The Nation's Promise Broken.
As the foregoing article was being put in type for this paper, we received the June 13 issue of the New York Independent, which, under the heading here given, speaks of the course of this nation in the Cuban matter. The Independent has been heretofore a stanch defender of the foreign policy of our government in reference to Cuba, but now it gives up its defense, and speaks of the latest action in this matter as follows, which is in exact accord with the ideas set forth above:— When we consider the present attitude of the government at Washington toward Cuba, how far away in the dim past seem to be those resolutions, now only three years old, by which the American Congress solemnly declared:— “The United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the pacification396thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people.” The island having been completely pacified, and municipal elections having been held in all its provinces, without the slightest disorder, its people were directed to make a constitution, and to provide for setting up a government on the foundation thus created. They were also directed to provide, in connection with this constitution, for “relations with the United States;” which they proceeded to do, supposing that these relations were to be such as should exist between two independent and friendly republics. Suddenly and without warning, also without the politeness of civilized diplomacy, they were informed, at what they believed to be the end of their task of making a constitution, that this vague phrase in the order included a long list of conditions and concessions which they must approve—the list soon thereafter set forth in the memorable Platt amendment. They were surprised and offended. Some of the conditions they were willing to accept; others they regarded with distrust and aversion. After much debate, their convention sent to Washington a delegation to ascertain our interpretation of the conditions imposed, and to suggest some modification of them. The visitors learned that the text of the amendment could be changed only by Congress; but the several conditions were interpreted and explained to them, so far as this could be done by executive officers not exercising the powers of the Supreme Court. Their report concerning these interpretations and explanations was sufficiently reassuring to induce a bare majority of the convention to vote for the acceptance of the entire list of conditions, almost exactly in the language of the amendment, although, it should be remembered, a statement of the conditions “substantially” in agreement with the amendment would have been compliance with the act of Congress. But, to remove distrust, and to gain needed votes that were hanging in the balance, and to defend their own course before the people, the supporters of the amendment attached to some of its clauses statements of the interpretations and explanations given to the commission in Washington. They also added a letter of explanation written by Senator Platt, who merely said that acceptance of the amendment would not establish a protectorate over Cuba nor compromise the sovereignty of the Cuban people, “its well-defined purpose” being “to secure and safeguard Cuban independence.” These added explanations, which may not have been reported with perfect accuracy by Cubans not familiar with the English language, do not bind our government to the interpretations which they set forth. An authoritative interpretation of the several clauses can be made only by our Supreme Court, as the Cuban delegates probably know. If there was an agreement, however, that neither the explanation nor the letter should be made public, either in connection with the constitution or otherwise, the Cuban delegates have violated that code of honor to which they profess to be intensely loyal. Still we cannot see why their use of the explanations or of the Platt letter—the publication of which the Senator cannot reasonably deplore—should cause our government to reject their acceptance of the amendment. This is what the government at Washington has done. It has said to the Cuban Convention and the Cuban people, as we are informed, that they must accept the amendment verbatim, without attempted interpretation by appendix or footnote, before the United States will permit them to proceed with their plans for setting up a government of their own. It has said to them that their acceptance is not a compliance with the law of Congress, although they have not taken advantage of the word “substantially” in the law, but have consented to append to their constitution every one of those conditions and requirements, including the clauses about intervention and concerning those three or four naval stations that are to be used for the maintenance of Cuban independence. It has also said to them that until they shall have complied with this ultimatum, the American troops shall not be withdrawn from the island. And to any expression of hope that the new Congress may soften the conditions of the law, there is the response, made unofficially but with distinctness, that failure to obey the mandate now will cause the imposition of even more severe conditions by Congress at the coming session. All this with the persuasive eloquence of the highwayman. And so the resolutions of 1898 seem very far away in the dim past, although they are only three years old. The solemn promise given in them has been broken, and the cynics of the Old World jeer at us when they talk or write about it. The breaking of it was begun when a weary Congress, to avoid an extra session, gave to the President in the Platt amendment the instructions suggested by himself. It would not have been completed if our government had accepted from the Cuban Convention what was substantially a full compliance with the conditions imposed, although the action of the consenting majority was not wholly free from indications of duress. But the promise was repudiated when our government said: “You shall have no government of your own until you have undertaken to give us these naval stations, and the right to intervene, in the exact words of our demand, without adding an appendix or footnote containing any statement of our own as to the unselfish and benevolent character of our designs.” Probably the Cubans will yield under such coercion, but the stain upon the honor of the United States cannot be effaced by their unwilling submission. It can be wiped out only by the repeal of the Platt amendment, followed by an expression of the purpose of the United States to take from the Cuban people only such privileges or concessions as they will freely grant, either without compensation or in honorable exchange for something which they desire.