides are very slight, the depth of water is at no time sufficient to permit of navigation; spaces along these banks, many miles in length, are unbroken by a single inlet; the water is uninterrupted, but access to the interior gulf or sea is impossible. At the western end there is a strait, twenty miles or so in width, but not more than six miles of channel intervene between two banks which rise to within seven or eight feet from the surface, and which do not consequently admit of the passage of sea-going vessels. In cases of this sort the question whether the interior waters are, or are not, lakes enclosed within the territory, must always depend upon the depth upon the banks, and the width of the entrances. Each must be judged upon its own merits. But in the instance cited, there can be little doubt that the whole archipielago de los Canarreos is a mere salt-water lake, and that the boundary of the land of Cuba runs along the exterior edge of the banks." (Page 129.) 50 """xx"""""I"""""""""""l""l""!rj~ t- a I -~~~~.f i~i ti i,,~*: BIE ii I I Ei1.1 i B ~ , z ~ Itr "",cli 6r t r i ~1~ Ipiii fl L ~~rio r; I ijli dz it. ~~-~II "" "" a a " o s II ii;:i~ i~:~~~~B ~~~ la e al.i ii ~~:~~~'~ -~ PIA~iii..i c ~% Fli~ 1 r Ci I~ II ~~g 16 crr tI" " Blf ~i ii""8,~11:~5., e aii t -:r I i~rii'l ~~. ir a i-i ~"~~"li iii ~i If"'l:~'.ll II"~ .~~:. "(BS: i~:_~~i':-i~i "~~. C rl~8,~ ~~~~ '47.i 1-~ d I i i li' ~1 ~ BBI.EIl 3' P:l I f ar isiiic: E -l(i((.lCu ~ r tiR IiLI2~~;711:I i" iir 1 IbrE:c~cOI CI t1 ri ta E fr fai,,, I~ iB L!~"~~~"~~I:,~:I'.a I I i? Ir iffEi a 3~c "~a-es dB*d~..-lli-:, 8.-al:1::WB :) BS19 ~; 31~t~*~ _ilcb, i'... i I~"~~.p fC,, J F6E, a,, -~~~i 5 a ij ~iii sii llE si fj s.i" P i. ie~F rsSi.IL'I r:'" ~ B"i'l" "'" J. a Hi it r8 ~~~i;ii E;s:CI ~~~;a .% tB:: r i.- B ~l'f ? T:: ~.a B!I' ;~~;E ~;i:*~ 61 s: i"B::~"i- I a FR i I ", tr LI81:I I ff iEL D., _!I:119"Bl,i~~, a I :~II n.;:tB~I~~ %"- is i-r '~i~Ci a i~l iB ~~ j '"t~, ~~~-,i. -i~~:::-8 B,,Iii 1 rl bisi; ;P l::~d :ak ~I-I: B Ixl B~:'~I~1~ r f iii1.E' l,i:ra.,~~~,, i p P, I:~`:D'; ii 1 E1, i I;1 I i. "~::: s r;n I J t i iii" — ~"i I.le~'-~.':. ~(:~~~~;,i 1:l"i~ aii a ia % G I I -, lh~ ED5E "t,~;n2? O as "~" i','i wlrrld ji C I" ~r. r ilil \ LETTER OF THE MARQUIS DE VILLA-URRUTIA, ONE OF THE PLENIPOTENTIARIES (OR COMMISSIONERS) OF SPAIN WHO NEGOTIATED AND SIGNED, DECEMBER o1, i898, THE TREATY OF PARIS SPANISH TEXT Madrid, 6 de mayo de 1924 Exmo. Sor. D. MARIO GARCIA KOHLY, Ministro Plenipotenciario de Cuba. Muy Sr. mio y de mi mayor consideraci6n: Recibi oportunamente su atenta carta del 30 de abril y le ruego perdone la tardanza en contestarla, debida a la necesidad en que me he visto de revisar el voluminoso expediente del Tratado de Paris que existe en el Ministerio de Estado, por no atreverme a fiar la respuesta a mi memoria. No recordaba que en la negociacion del Tratado de Paz con los Estados Unidos se hubiera nunca hablado de la Isla de Pinos y menos que se hubiera hecho de ella menci6n como territorio cedido a los Estados Unidos y no comprendido en el termino politico y geografico de Cuba. Los papeles del expediente que he examinado no contienen ninguin dSato que modifique el recuerdo que yo guardaba de las conferencias de Paris en que tom6 parte como plenipotenciario, unico ya sobreviviente, de Espaia. Celebrar6 que esta declaraci6n deje a V. complacido y pueda servir a la Republica Cubana, que V. tan dignamente representa en esta Corte. Aprovecho gustoso esta ocasion, Sefior Ministro, para ofrecerme de usted como ato. S. S. y amigo. (f) EL MARQUES DE VILLA URRUTIA. ENGLISH TRANSLATION Madrid, May 6, 1924. His Excellency Don MARIO GARCIA KOHLY, Minister Plenipotentiary of Cuba. My dear and most esteemed Sir: I duly received your favor of April 30th, and I beg you to pardon my delay in answering it, which has been due to the necessity of looking over the voluminous files on the Treaty of Paris which exist in the Ministry of State, as I did not dare to trust my memory in giving a reply. I did not recall that in the negotiation of the Treaty of Paris with the United States the Isle of Pines should ever have been referred to, and much less that it should have been mentioned as territory ceded to the United States and not embraced in the political and' geographical term Cuba. The papers composing the files which I have examined contain no data which modifies the recollection which I preserved of the conferences at Paris, in which I took part as a plenipotentiary of Spain, of which I am the only one now living. I shall be glad if this statement satisfies your wishes and may prove useful to the Republic of Cuba, which you so worthily represent at this Court. I avail myself with pleasure of this opportunity, Mr. Minister, to remain, Your obedient servant and friend. (s) THE MARQUIS DE VILLA URRUTIA. 51 ;THE ISLE OF PINES TREATY By JAMES BROWN SCOTT [Reprinted from the American Journal of International Law, Vol. XVII, Number 1, January, 1923] On December 7, 1922, the Committee of Foreign Relations of the United States Senate reported favorably the treaty of March 2, 1904, between the Republics of Cuba and the United States of America, for the relinquishment of the Isle of Pines by the United States in favor of Cuba. This was not the first treaty of the kind. An earlier one had been signed on July 2, 1903, relinquishing any claim of the United States to the Isle of Pines under the treaty with Spain, concluded December 10, 1898. It failed of ratification. The second treaty, of March 2, 1904, was reported favorably on February 1, 1906. There was, however, an adverse minority report presented, and it appears that from that day to this, the treaty has "slumbered in the Senate," to use what may be called a technical expression. Fortunately, it is not dead, and present conditions indicate that the Senate of the United States will, at no distant date, advise and consent to its ratification. At the time of signing the second treaty there were Americans interested in the Isle of Pines, who sought to secure its annexation by the United States. There are doubtless Americans still interested in the Isle of Pines, but they have lived so long under the de facto government of the island by the Republic of Cuba, that opposition is not to be expected from them to the renunciation by the United States of any claim to the Isle of Pines. The treaty between Spain and the United States declared in its first article that "Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba." The purpose of the United States was, as expressed in the treaty and otherwise, to hand Cuba over to its people when the American occupation should cease. As the Isle of Pines was always regarded by Spain as an integral part of Cuba, it would have passed by the cession, if the United States had ceded Cuba without any reservation. Therefore, the United States made it a condition of their withdrawal from Cuba, that the Isle of Pines should be omitted from the boundaries of Cuba, and that its status should be determined subsequently, in a treaty to be made between the two countries. The treaty of March 2, 1904, was intended to accomplish that purpose, and will do so if it is ratified. But whether ratified or not, Cuba exercises its sovereignty over the island and will doubtless continue to do so. The proposed treaty therefore has merely a sentimental value, but sentiment is perhaps the strongest bond between nations, as is amply shown by the Treaty of Alliance of February 6, 1778, by which France, our first and only ally, pledged to these United States their independence, and guaranteed them for all time its possession. To understand how the United States should be in a position to 52 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 53 conclude a treaty relinquishing any claim to the Isle of Pines, it is necessary to state some facts and the conclusions to be drawn from them. On the twentieth day of April, 1898, the Congress of the United States passed a joint resolution authorizing the President to expel the Spanish forces from Cuba, and solemnly declaring that "the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said Island except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the Island to its people."1 The land and naval forces of the United States, which the President was authorized by this resolution to use, accomplished the purpose for which it was passed. In the protocol of August 12, 1898, which ended hostilities between the two countries, it was provided that Spain should conclude a treaty containing, among others, the following articles: "Spain will relinquish all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba" [Article I]. "Spain will cede to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies... [Article II].2 The treaty thus contemplated by the protocol was concluded at Paris, December 10, 1898, and contains these provisions as the first and second articles. The United States remained in occupation of Cuba until May 20, 1902, when the American forces were withdrawn and Cuba was turned over to its people. Throughout the four years of occupation, the United States sought to prepare Cuba for self-government, and the Honorable Elihu Root, then Secretary of War, whose duty it was to administer Cuba during this period, had given much time and thought to the conditions upon which the withdrawal should take place. These conditions he set forth, under date of February 9, 1901, in instructions to Major-General Leonard Wood, then Military Governor of Cuba. They were five in number. They were approved by President McKinley, and at the request of the President and Mr. Root, they were, with unimportant changes of phraseology, introduced by Senator Platt as an amendment to the Army Appropriation Bill of March 2, 1901. They were adopted, and were properly known as the "Platt Amendment," from the name of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut proposing them as an amendment to the act of which they formed an integral part. Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Mr. Root's instructions became respectively Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 of the Amendment. Three new articles were added; an article concerning sanitation, at the suggestion of General Wood, became Article 5; Article 6 concerning the Isle of Pines, and Article 8 of the Amendment, requiring further assurance by treaty, were inserted by the Senate Committee on Cuban Relations, of which Senator Platt was chairman. These last two articles were: "That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty" [Article VII. "That by way of further assurance the government of Cuba will 1 Supplement to Revised Statutes of the United States, Vol. 2 (1892-1901), pp. 893-894. 2 Malloy's Treaties, Conventions, etc., Vol. 2, pp. 1688-1689. 54 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba embody the foregoing provisions in a permanent treaty with the United States.." [Article VIII].3 Article 7 of the Amendment is important. It required Cuba to sell or lease to the United States " lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States," in order to "enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense." The Constitutional Convention adopted the Amendment as a part of the Constitution of Cuba, and annexed it to the appendix of that document. The two countries embodied the Platt Amendment in a treaty which they concluded on May 22, 1903, and which contains no other provisions. Therefore, the Platt Amendment is the municipal law of the United States; it is the municipal law of Cuba, and it is the sole subject-matter of a treaty between the two countries. It was apparently the intention of Cuba and of the United States that the provisions of the Platt Amendment should state and define the relations between the two Republics in such a way that neither of them could, without the consent of the other, modify the obligations created by the Amendment; that Cuba could not lessen them without the consent of the United States, and that the United States could not enlarge them without the consent of Cuba; that each of the contracting parties to the treaty could interpret it for itself, but that neither could impose its interpretation upon the other; that differences of interpretation should be reconciled through diplomatic channels, and that in case of a failure to reach an agreement by this method, resort should be had to arbitration, as is the custom between independent and self-respecting nations. Great is the strength of the United States; great should be its generosity toward the lesser nation. Noblesse oblige. Leases were made between the two countries, in accordance with Article 7 of the Amendment; the first, an agreement to lease coaling and naval stations in Guantanamo and Bahia Honda, was signed by President Palma of Cuba, on February 16, and by President Roosevelt on behalf of the United States on February 23, 1903; and the second, including the terms of the lease, was concluded by representatives of the two countries on July 2, and approved by President Roosevelt on October 2, 1903. Cuba had thus complied with the conditions upon which the Government of the United States believed itself justified in withdrawing its forces and remitting Cuba to the government of its people. It will be observed that the provision concerning the Isle of Pines,contained in Article 6 of the Amendment, formed no part of Mr. Root's instructions of February 9, 1901. It appeared for the first time in the draft of the Platt Amendment as it came from the Senate Committee on Cuban Relations. The addition was doubtless due to the fact that Americans had settled in the Isle of Pines and made investments under the belief that it did not form a part of Cuba under Spanish administration, and that the Isle of Pines passed to the United States under the second clause of the protocol of armistice and the second article of the treaty of peace with Spain, by which that country was to cede, and 3 Supplement to Revised Statutes of the United States, Vol. 2 (1892-1901), pp. 1503-1504. Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 55 actually did cede to the United States "the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies." Some color was lent to this contention by the statement under date of August 14, 1899, made by direction of the then Assistant Secretary of War, "that this island [of Pines] was ceded by Spain to the United States, and is, therefore, a part of our territory, although it is attached at present to the division of Cuba for governmental purposes."4 That the measured judgment of the Government of the United States differed radically from the ill-considered opinion of the Assistant Secretary of War, appears from a statement drafted by Secretary of War Root, and which by his direction, General Wood endorsed, February 20, 1903, upon a copy of the Senate Resolution of February 16, 1903: "The government of the Isle of Pines is vested in the Republic of Cuba, pending such final action as may be taken by the United States and Cuba looking to the ultimate disposition of the island."' The majority report of the Committee on Foreign Relations submitting the treaty of March 2, 1904, stated that the relinquishment to Cuba of all title to the Isle of Pines was "in consideration of the grants heretofore made by Cuba to the United States by the treaty with Cuba of February 23, 1903, for coaling and naval stations."6 In a letter to the President of the American Club of the Isle of Pines, West Indies, dated November 27, 1905, and which is included in the report of the majority, Mr. Root, then Secretary of State, said: "In my judgment the United States has no substantial claim to the Isle of Pines. The treaty merely accords to Cuba what is hers in accordance with international law and justice. "At the time of the treaty of peace which ended the war between the United States and Spain the Isle of Pines was and had been for several centuries a part of Cuba. I have no doubt whatever that it continues to be a part of Cuba and that it is not and never has been territory of the United States. This is the view with which President Roosevelt authorized the pending treaty, and Mr. Hay signed it, and I expect to urge its confirmation. Nor would the rejection of the pending treaty put an end to the control of Cuba over the island. A treaty directly contrary to the one now pending would be necessary to do that, and there is not the slightest prospect of such a treaty being made. You may be quite sure that Cuba will never consent to give up the Isle of Pines and that the United States will never try to compel her to give it up against her will."7 The Supreme Court of the United States shared Mr. Root's opinion, as is evident from the case of Pearcy v. Stranahan, 205 United States, 257,8 decided by that august Tribunal in 1907; his opinion is likewise shared by Secretary of State Hughes, who advocates this act of justice; it is finally shared by the Senate of the United States which has favorably reported, and will doubtless ratify the treaty of March 2, 1904. JAMES BROWN SCOTT. 4 Senate Document No. 205, 59th Congress, 1st. sess., p. 117. ' Ibid., p. 217. * Ibid., p. 10. 7 Senate Document No. 205, p. 11. 8 Printed in this JOURNAL, Vol. 1, p. 784. CUBA'S TITLE TO THE ISLE OF PINES As written by Fernando Ortiz of Havana, Cuba, and translated by R. G. Ward of New York City [Published in "The Cuba Review," New York, December, 1924] In a recent editorial of "The New York Times," under the caption, "TITLE TO THE ISLE OF PINES," reference was made to the fact that certain Americans, owning lands on the Isle of Pines, had called upon President Coolidge, at Washington, and told him that it would be a "blot on American history" for the Senate to ratify the pending treaty confirming Cuban sovereignty over that island; which treaty was submitted by President Roosevelt to the American Senate, in 1904, and has already been ratified by the Cuban Government, that approved and accepted it as evidence of good faith on the part of the Government of the United States in its dealings with the Cuban people, to the end that there should be no blot upon American honor, on which that people did, do and must confidently rely; such confidence being more than justified in this particular instance, by the unqualified and unequivocal statement made by Mr. Root, as proclamatory of the attitude of the Government of the United States, which was quoted from in the editorial mentioned, to the effect that he had no doubt whatever that the Isle of Pines was a part of Cuba, and that "it is not and never has been American territory "; adding that "This is the view with which President Roosevelt authorized the pending treaty and Mr. Hay signed it," which treaty reads as follows: "The United States relinquishes in favor of the Republic of Cuba all claim of title to the Island of Pines, situate in the Caribbean Sea, near the southwestern part of the Island of Cuba, which has been or may be made in virtue of Articles I and II of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight." "This relinquishment, on the part of the United States of America, of claim of title to the said Island of Pines, is in consideration of the grants of coaling and naval stations in the Island of Cuba, heretofore made to the United States of America by the Republic of Cuba." "Citizens of the United States of America, who, at the time of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall be residing or holding property in the Island of Pines, shall suffer no diminution of the rights and privileges which they have acquired prior to the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; they may remain there or may remove therefrom, retaining, in either event, all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property, or its proceeds: and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce and profession, being subject, in respect thereof, to such laws as are applicable to other foreigners." It is understood that the committee of American landowners referred to, who called upon President Coolidge to protest against the ratifica56 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 57 tion of the Isle of Pines Treaty, mentioned, claim to have recently discovered documentary evidence which proves conclusively that, prior to the year 1855, the Isle of Pines was governed from the City and Island of Santo Domingo; and that, between that date and the signature of the Treaty of Paris, which terminated the Spanish-American war, it had been governed from Bejucal, located in the Province of Havana, and not from Havana; nor was it included "within the territorial, administrative and political entity of Cuba," as generally understood and accepted! It should be clear that the acceptance of such a contention would apply with equal force to the large islands of Cayo Romano and Savinal, lying on the north coast of Cuba, which, administratively speaking, have been governed from Puerto Principe-now Camagueylocated in the recently renamed Province of Camaguey; and also to the thousand or more smaller islands and islets, comprised within the territorial and political entity of Cuba, which surround that island and, in administrative and judicial matters, are governed from it. The following are the historic and chronological facts applying to the subject, which, under the circumstances, may be both interesting and useful at this time. The Isle of Pines was discovered by Columbus in 1494, during his second voyage; since which time it and some thirteen hundred other small islands and cayos adjacent to the Island of Cuba have been governed by the same authorities that have governed Cuba. Since 1512, beginning with Diego Velasquez, whose authority extended "over Cuba and its dependent isles and keys," Cuba has always had a governor of its own; and, since 1556, Havana has been the recognized capital of the whole of that Island and its outlying insular territory, of which the Isle of Pines has been reckoned as a component area from its discovery. Therefore, except as to Ecclesiastical matters and with reference to judicial appeals from the decisions of the lower Cuban courts to the Audiencia, or Supreme Court of the Spanish West Indies, which was first established at Santo Domingo, Cuba has never been subject in any way to the jurisdiction of that Island. Moreover, in the year 1796 the Audiencia of Santo Domingo ceased functioning, and, on June 30, 1800, the Audiencia of Puerto Principe was created and assumed judicial authority over Cuban territory, this innovation having been forced upon the Spanish Government by the loss of its colony of Santo Domingo as a result of the revolution in Haiti and the invasion of that colony by the Haitian negroes under the command of Toussaint L'Ouverture. From 1800 the Isle of Pines, and all other Cuban territory, was subject to the Audiencia of Puerto Principe, in matters of a judicial character, until, on April 8, of the year 1839, the Real Audiencia of Havana was created, with jurisdiction over the territorial entity of Cuba. Spanish sovereignty over the Island of Santo Domingo having ceased to exist, on the 16th of July, 1804, a Pontifical Decre-transferred the Archbishop from Santo Domingo to Santiago de Cuba, with the title of Primate of the West Indies; consequently, from this time onward, the ecclesiastical authority previously exercised from Santo Domingo over Cuba, including the Isle of Pines, ceased to exist. These have been the only circumstances indicating that the Isle of Pines, as an integer of the territorial entity of Cuba, has ever been subject to the 58 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba Authorities of Santo Domingo! Indeed, the discovery of an Indian Temple on the Isle of Pines, made by the writer, indicates quite clearly that the aborigines of the latter were Ciboneys, and of the same race that occupied the Western portion of the Island of Cuba; while the inhabitants of the Eastern portion of Cuba were Tainos, and, therefore, kin to the aboriginal race of the Island of Santo Domingo, from which came Hatuey, the Indian Chief who led the first serious insurrection against the Spanish Conquistadores, which indicates clearly that, except in matters ecclesiastical and judicial, the Isle of Pines has never been governed from Santo Domingo! All maps of Cuba, beginning with the oldest and including those executed during the sixteenth century, by the best known cartographers, include the Isle of Pines as belonging to Cuba; and this is true of the maps made in the United States, including those officially authorized and recognized by the Government of the United States. Since 1581, the Island of Cuba and its thirteen hundred islets and cayos, including the Isle of Pines, have been governed absolutely independently of Santo Domingo, except in judicial and ecclesiastical matters; for, in that year, the first Captain General of Cuba was appointed by the Spanish Government with ample powers covering the Island of Cuba and all contiguous islands. From this time dates the white colonization of the Isle of Pines, by fishermen, cow-herders, woodcutters and charcoal-burners from Cuba, until, in 1596, Drake and his marauders were tempted to sack and pillage the island; and, because of this invasion of his territory, Don Juan Maldonado Barnuevo, the then Captain General of Cuba, dispatched a squadron, under the command of Admiral Delgadillo, which dispersed, from the waters surrounding the Isle of Pines, the ships of Drake, who had recently died. In the year 1765 Count de Ricla, then Captain General of Cuba, created the "partido de la Isla de Pinos," naming a functionary to care for the public order of the district, to be known as the "Capitan Pedaneo." In 1773, another Captain General of Cuba, the Marques de la Torre by name, ordered that the inhabitants of the Isle of Pines should pay an annual tax in cattle for the sustenance of the City of Havana; which was confirmed in 1776 and demonstrates that the first taxes paid by the residents of the Isle of Pines were imposed by the Government of Cuba. The first census of the population of Cuba was taken in 1774, and included the inhabitants of the Isle of Pines, who then numbered only seventy-eight (78) persons. In 1797, the then Captain General of Cuba, Bassecourt by name, sent Captain Tirry, of the Spanish Navy, to the Isle of Pines to study the matter of colonizing that island. A similar study was ordered in the year 1823 by the then Captain General of Cuba, Vives by name; the report of which study was approved by that Captain General and also by the then King of Spain, who, by a decree dated August 1, 1828, provided that the Colonia de la Reina Amalia should be founded in the Isle of Pines and governed from the City of Havana by a subdelegate who should reside in the Isle of Pines; thus demonstrating that the Isle of Pines was in fact a Spanish Colony subject, administratively, to the Government of Cuba, domiciled in the City of Havana. This Colonia Amalia in the Isle of Pines, had a church, which was subject to the Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 59 curate of the town of Quivican, located in the Province of Havana; also a military commandante, a lieutenant of marine, a justice of the peace, an agent of the Treasury, a public hospital, a guard of soldiers and a gunboat, all of which were subordinate to their respective authorities at Havana. Since 1830 the Cuban authorities sent criminals to the Isle of Pines; and sometimes Cubans suspected of revolutionary affiliations who, however, could not be lawfully sent beyond the limits of Cuban territory: but, as the Isle of Pines was recognized as Cuban territory the Captains General were enabled to banish unruly Cuban patriots from the Island of Cuba to the Isle of Pines without committing any official or legal violations. During the term of one of the Captains General of Cuba, extending from 1823 to 1832, the territory of Cuba was divided into Three Military Departments, known as the Eastern, Central and Western Departments; the Isle of Pines being included in the Western Department. Its inhabitants were also included in the Cuban census of 1827, and it is shown as Cuban territory in an official map executed under the orders of the same authority. Furthermore, the map of Cuba, made in 1829 by Laborde, shows the Isle of Pines as belonging to the Provincia Maritima de la Havana, of which province that island, with all of its adjacent cayos, constituted the "Fifth District," in charge of the Lieutenant of Marine residing thereon. In the year 1880, the Isle of Pines was constituted a municipality which has been since known as the "Municipio de Nueva Gerona;" and when Major-General Brooks took possession of Cuba in behalf of the Government of the United States, on the 1st of January, 1899, the Municipality of the Isle of Pines continued belonging to the Province of Havana, under authority of the Cuban governor of that province. Moreover, the census of 1899, that was taken by the War Department of the Government of the United States, includes the Isle of Pines as a part of Cuba, in the sense of its geographical and political entity. In 1900, the "Pineros," or natives of the Isle of Pines voted for Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, which, at the instance of General Wood, drafted the Constitution of the Cuban Republic, for whose National Independence those Pineros had fought, in common with all other Cuban patriots; General Fitzhugh Lee having testified that, when visiting the Isle of Pines in 1899, that he encountered there a squad of the "soldiers of liberty" under the command of a captain, all of whom had done service in the small but heroic armies of "Cuba Libre." Politically the Isle of Pines has always been subject to Havana; which is verified by the fact that, in every election, past and present, it has voted conjointly with the citizens of the Province of Havana on all matters of public interest. Bejucal, through which the American landowners on the Isle of Pines, mentioned,are said to claim that that Island has heretofore been governed Jrom Santo Domingo, and not from Havana, is a municipality located in the southern part of the Province of Havana, in the Island of Cuba. Prior to the development of Guines and Batabano, Bejucal was the principal center of wealth in that part of the Island of Cuba; and it was from there that people sailed for the Isle of Pines, as well as for Jamaica and other islands located in the Caribbean 60 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba Sea, including points on the South Coast of Cuba. But Bejucal has never been the seat of government for the Isle of Pines. It is true, however, that, since 1855, and until recently, the Isle of Pines formed part of the Judicial District of Bejucal; but this does not signify that the authorities at Havana did not have jurisdiction over the Isle of Pines: for the Audiencia, or Supreme Court of Havana was certainly superior to the judge at Bejucal, just as that judge in turn would be superior to the justice of peace in the Isle of Pines. The Isle of Pines and Municipality of Bejucal have both belonged to and formed a part of the Province of Havana since Cuba was subdivided into Six Provinces, in the year 1879; just as both had previously belonged to and formed a part of the Western Department of Cuba. Or, in other words, the Isle of Pines and Municipality of Bejucal had aways been subject to the superior authorities of Havana in political, judicial, military, administrative, fiscal, and ecclesiastical matters. To say that the Isle of Pines does not belong to and form a part of Cuba, because it has, in judicial matters only, been administered in part from Bejucal and not from Havana, would be to contend that Staten Island does not belong to or form a part of the United States, because its local affairs are administered from New York. The jurisdiction and authority of the Captains General of Cuba extended from Havana to and over all of the thirteen hundred or more islands in the vicinity of that Island; for Havana was the centering point of the fleets of Spanish merchantmen and ships of war that kept the mother country in touch with its rich colonies in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and the West Indian Islands: indeed they extended over Florida, which included also Louisiana up to the year 1769, when that territory was ceded to France. In view of these puissant facts is it reasonably possible, or at all probable, that the Isle of Pines was the one area not covered by such authority or included within such territorial jurisdiction? These facts should certainly prove that the Isle of Pines has always been, is, and should be regarded as Cuban territory! Why, then, should anyone of intelligence question the fact? At this point the following quotation, from the fourth edition of Wm. Edward Hall's "Treatise on International Law," published at London in 1895, before the Spanish-American War and the resulting Treaty of Paris gave occasion to question the territorial integrity of Cuba, is both pertinent and worthy of consideration. In discussing the "Territorial Property of a State," he says that "it comprises the whole area of land or water included within the definite boundaries ascertained by occupation, prescription, or treaty-together with a certain margin of water-when such area abuts upon the sea"; adding that "certain physical peculiarities of coasts, in various parts of the world, where lands impinge upon the sea in an unusual manner, require to be noticed as affecting the territorial boundary," and concludes by saying: "To take a specific case. On the south coast of Cuba the Archipelago de los Canarrios stretches from sixty to eighty miles from the mainland to La Isla de Pinos, its length from the Jardines Bank to Cape Frances is over a hundred miles. It is enclosed partly by some islands, but mainly by banks, which are always awash, yet upon which, as the tides are very slight, the depth of water is at no time sufficient to permit of navigation; spaces along these banks, many miles in length, are unbroken Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 61 by a single inlet; the water is uninterrupted, but access to the interior gulf or sea is impossible. At the western end there is a strait, twenty miles or so in width, but not more than six miles of channel intervene between two banks which rise to within seven or eight feet from the surface, and which do not consequently admit of the passage of seagoing vessels. In cases of this sort the question whether the interior waters are, or are not, lakes enclosed within the territory, must always depend upon the banks, and the width of the entrances. Each must be judged upon its own merits. But, in the instance cited, there can be little doubt that the whole Archipelago de los Canarrios is a mere salt water lake, and that the boundary of the land of Cuba runs along the exterior edge of the banks," which includes the Isle of Pines! The protocol of agreement of August 12, 1898, outlining the basis of peace between the United States and Spain, stipulates: Article I.-Spain will relinquish all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba. Article II.-Spain will cede to the United States the Island of Porto Rico, and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and also an island in the Ladrones, to be selected by the United States. And the treaty of peace, ratified on April 11, 1899, contains the following: Article I.-Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba. Article II.-Spain cedes to the United States the Island of Porto Rico, and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the Island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones. What were these other islands? They were La Mona and other small islands near Porto Rico! But the claim, put forth by the American landowners on the Isle of Pines, referred to, would indicate that the United States had acquired all of the islands of the Spanish West Indies, except the Island of Cuba, several of which, such as the Isle of Pines, Cayo Romano and Cayo Sabinal, have areas larger than that of the Virgin Islands, recently purchased by the United States from Denmark-and this, too, without consideration of the geographical, historial and political accepted facts related thereto! Certainly such a construction of the language of the protocol and treaty quoted is as applicable to any and all of these "other islands" as it is to the Isle of Pines, if no consideration is to be given to the facts mentioned; all of which can be readily verified by anyone who will take the trouble to make the necessary research in any of the best known libraries of the United States. A decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, rendered by Chief Justice Fuller, on April 8, 1908, in the case of Pearcy vs. Stranahan, which made the same claims, supported by substantially the same arguments now presented by the American landowners on the Isle of Pines, demonstrates conclusively that such contention as to the legal status of that island is absolutely erroneous, and that the word "Cuba" contained in the Protocol and Treaty of Peace, mentioned, signifies the political entity that was comprehended under Spanish Sovereignty, up to the year-1898; and states that, "in view of the joint resolution of April 20, 1898 (demanding that the Government of Spain relinquish its authority and government in the Island of Cuba, and 62 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters) it seems clear that the Isle of Pines was not supposed to be one of the 'other islands' ceded by 'Article II' of the Treaty of Paris: concluding that, "as the United States has never taken possession of the Isle of Pines, and as it has been and is being governed by the Republic of Cuba, it has remained foreign territory within the meaning of the "laws of the United States." This decision also mentions that "on or about August 14, 1899, the United States War Department, in an official letter, stated that, "the Isle of Pines was ceded to the United States, and is, therefore, a part of our territory"; and also that certain "maps and other data, prepared and issued by the General Land Office of the Department of the Interior, indicate the Isle of Pines as United States territory": but adds that "we do not regard (these matters) as seriously affecting the conclusion that the Executive has consistently acted on the determination that the United States had no substantial claim to the Isle of Pines, under the Treaty" of Paris. On March 2, 1901, the so-called "Platt Amendments" to the proposed Cuban Constitution were promulgated, and embodied in the Army Appropriation Act; Article VI reading as follows: "That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba; the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." It is idle and useless to speculate as to the reasons or motives for the insertion of this Article in those Amendments. At the time that article was inserted in such Amendments, it was the opinion of Senor Gonzalo de Quesada, the first Minister from Cuba to Washington, that it was thought in the United States that the Isle of Pines might serve as a naval base in the Caribbean; or, in any event, as a diplomatic lever in effecting the then pending negotiations looking to the acquisition of territory surrounding the Bays of Guantanamo and Bahia Honda as a Naval and Coaling Station, for which purpose it was actually utilized. The First and Second Articles of the pending and unratified treaty state specifically that "The United States of America relinquishes, in favor of the Republic of Cuba, all claim (not right) of title to the Isle of Pines which has been or may be made, in virtue of Articles I and III of the Treaty of Paris"; and that "This relinquishment, on the part of the United States of America, of claim (not right) of title to said Isle of Pines, is in consideration of the grants of Coaling and Naval Stations in the Island of Cuba, heretofore made to the United States by the Republic of Cuba": which stations are now, and since July 2, 1903, have been actually in the possession of the United States, although Cuba has not yet received the " consideration " for which they were specifically granted. On November 27, 1905, the Hon. Elihu Root, then Secretary of State, replying to a communication from the President of the American Club of the Isle of Pines, stated that: "The Island is lawfully subject to the control and Government of the Republic of Cuba, and you and your associates are bound to render obedience to the laws of that country so long as you remain in the island. If you fail in that obedience you will be justly liable to prosecution in the Cuban Courts, and to such punishment as may be provided by the laws of Cuba for such offenses as you commit. You are not likely to have any greater power in the future. The Treaty now pending before the Senate, if approved by that body, will relinquish all claim of the United States to the Isle Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 63 of Pines. In my judgment the United States has no substantial claim to the Isle of Pines. The Treaty merely accords to Cuba what is hers, in accordance with international law and justice. At the time of the Treaty of Peace, which ended the war between the United States and Spain, the Isle of Pines was, and had been for centuries, a part of Cuba. I have no doubt whatever that it continues to be a part of Cuba, and that it is not and never has been territory of the United States. This is the view with which President Roosevelt authorized the pending Treaty, and Mr. Hay signed it, and I expect to urge its ratification. Nor would the rejection of the pending Treaty put an end to the control of Cuba over the Island. A Treaty directly contrary to the one now pending would be necessary to do that, and there is not the slightest prospect of such a Treaty being made. You may be quite sure that Cuba will never consent to give up the Isle of Pines, and that the United States will never try to compel her to give it up against her will." In the year of 1906, former President and now Chief Justice Taft, when Provisional Governor of Cuba, stated that it would be "absolutely impossible to recognize for one moment that the Isle of Pines is not completely under the jurisdiction of the Provisional Government of Cuba," and added that any action on its part, looking to the separation of the Isle of Pines from Cuba, "would be a violation of a sacred trust," On February 20, 1903, General Leonard Wood, then Military Governor of Cuba, wrote to Mr. Root, then Secretary of War, as follows: "All Americans in the island (Isle of Pines) are living under exactly the same conditions as other foreigners, and, if they comply with the laws in force, it is safe to say that they will not have any difficulty or need any protection. At the time these people purchased property in that island they understood distinctly that the question of ownership of the Isle of Pines was one pending settlement and in locating there they took the risks incident to the situation." Finally we have the authority of Mr. James Brown Scott, the writer of a well considered article favoring the ratification of the pending Treaty that was published in The American Journal of International Law for January, 1923, for believing that the Hon. Charles E Hughes is in complete accord with his illustrious predecessors, mentioned, with reference to the political and legal status of the Isle of Pines; which, it is hoped, the foregoing amply demonstrates, has always been, is, and always will be, an integral part of Cuba! Surely no higher authorities can be cited in justification of that hope; and, in concluding, it may be stated, as an axiomatic truth, that no intelligent Cuban questions its ultimate realization: although some doubts may be justly entertained as to the wisdom of its long deferment. We Cubans recognize that the Platt Amendments, and the Treaties resulting herefrom, give to the United States special rights in relation to the affairs of Cuba; but we also believe that these same rights carry, and impose upon the United States, corresponding duties: and the interest of both peoples, including the continued development of those cordial and inspiring bonds of sympathetic consideration that should unite them, demand that the United States perform its duties towards a weaker but confiding people. In face of the above cited facts, the continued postponement of the ratification of the pending Treaty of the Isle of Pines, by the American Senate, is an inexplicable enigma to the Cuban people, who have here-... 64 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba tofore had, and want always to have, a boundless confidence in the high purposes, unselfishness, sense of justice and good faith of the people and Government of the United States, in all of their dealings and relations with the people and Government of Cuba. Why, then, should such an irritating thorn be left indefinitely to fester in the Cuban flesh, and thus contribute to lessen, if not actually to destroy, that confidence and faith? We Cubans feel that it is not alone a matter of honor and good faith, but also of wisdom and good policy, that it should not be! For it is unquestionably a provocative and justifying cause of AntiAmericanism in Cuba. THE ISLE OF PINES TREATY BY FREDERIC J. HASKIN [This article appeared in a large number of newspapers in the United States, Dec. 12 to 15, 1924] Washington, D. C.-What is the mysterious power or influence that has kept the United States Senate from ratifying the famous Isle of Pines treaty for more than twenty years? Or is it possible that there is nothing at all mysterious about it and that the treaty has been held up in the ordinary legislative processes of the Senate? No prizes are being offered for the best answers to these questions, but a lot of people are asking the questions and would appreciate authoritative answers. They regard it as extraordinary, to say the least, that a treaty should hang fire in the Senate for almost a quarter of a century, especially when the treaty has been reported favorably from time to time by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and has had the backing of five Presidents and every Secretary of State since it was negotiated by the late John Hay. The treaty is most frequently described as one that cedes the Isle of Pines to Cuba. That is an error. To cede, the United States would have to own or possess, and the island has been under the Cuban flag since May 20, 1902. In reality, the treaty is one to clear title, for by its terms this country "relinquishes in favor of the Republic of Cuba all claim of title to the Island of Pines which has been or may be made in virtue of Articles I and II of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain." Furthermore, the treaty declares that "this relinquishment, on the part of the United States, of claim of title to the said Isle of Pines, is in consideration of the grants of coaling and naval stations in the Island of Cuba heretofore made to the United States of America by the Republic of Cuba." Thus the United States is in the somewhat embarrassing position of a debtor who does not pay his debts although he is abundantly able to do so. We accepted something extremely valuable and highly desirable from Cuba, and in turn agreed to give Cuba something that really was already hers, and then we failed to make good our agreement. We have refused steadfastly to yield the "quid" for the "quo." Naturally Cuba is a bit "het up" over the matter, and it is said that other Latin-American countries are almost equally excited about it, feeling that since the United States has broken faith with Cuba other covenants may be treated as scraps of paper. That is not quite fair, however, for the United States has deprived Cuba of nothing of actual value. Cuba has enjoyed all the benefits there may be in possessing and governing the Isle of Pines. The Republic isn't even in the position of a man who wants to clear the title of a piece of real estate in order to sell it, for the Isle of Pines isn't for sale, and never will be. The record in this matter is an interesting one. By the Treaty of Peace, Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba, with the understanding that it was to be, at the proper time 65 66 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba turned over to the government and control of its own people. The Isle of Pines, up to that time, had always been regarded as a part of Cuba. However, when Congress adopted the Platt Amendment which was to enable the Cubans to paddle their own canoe the provision was incorporated in it that "the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." In 1903 two treaties were negotiated with Cuba-one by which the coaling and naval stations at Guantanamo and Bahia Honda were leased to the United States, and the other what was in effect a quit claim deed to the Isle of Pines. The first was ratified by the Senate1, but the second failed ratification. March 2, 1904, a second treaty relinquishing claim to title to the Isle of Pines was negotiated, and it is the one now pending. It was first reported favorably from the Foreign Affairs Committee by the late Senator Foraker, of Ohio, in February, 1906. Three times it has been sent back to the committee. Meanwhile a considerable number of Americans, perhaps 10,000 in all, purchased land in the Isle of Pines, and several hundred of them have gone there to live. They claim that they acquired the property under the representation that the Island belonged to the United States, and they have always insisted that the United States should assert sovereignty rather than relinquish claim to title. And, just to add. to the mystery about this Isle of Pines business, it may be pointed out that there's nothing to be gained by deferring action on the treaty or defeating ratification In 1905, Elihu Root, as Secretary of State, said he had no doubt that the island was a part of Cuba, and that it was not and never had been territory of the United States, and then he added: "Nor would the rejection of the pending treaty put an end to the control of Cuba over the island. A treaty directly contrary to the one now pending would be necessary to do that, and there is not the slightest prospect of such a treaty being made. You may be quite sure that Cuba will never consent to give up the Isle of Pines and the United States will never try to compel her to give it up against her will." Two years after Mr. Root expressed that opinion the Supreme Court decided in a customs case that the island was a part of Cuba and that its de facto government was that of Cuba. In the face of all this it is amazing not only that opposition to the treaty should be so effective, but that there should be any opposition at all. As Capt. Elbridge Colby says: "The real issue is not whether Cuba owns it (the island), but whether or not an area like this is worth the creation of international friction. We can not presume to seize and place under our flag every piece of real estate here or there throughout the world which happens to be in American hands. It is furthermore absolutely certain that whatever prospects of strategic value for naval operations the Isle of Pines may have had, it has practically none now." 1 The ratifications were exchanged without the action of the United States Senate, by the Presidents of the United States and Cuba, in viture of the provision (Art. VII of the Act of Congress of March 2, 1901) that the lease of said stations was "to be agreed upon with the President of the United States" (Senate doc. 166, 68th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 305-312). THE ISLE OF PINES [Extract from "Cuba and the Intervention," by Albert G. Robinson, New York, 1905, pages 319-3221 Article VI of the Platt Amendment declares that "The Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the boundaries of Cuba specified in the Constitution, the title and ownership thereof to be left to future adjustment by treaty." The basis of America's gossamer claim to the Isle of Pines, the ownership of which is thus to be determined, rests in a distorted interpretation of the letter of the Treaty of Paris. In its reference to the cession of the Philippine Islands, that instrument defines by lines of latitude and longitude the territory ceded. In its reference to the West Indian territory, it is less explicit. Article I declares that "Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba." There can be no doubt that in the mind of the Commissioners this relinquishment included the chain of islands and keys which almost surrounds the main island, and which has always been held and regarded as part and parcel of Spain's Cuban colony. Presumably, Article I disposes of the Cuban area. Article II refers to Porto Rico, and states that "Spain cedes to the United States the Island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies."... No reasonable ground exists for any doubt that the Islands thus referred to were Mona, Viequez, and Culebra, all of them in Porto Rican waters. It is a fair supposition that if the American Commissioners had laid claim to that which had always been held and regarded as part and parcel of Cuba's territory, such area would not have been surrendered without vigorous protest and prolonged discussion. There is no ground whatever for any belief that American ownership of the Isle of Pines even entered the minds of the Commissioners, either Spanish or American. Yet, under this reference to the "other islands under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies," interested parties set up the claim to the Isle of Pines. Such an interpretation would also give to the United States Cayo Romano, Cayo Coco, the Jardines de la Reina, and all the hundreds of small islands off the Cuban coast, a step never intended by any of the parties to the relinquishment of Cuba and the cession of Porto Rico and "other islands." The total area of these small islands is greater than that of the Isle of Pines. But they are worthless, strategically, and practically valueless industrially.. Politically, geographically, and legally, by several centuries of legal and political affiliation, the Isle of Pines belongs to Cuba as Nantucket belongs to the United States, and as the Isle of Wight belongs to England. It is in no way to our credit that an attempt has been made to filch it from her. Without the expenditure of a vast amount of money, it is strategically worthless, and there exist neither legal nor moral grounds upon which we can lay claim to it without laying ourselves open to charges of "criminal aggression" so vigorously reprobated by Mr. McKinley. * * * * * * *6 67 EDITORIALS OF THE PRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, I905 TO I924 At different times leading newspapers of the United States have urged, in their editorial columns, that the treaty with Cuba relative to the Isle of Pines be ratified. It is manifestly impossible to search through the files of hundreds of newspapers to discover all or any great number of the editorials of this nature which may have been published therein. Those printed in the following pages, while they are only a few, are nevertheless representative of the opinion of the press of both the great political parties of the United States. The "New York Times," the "New York Tribune,." the New York "Sun," the "Boston Evening Transcript," the "Washington Post," "The State," Columbia, S. C., are the group of nationally important papers from which the editorials which follow have been taken. The consensus of opinion which they express is: a valuable and eloquent testimony in support of the treaty. THE ISLE OF PINES [Editorial of the "New York Tribune," November 16, 1905] There is a suggestion of significance in the simultaneous appearance of two reports concerning the Isle of Pines. One is that the American residents of that island have issued a "declaration of independence" and have seceded from Cuba. The other is that a syndicate of " sporting men" proposes to make the island a "second Monte Carlo"; to wit, a winter pleasure; and especially gambling, resort. The public will await with some curiosity a revelation of the possible relationship between the two. Meantime, it may be worth while to consider briefly the attitude of this country toward the Isle of Pines.: The Treaty of Paris of 1898, provided that Spain should relinquish all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba, and should cede to the United States. Porto Rico and other islands then under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies. As the; Isle of Pines had for centuries been politically a part of Cuba, it was generally assumed that it was included with Cuba in the Spanish renunciation, and that the "other islands" ceded toa the United States were Mona, Culebra and the others adjacent to Porto Rico. Some persons, however, seem to have thought, and profess to have acted on the theory, that the Isle of Pines was separated from Cuba and was ceded to the United States. The former view, however, prevailed at Washington. When American occupation of Cuba was ended the Isle of Pines was turned over to the Cuban Government, just the same as Cuba itself. It was, it is true, provided in the Platt Amendment that the Isle of Pines should be omitted from the constitutional boundaries of Cuba, and the title thereto be left to future adjustment by treaty. It seems probable that our Government then had in view acquisition of the island for use as a coaling and naval station. But it presently secured two such stations in Cuba itself, at 68 Iste of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 69 Guantanamo and Bahia Honda. Then, finally, in July, 1903, the6 treaty called for by the Platt Amendment was made by the United States and Cuba, specifically confirming Cuba's title to the island. That treaty was signed and was ratified by the Cuban Senate, but has not yet been ratified by the United States Senate. Such is the story of the Isle of Pines. There are some American settlers, some of them with considerable interests on that island. The census of 1899, we believe, showed the presence of "2,990 Cubans, 195 Spaniards and 14 others"-the "others" comprising the Americans. Since then other Americans have gone thither, but it does not seem credible that they are sufficiently numerous to entitle them to speak in the name of the people of the island; while if, as it is said, they went thither under the supposition that the island was and would remain the property of the United States, they have themselves chiefly to blame for their mistake. We can perceive no ground whatever that the United States Government has given for such a notion. It is to be assumed, therefore, that unless there is far stronger justification for the reported action of the Americans on the Isle of Pines the present incident will receive no official countenance and will in no degree cause the United States Government to swerve from the policy it has adopted. THE ISLE OF PINES [Editorial of the "New York Times," November 16, 1905] The "secession" from Cuba of a few American residents of the Isle of Pines is an incident of which National good faith and self-respect, we think, will compel the Government at Washington to take, not approving, but adverse notice. There was never any just occasion for raising any question about the Isle of Pines. Our Peace Commissioners at Paris evidently entertained no doubt whatever about its status as an integral part of the Island of Cuba. The treaty of peace with Spain contained in its first article this provision: "Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba." It was further provided that the island was to be occupied by the United States, assuming obligations with respect to the island and its people that were specifically "limited to the time of its occupancy." But Article 2 declares that "Spain cedes to the United States the Island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies." The status created for us in respect to Cuba was that of trustee; in respect to Porto Rico it was that of sovereign. Under this Article 2 all the trouble has arisen. Advantage was at once taken of the phrase "other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies." American promoters in the Isle of Pines who very much desired its annexation to the United States, attempted to import into these words of the treaty a meaning which there never was the slightest reason to suppose was entertained by the Peace Commissioners at Paris. The Isle of Pines was politically a part of the Province of Havana. All old or recent maps, Spanish, German, French, American, and English, upon which the provinces are distinguished the one from the other by different colors show the Isle of Pines colored as a part of 70 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba Havana Province. It lies so near to the mainland that it was once stated that at low tide an adult cow in good health might easily swim the channel. It would be as absurd to exempt Long Island from any convention concerning the United States, or to exempt Ireland from inclusion under the phrase the United Kingdom, as it is to insist that the Isle of Pines could be lawfully and properly detached from Cuba under a treaty provision manifestly relating to islands near Porto Rico. Mr. Root has taken decided ground against those who have raised the Isle of Pines question. But the interested American promoters got a hearing in Congress, and the Platt Amendment, which was later adopted as a part of the Cuban Constitution, provided that "the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." The Cuban Constitution adopted by the convention of February, 1901, says: "The territory of the Republic is composed of the Island of Cuba as well as the adjacent islands and keys which together therewith were under the sovereignty of Spain until the ratification of the treaty of Paris on Dec. 10, 1898." The appendix of the Constitution, however, which included the terms of the Platt Amendment qualifying the sovereignty of Cuba, contained this article: "The Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the boundaries of Cuba specified in the Constitution, the ownership thereof being left to future adjustment by treaty." As an incident of our negotiation for naval stations upon the Island of Cuba a treaty was drawn up establishing the status of the Isle of Pines as Cuban territory under the sovereignty of the Havana Government. This treaty has been ratified by Cuba, but remains to be acted upon by the United States Senate. In organizing themselves into a "territory" of the United States the pushing gentlemen who have invested their money and established their domicile in the Isle of Pines appear to be trying to force the hand of the Senate. If justice prevails, if the right thing is done, they will discover that they have succeeded, but contrary to their hopes. Good faith demands that the treaty should be ratified, confirming Cuba's title to her own island, in accordance with the evident intent of the authors of the Paris treaty. THE ISLE OF PINES TREATY IN THE SENATE [Editorial of the "New York Sun," January 27, 1906] The Isle of Pines treaty has been reported from committee in its original form; but this is neither an assurance that it will receive prompt ratification nor a promise that it will be ratified without being amended. There is no excuse for further delay in this matter. It has been a source of friction for several years. The pending treaty was signed by the representatives of the two governments on July 2, 1903, two and a half years ago. Two years and two months have passed since it was read in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The obstacle to its ratification has been a little band of land speculators who succeeded in convincing themselves that the island was American territory under the Treaty of Paris, or that it could be brought under American authority by political agitation. They have circulated acres Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 71 of untenable argument in support of American ownership and other acres of nonsensical wailings about their "rights" and the fearful danger to their interests under the government of "an inferior people." The great body of Americans who desire honorable action by this Government need have no hesitation in basing their view of this question on the published statement of the Hon. Elihu Root, who probably knows a little more about the whole matter than any other man in either the United States, Cuba or the Isle of Pines. He says: "In my judgment the United States has no substantial claim to the Isle of Pines. The treaty merely accords to Cuba what is hers in accordance with international law and justice." In his view that the island "is not and never has been territory of the United States" Secretary Root has the support of President Roosevelt. As for the safety of the life and property of those who have seen fit to take up their residence in the island, or to invest their money in land as speculating non-residents, there is not the slightest cause for alarm. In the propaganda carried on by these timorous mortals there is frequent reference to the "vested property interests of more than 2,000 American citizens." It is possible that there are 400 Americans, including men, women and children, resident on the island. They appear to live in a state of terrible agony lest, in the language of their local paper, the Isle of Pines Appeal, they be "sold or given away to foreign masters as are the swine in their native land." Admitting the existence of a community of 400 Americans, including infants in arms, it may be said that there are probably a good many more than ten times that number of Americans resident on the Cuban mainland. At a colony called La Gloria, near Nuevitas, on the north coast, there is a seven-year-old town of about 1,000 Americans. There is a smaller group at Ciego de Avila, while smaller colonies and individual settlers are to be found dotting the island of Cuba from Cape Antonio to Cape Maysi. There is a large and thriving American club in Havana, and there is no city or town of importance where Americans may not be found in greater or less number obeying the laws, minding their business and with fair success catching the nimble dollar. The largest and finest residence in the island is now being erected by an American. American life is as safe in Cuba or the Isle of Pines as it is in Florida or Iowa. The entire cash investment in Isle of Pines property represents probably less than 2 per cent of the total of American investment in Cuba. Article X of the Cuban Constitution guarantees to foreigners residing within the territory of the republic all the rights and privileges which are accorded to aliens resident in any country. An article in the pending treaty provides that residents and property holders in the Isle of Pines "shall suffer no diminution of the rights and privileges" there acquired. A review of Cuba's Constitution, articles X to XXIV inclusive, will show that the pending treaty might properly and safely be abridged to the mere declaration of relinquishment of all claim to title by the United States. This treaty should be promptly ratified after excising the second article, which declares that the relinquishment is made in consideration of the grants of coaling and naval stations. We should not make something that does not belong to us a basis for a trade for something 72 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba that has already been given us. The treaty should be ratified without making it conditional upon.concessions to the American settlers of larger political or other rights and privileges than those possessed and enjoyed by the Cubans themselves or by the scores of thousands of foreigners, Americans, Spaniards and others, resident on the mainland. The treaty has been held up long enough. A JUNKET TO CUBA [Editorial of the "New York Sun," March 24, 1906] Senator Morgan has introduced a resolution providing for the appointment of a committee of seven Senators to visit the Isle of Pines and make a thorough inquiry concerning the conditions there. This is a most excellent idea-for the committee-but no time should be wasted. If the excursion is delayed, it will not be so excellent an ideafor the committee. In the course of a few weeks it will be hotter than blazes down there. There is no doubt that seven, or even five or nine, grave and reverend Senators, after carefully inspecting the soil of the island, drinking from its medicinal springs and inhaling the vivifying ozone of its atmosphere, could decide at once whether it is American or Cuban territory. There is only one better suggestion than that made by Senator Morgan; that is, that the island be sent up to Washington, where all could see it. The cost of a junket for seven need not exceed $1,500, but it would be so much more effective and novel to spend a little more money and bring the island to Washington. The question of the political ownership of the Isle of Pines is not a physical question. It makes no difference what the island looks like or smells like. It makes no difference whether it is valuable or economically worthless. Every record of every kind, political and geographical, shows that the Isle of Pines has for four hundred years been as much a part of Cuba as Long Island is a part of the State of New York. When Spain, by Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris, relinquished "all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba," she no more segregated and ceded to the United States the Isle of Pines than she segregated and ceded the Province of Havana or the judicial district of Bejucal, of both of which political divisions the island has for many years formed a part. The term "Cuba" in that article embraces the Isle of Pines as definitely as it embraces Cayo Romano or Morro Castle. To take the island from Cuba under the shadowy claim which has been set up would be a national disgrace compared with which the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo would stand as an act of benevolence to Mexico. To impose upon Cuba any terms under which we agree to relinquish our claim to something that is not and never was ours would be an offence to national morality. A great deal of nonsense has been talked about this matter, and a lot of sympathy has been wasted on certain speculators, most of whom knew when their investment was made that title to the island was in suspense. They played their game and took their chances. The talk of jeopardy to American life and property is silly. Both are as secure Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 73 in the Isle of Pines as they are on the main island, where probably twenty times as many Americans reside and where fifty or more times the amount of money is invested. The Platt Amendment, declaring the title in suspense, was adopted on June 12, 1901, after a struggle of four months. Six months after that there was held a national election in which the citizens of the island participated, under American authority and American auspices, as did the people of the main island. The Pineros were represented in the Constitutional Convention, held under American auspices, of 1900-1. For nearly three years the island has been left under full Cuban control. Most of the investment, and most of the settlement, has been made since it was clearly known that title was in suspense and since the recognition by the United States of the de facto Cuban Government. Let us give Cuba what belongs to her, free from any conditions, and have done with it. If she maltreats or robs any of our people who have gone there to live, there are plenty of ways by which we can get even with her. THE ISLE OF PINES [Editorial of the "Washington Post," April 9, 1907] The Supreme Court of the United States disposes of the dispute over the title to the Isle of Pines by deciding that the United States never attempted to exercise control over the island, and that, being regarded as a part of Cuba, it was transferred to the Cuban Republic when the United States withdrew from the island in 1902. This decision is contrary to the view held by some of the best lawyers of the Senate, who quoted the instructions of Secretary of War Root and other papers to show that the United States did assume possession of the Isle of Pines and regarded it as one of the islands ceded to it by Spain. The Senate has not ratified the treaty with Cuba determining the title of the Isle of Pines, but it will probably ratify the treaty without hesitation, since the Supreme Court sustains Secretary Root in the view that the Isle of Pines is not and never was American territory. The treaty provides that the United States shall relinquish all claim to the Isle of Pines in exchange for coaling stations in Cuba. As these stations were long ago turned over and are now occupied by the United States, there is no particular reason why the treaty should not be ratified. The Americans residing in the Isle of Pines must now face the prospect of living under a foreign flag. They made a gallant fight to be retained under the Stars and Stripes, and without question they honestly believed, when they went to the island, that it was American territory. In spite of the somewhat harrowing stories told of Cuban incompetence and malice in administration, the lot of the Americans in the Isle of Pines need not be unhappy. They are in a delightful climate, with a fruitful soil, and adjacent to good markets. No serious infringement of their rights is likely, and if there should be, they have the same assurance of protection as is given to every other American in a foreign land, and this is more than it used to be. 74 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba RATIFY THE ISLE OF PINES TREATY [Editorial of "The State," Columbia, S. C., March 26, 1924] [The Editor of this paper is the Hon. William E. Gonzales, who was United States Minister to Cuba for a number of years] It is rumored in Washington that the treaty between Cuba and the United States definitely settling the ownership of the Isle of Pines and signed twenty years ago by Gonzalo de Quesada for Cuba and John Hay for the United States, but which the Senate at Washington failed to ratify, is about to be withdrawn from a musty pigeonhole and again presented to the Senate, with the indorsement of the Foreign Relations Committee. Since its discovery by Columbus the Isle of Pines has been part of Cuba. No one familiar with the facts bearing upon the question has any doubt on that point. That a treaty was considered desirable in order that the United States might declare its attitude toward the Isle of Pines was due to ambiguity in the wording of our treaty with Spain by which her possessions in the West Indies were ceded to this country. Opposition to this treaty had its origin in the fact that about the time the government was turned over to the Cubans, land speculators from the Middle West bought tens of thousands of acres on the Isle of Pines for 25 to 50 cents an acre, and sold it off to Westerners for fruit growing under the guarantee it was "American territory." The purchasers and their descendants claimed the United States should violate its moral pledge to turn over Cuba to the Cubans, and to generally break faith in order to make good the fraudulent guarantee of private land speculators! And when the treaty is again presented to the Senate the old claims will doubtless be revived. The protocol of August 12, 1898, which brought to a close hostilities between this country and Spain, provided "the island of Puerto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies" should be ceded to the United States. This reference to " other islands " presented the technicality, although the Isle of Pines was part of the Province of Habana and never any more regarded as separate from Cuba, than Edisto Island is from South Carolina or Long Island from New York. When in 1902 the American forces were withdrawn and Cuba given over to its own people, the Platt Amendment was adopted as part of the Cuban Constitution. One article provided: "That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the tite thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." And Article VIII continued: "That by way of further assurance the Government of Cuba shall embody the foregoing provisions in a permanent treaty with the United States." That treaty was negotiated and signed, as stated above, twenty years ago. In it the United States recognized Cuba's sovereignty over the Isle of Pines, as had General Wood when, as spokesman for the United States, he turned the country over to the Cubans in 1902. And Cuba has administered the affairs of the island for 22 years. The Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 75 treaty was favorably reported to the Senate in 1906, by Senator Foraker for the Foreign Relations Committee, but an adverse minority report caused politicans or uninformed to block action. As already stated, John Hay signed the treaty for the United States. In 1905, Elihu Root, speaking as Secretary of State, supported the treaty in this brief but conclusive statement: "In my judgment the United States has no substantial claim to the Isle of Pines. The treaty merely accords to Cuba what is hers in accordance with international law and justice. "At the time of the treaty of peace which ended the war between the United States and Spain the Isle of Pines was and had been for several centuries a part of Cuba. I have no doubt whatever that it continues to be a part of Cuba, and that it is not and has never been territory of the United States. That is the view with which President Roosevelt authorized the pending treaty, and Mr. Hay signed it; and I expect to urge its confirmation. Nor would the rejection of the pending treaty put an end to the control of Cuba over the island. A treaty directly contrary to the one now pending would be necessary to do that, and there is not the slightest prospect of such a treaty being made. You may be quite sure that Cuba will never consent to give up the Isle of Pines, and that the United States will never try to compel her to give it up against her will." As it is assumed Mr. Hughes and the Foreign Relations Committee now favor ratification, the record will be that three Secretaries of State and the only two Foreign Relations Committees to act on the treaty were favorable to its adoption. We know of no American official, in Cuba or Washington, who having studied both sides of the question, has not concluded that the Cuban claim to sovereignty is absolutely sound. One Secretary of State, who we now understand heartily advocates ratification, suggested when in office it were best to "let sleeping dogs lie." But where there is wrong or injustice the dogs are never really asleep. Moreover, the fact that the United States has withheld action on the treaty has encouraged Americans on the Isle of Pines several times to oppose Cuban administration, and to threaten the precipitation of what would have been a very nasty mess. America should set the example, especially so to Latin-America, of straightforwardness, frank and open dealing. That is the best sort of diplomacy. TITLE TO THE ISLE OF PINES [Editorial of the "New York Times," April 4, 1924] The Isle of Pines, picturesque, fertile and salubrious, with an area of 840 square miles, is again claimed by Americans who have property interests there. Most of them live in the United States. Their holdings include 90 per cent of the island's territory. On Jan. 13, 1923, the American Consul at Gerona, the capital, estimated that of the 10,000 Americans who owned land in the Isle of Pines only 700 resided there permanently. But "in the winter months the American colony," 76 Isle of Pines Treaty Betwe.en the United States and Cuba says Aspinwall in his guide to the West Indies, "is swelled by many visitors from the United States, who amuse themselves by bathing off the delightful beaches of Nueva Gerona and Bibijagua, by motoring over theexcellent roads and by boating on the Casas River." Over public buildings the flag of the Cuban Republic flies. Most of the permanent residents are said to be Cubans and Spaniards. On Wednesday a committee representing the American landowners was received by President Coolidge, who was told that it would be a "blot on American history" if the Senate ratified the treaty confirming Cuban sovereignty which was submitted to it by President Roosevelt in March, 1904. Many of Mr. Coolidge's callers no doubt had been persuaded to believe that Cuba had no title to the island. The committee left with him a petition, signed "by 110,000 men and women living in the United States," in which arguments disputing Cuba's sovereignty were assembled. When Mr. Root was Secretary of State in the second Roosevelt Administration he wrote in a letter to an American resident of the Isle of Pines: "At the time of the treaty of peace which ended the war between the United States and Spain the Isle of Pines was and had been fot centuries a part of Cuba. I have no doubt whatever that it continues to be a part of Cuba, and that it is not and never has been territory of the United States. This is the view with which President Roosevelt authorized the pending treaty and Mr. Hay signed it, and I expect to urge its confirmation." The treaty was put away in a pigeonhole. On Feb. 15 of the present year, it was taken out, dusted off, and the committee in charge ordered a favorable report to the Senate. The time seems to have come at last to dispose of a controversy that has been carried on by American landowners for twenty years. The Cuban Government points to the more than 400 years of Spanish administration of the Isle of Pines as a part of Cuba and the continuance of control by the Cubans with the assent of the United States. Only if the Isle of Pines had not been a political division of Cuba could it be claimed for the United States under the treaty of peace with Spain. Every Captain-General of Cuba exercised authority over the Isle of Pines, "as within the territorial, administrative and political entity called Cuba." Every Spanish census since the first taken, in 1774, included the people of the island. The American claim to it had never been substantiated, so that the relinquishment in the Hay-Quesada Treaty was the sacrifice of no right. CUBA'S ISLE OF PINES [Editorial of the "Boston Evening Transcript," April 10, 1924] There can be no shadow of question that historically and geographically the Isle of Pines belongs to Cuba, precisely as much as Long Island belongs to the United States. It was on June 13, 1494, during his second voyage to America, that Columbus first espied that island, which he called Evangelista, and which he regarded as pertaining to Cuba. It was Don Gabriel Montalvo, who became governor of Cuba in 1573, who renamed it Isle of Pines; not, as many have supposed, Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 77 because of its production of pineapples, but because of the pine forests with which it was richly clothed. But from the days of Diego Velasquez it had been under the jurisdiction of the Governors of Cuba,as an integral part of that province, and under the administration of the famous Pedro Mendndez de Aviles, Adelantado of Florida, a grant of the entire island was made to Alfonzo de Rojas for a cattle range, a purpose for which it was admirably adapted. At that time, it is said, the water between Cuba and the Isle of Pines was so shallow that it was possible to drive herds of cattle from one to the other. For four hundred years, then, there was never raised the slightest doubt of the smaller island belonging to the larger, politically as well as geographically. But when the Platt Amendment was dictated by this country, to be appended to the Constitution of the Cuban Republic, in 1901, it was provided in that instrument that "the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." That was not pleasing to the Cubans, but was perforce accepted by them. It was regarded with widespread surprise in the United States, but it was assumed that in time the title to the island would be confirmed to Cuba. But when, on May 20, 1902, the American Provisional Government was withdrawn from Cuba and the island was surrendered to its own native Government, American authority was withdrawn from the Isle of Pines also, and it was left entirely in the hands of Cubans. To this day the Cuban flag alone flies above its public buildings in token of sovereignty. Theodore Roosevelt, as President, and John Hay, his Secretary of State, regarded the island as unquestionably belonging to Cuba, and took early steps to fulfil the provision of the Platt Amendment in a just and honorable manner by making with the Cuban Government a treaty forever confirming its title to the Isle of Pines. Such a treaty was negotiated by Mr. Hay and signed by him, and was in March, 1904, submited to the Senate by President Roosevelt for ratification. But through some influence it was pigeonholed and never acted upon, though the island was left in Cuban hands. When Elihu Root became Secretary of State, he tried to get the treaty ratified, but in vain. He said of it: "At the time of the treaty of peace which ended the war between the United States and Spain, the Isle of Pines was and had been for centuries a part of Cuba. I have no doubt whatever that it continues to be a part of Cuba, and that it is not and never has been territory of the United States. This is the view with which President Roosevelt authorized the treaty, and Mr. Hay signed it, and I expect to urge its confirmation." It would be difficult to name three Americans of their time more authoritatively conversant with our relationship with Cuba, more stalwart in upholding American rights or more jealous of American honor, than Theodore Roosevelt, John Hay and Elihu Root. It would be a blot upon American history and upon the honor of the American nation for the Senate to fail to ratify a treaty based upon indisputable truth and justice. 78 Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba TO "TREASURE ISLAND" BY AIR [Editorial of the "New York Times," November 28, 1924] Some have had the notion that the Isle of Pines was Stevenson's "Treasure Island." There are traditions of treasure buried there in the days long gone. Some treasure has actually been discovered and recovered. But the real treasure of this enchanted isle of the Carib Sea is on its surface, in its trees and gardens, its springs and salubrious air. That its dreamy shores, just below the Tropic of Cancer, can be reached by seaplane, as Colonel Keenan, now en route to his estate there, hopes, brings it close upon our sea borders. It is about as far from Batabano, the sponge-fishing center on the south coast of Cuba, as Poughkeepsie is from New York; and a few years ago the only public means of reaching it was by a superannuated Hudson River steamboat which made infirm trips weekly, threading its way slowly among the keys in the calm, shallow waters to the little capital, Nueva Gerona, of Spanish memories, situate on a river a little way inland, to be less accessible to the pirates. But bringing this island nearer us should not give the title of possession. Mr. Root, when Secretary of State, said that the United States had no substantial claim to it. As the treaty of relinquishment (made in 1904 and favorably reported by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1906 and again in 1922) is likely to come up for consideration in the Senate this winter, it will be well to keep in mind what Mr. Root said in further comment on the status of the island: "At the time of the treaty of peace which ended the war between the United States and Spain the Isle of Pines was and had been for several centuries a part of Cuba. I have no doubt whatever that it continues to be a part of Cuba and that it is not and never has been territory of the United States. This is the view with which President Roosevelt authorized the pending treaty and Mr. Hay signed it, and I expect to urge its confirmation. Nor would the rejection of the pending treaty put an end to the control of Cuba over the island. A treaty directly contrary to the one now pending (in 1905 and still pending) would be necessary to do that, and there is not the slightest prospect of such a treaty being made. You may be quite sure that Cuba will never consent to give up the Isle of Pines and that the United States will never try to compel her to give it up against her will." According to Dr. James Brown Scott, a high authority on international law, this opinion is shared by the Supreme Court, as evidenced by a decision in 1907; also by Secretary Hughes. It is to be hoped, moreover, that it is shared by the Senate and that the treaty will be roused from its mafiana slumbers and ratified at this session. Our honor is pledged to Cuba in this matter. Cuba has made the grants of coaling and naval stations in consideration of which this relinquishment was to be made. Besides, there is no excuse for our taking this one little ewe lamb of an island from Cuba when we have "exceeding many" such possessions of our own. Isle of Pines Treaty Between the United States and Cuba 79 ROOSEVELT AND THE ISLE OF PINES [Editorial of the "Washington Post," December 18, 1924] A well-deserved tribute was paid to Theodore Roosevelt on Sunday last, in the dedication of his monument on San Juan Hill, in Cuba; Americans and Cubans taking equal interest in the impressive ceremonies. But the satisfaction which is felt in it in this country is sadly marred by our failure to keep faith with Cuba-that faith which Theodore Roosevelt so scrupulously kept, and because of which the Cubans so affectionately cherish and revere his memory. The ceremonies of last Sunday would have had richly enhanced significance for both countries, if only at them the announcement could have been made that the Senate of the United States had at last ratified the long-pending treaty confirming Cuba's immemorial title to the Isle of Pines. That treaty was made and signed more than twenty years ago. Its justice has been recognized and publicly declared by the highest authorities in this country. It ought to have been ratified unanimously, the moment it was laid before the Senate. But year after year it has been pigeonholed. The result has been, quite naturally, the tarnishing of America's reputation for good faith, not only in Cuba, but throughout all Hispanic America. We all know what Theodore Roosevelt thought about the case. We all know what Elihu Root has said about it; that "the United States has no substantial claim to the Isle of Pines; the treaty merely accords to Cuba what is hers in accordance with international laws and justice." There should beno further delay in the matter. The ratification of the treaty is demanded, not only as an act of justice to Cuba, but at least equally as an act of justice to the good name of the United States, and to its reputation and standing among the American republics. AMERICAN INVESTMENTS IN CUBA [From "The Cuba Review," New York, April, 1924, p. 25] "According to figures published by the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, there is approximately $1,250,000,000 American money invested in Cuba. In addition to this amount, investors of the United States hold about $110,000,000 Cuban Government bonds. Canadian investments in Cuba are also large. * * *. * * * *S; "American and Canadian capital has flowed steadily into Cuba and at the present time American investments in Cuba alone-not including the total of Cuban Government bonds held —stand as follows, according to figures prepared at Washington: Sugar properties...................................... $750;000,000 Railroads............................................ 110,000,000 Public utilities......................................... 100,000,000 Hotels, office buildings and other urban real estate. 80,000,000 Miscellaneous manufacturing........................ 0,000;000 Tobacco and cigars..................................... 50,000,000 Miscellaneous agricultural lands other than sugar and tobacco 25,000,000 M ining............................................... 35,000,000 Independent docks, warehouses and' terminal facilities...... 0,000,000 Merchandising................................ 30,000,000 Banking.............................................. 20000,000 Total..................................$1,250,000,000 * * * * * * * ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF AMERICAN INVESTMENTS ABROAD AT THE END OF I9231 (In millions of dollars) Industrial securities Region Government and direct Total obligations holdings Canada............................ 750 1,750 2,500 Cuba............................... 110 1,250 1,360 Mexico. 22 1,000 1,022 Central America and W est Indies, not including Porto Rico................. 48 100 148 South America........................ 430 800 1,230 Europe.............................. 950 350 1,300 Asia, including Philippines............. 190 250 440 2,500 5,500 8,000 1 U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Trade Information Bull. No. 215, Apr. 7, 1924. "The balance of international payments of the United States in 1923," by Rufus S. Tucker. 80 CUBA'S TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES I923 [From Yearbook of the U. S. Department of Commerce] "The export and import trade of the United States with Cuba in 1923 was greater than with any other country of Latin America. Our imports from Cuba were exceeded only by those from Canada and the United Kingdom; and these two countries and Germany, France and Japan were the only markets receiving more of our products than did Cuba in 1923. Cuba took 4.6 per cent of our total exports and supplied 9.9 per cent of our imports. The proximity of the republic, our great demand for its leading product (sugar), tariff reciprocity, and the magnitude of the American investment, account largely for this position. "Our imports from Cuba were more than three times as great in 1923 as in the average year 1910-1914. Sugar and sugar products make up approximately 85 per cent of our imports from Cuba, and tobacco is next in importance, accounting for an additional 10 per cent. Other imports are iron ore, copper, hides, pineapples, oranges, grapefruit, vegetables, cacao and sponges. "Our exports to Cuba were also three times as great in 1923 as in the average year 1910-1914. These exports cover a wide range of commodities and include flour, potatoes, condensed milk, cheese, meats, machinery, mill supplies, automobiles, general hardware, textiles, petroleum products and many other items. The United States supplies about 75 per cent of Cuba's total purchases, the remainder originating mostly in Europe." It is estimated that the trade of Cuba with the United States will be approximately $600,000,000 in the calendar year 1924 as compared with $568,881,000 in 1923. Cuba's total exports in the fiscal year 1923-24 amounted to over $400,000,000, and her imports to about $260,000,000. 81 NATIONAL CAPITAL PRIESS, INC., WABM-INATON, U. C. I - - i i i ' ','' a; 'cz~~~~~,A BOUND MA' 2 0 1946 W*ffiv Qfl