SOME ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORY.
The New York Sun of November 7, under the heading of “Constitution Making in Cuba,” says:— The unselfish position taken by the United States with regard to Cuba is not less majestic and magnanimous because it is not entirely without precedent in history. Repeatedly during the Persian and Peloponnesian wars was the triumph of the Athenian arms followed, not by the conquest of Greek cities, but by the liberation of them from alien or oligarchical oppression. Upon the final overthrow of Macedon the Roman victor proclaimed the restoration of the liberties of Hellas. The Outlook also raises the same issue. It claims:— When before in the history of the world has a great nation delivered at its own cost a helpless community from an oppression under which it had long suffered . . . ? These challenges are worth taking up, for the mere sake of the case, and much more for the sake of the far-reaching truth that is involved. The proclamation made by Flamininus at the time referred to by the Sun, runs as follows:— The Senate and people of Rome and Titus Quintius the general, having overcome Philip and the Macedonians, set at liberty, from all garrisons and taxes and imposts, the Corinthians, the Locrians, the Phocians, the Euboeans, the Phthiot-Achaeans, the Magnesians, the Thessalians, and the Perrhaebians, declare them free, and ordain that they shall be governed by their respective laws and usages. When that proclamation was made, the Greeks fairly went wild with joy ‘that there was a people in the world who, at their own expense and the hazard of their lives, engaged in a war for the liberty of other nations; and that not for their neighbors or people situated on the same continent; but who crossed seas and sailed to distant climes to destroy and extirpate unjust power from the earth, and to establish universally law, equity, and justice: that by a single word, and the voice of a herald, liberty had been restored to all the cities of Greece and Asia.’ Further, on this the Sun says:— It will at the same time be acknowledged that none of the precedents just mentioned quite measures up to the standard of disinterestedness set by the United States in its relations to Cuba. Instead of this being true in the cited case of Rome and the Greek states, it is the reverse that is true. Rome, immediately upon her victory over Philip, published openly, to the Greeks and to all the world, that proclamation of liberty to the Greek states which we have here reprinted. More than two years have passed since the United States completed the victory over Spain, and no such proclamation, nor anything akin to it, has yet been made, of the liberty of Cuba. The Sun says: ‘Not long did the Romans respect those liberties of Hellas which Flamininus proclaimed.’ That is true. But it is also true that Rome did proclaim those liberties of Hellas, and that Hellas did enjoy those liberties, at least for a season. But no such thing has ever appeared on the part of the United States, toward Cuba: the United States has not proclaimed the liberty of the Cubans, even for a little while; the Cubans have not had one moment of the enjoyment of the liberty which, at the beginning, the United States declared, ‘is, and of right ought to be,’ theirs. Rome did761proclaim and respect the liberties of Hellas, though it was ‘not long:’ the United States has not done any such thing at all, even for a moment, for Cuba. In the comparison which the Outlook has challenged, and which the Sun has cited, ‘the standard of disinterestedness’ is altogether on the side of Rome. As compared with Rome in the case cited, ‘the standard of disinterestedness set by the United States in its relations to Cuba’ is a blank. For the sake of the truth in this comparison to which the Outlook and the Sun challenge the world, it is proper to state the case of the United States and Cuba from the beginning up to date. The United States declared war against Spain, April 18, 1898. That same day she also declared that ‘the people of the Island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent.’ The war with Spain, ended Aug. 12, 1898, with the United States triumphant. A treaty of peace was arranged and ratified between the two powers—all this before a year had passed from the beginning of hostilities. In the declaration of war against Spain, April 18, 1898, it was also declared by the United States ‘that the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said islands, 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.’ And, though the war with Spain was ended Aug. 12, 1898, and the treaty of peace was ratified early in 1899, no further word was said on the subject by this nation until June 20, 1900, when in the convention of the national party, that party and the administration, in their platform, declared that ‘to Cuba independence and self-government were assured in the same voice by which war was declared, and to the latter this pledge shall be performed.’ About the same time a plan was announced to the country, and to Cuba, by the national administration, according to which, if Cuba should accept it, a new form of government would be established there. By that plan a constitutional convention was to be called, in Cuba; and if this convention should frame a constitution fully satisfactory to the United States, then the military government now in control would be withdrawn. But if this convention should not frame such a satisfactory constitution, then the military government now in control would remain until Cuba should present a constitution that would be satisfactory to the United States. As to what would be satisfactory to the United States in the suggested arrangement, was made known in the following announced reservations:— - The foreign relations of Cuba to be managed through the American government at Washington.
- Cuba to have no power to declare war without the consent of the United States.
- The United States government to have a veto power over legislation increasing the Cuban debt beyond certain limits to be set forth in the new constitution.
- The United States to have a certain well-defined supervision over the Cuban treasury.
- The United States to retain, for a period of years, if not indefinitely, control of the fortifications which command the port of Havana and other important cities of the republic.
In accordance with all this, it was announced, from Washington, July 20, that ‘Cuba is likely to become nominally an independent republic, with certain reservations that will virtually make the island a self-governing colony of the United States, within six or eight months from this date.’ Not long afterward an order was issued by the United States government, giving directions as to the Cuban constitutional convention. Delegates were to be elected, etc., and the convention was to meet in the city of Havana, at twelve o’clock noon, on the first Monday of November, in the year 1900, to frame and adopt a constitution for the people of Cuba, and, as a part thereof, to provide for and agree with the government of the United States, upon the relations to exist between that government and the government of Cuba.’ That convention assembled, according to order, Monday, November 5, and is now in session. And according to that order it was opened by the United States Governor-General of Cuba, in the following words:— As Military Governor of the Island of Cuba, and representing the President of the United States, I call this convention to order. It will be your duty first of all to frame and adopt a constitution for Cuba, and, when that has been done, to formulate what, in your opinion, ought to be the relations between Cuba and the United States. The constitution must be adequate to secure stable, orderly, and free government. When you have formulated the relations which, in your opinion, ought to exist between Cuba and the United States, the government of the United States will doubtless take such action on its part as shall lead to a final and authoritative agreement between the people of the two countries to the promotion of their common interests. All friends of Cuba will follow your deliberations with the deepest interest, earnestly desiring that you shall reach just conclusions; and that, by the dignity, individual self-restraint, and wise conservatism which shall characterize your proceedings, the capacity of the Cuban people for representative government may be signally illustrated. The fundamental distinction between true representative government and a dictatorship is that in the former every representative of the people, in whatever office, confines himself strictly within the limits of his defined powers. Without such restraint, there can not be free constitutional government. Under the order pursuant to which you have been elected and convened you have no duty and no authority to take part in the present government of the island. Your powers are strictly limited by the terms of the order. Note those first two paragraphs. The first one tells them that it is their duty to frame and adopt a constitution for Cuba, and also to formulate what, in their opinion, ought to be the relations between Cuba and the United States. The second one tells them that when they shall have done these two things—then what? that then the freedom and independence of Cuba shall be proclaimed, according to the original declaration of the Congress of the United States? Is that what would follow? Is that what is intended to follow? Surely, if it were to be so, this, of all places and times in the world, was the occasion to say it. But, no. Instead of continuing that sentence to its proper, logical, and only legitimate conclusion, it suddenly breaks off in the middle, and drops to the dismal plane of shuffling and concealment. Read it again, as it actually stands:— When you have formulated the relations which, in your opinion, ought to exist between Cuba and the United States, the government of the United States will [not proclaim the liberty and independence of Cuba, but only ‘will’] doubtless take such action on its part as shall lead to a final and authoritative agreement between the people of the two countries to the promotion of their common interests. Read also again the last two paragraphs of the Governor-General’s speech. Read them attentively, and note their ominous meaning to that constitutional convention,—how they are told that their powers are strictly limited, how they must confine themselves strictly within those limits; and how plainly they are told that they have neither any duty nor any authority to take part in the present government of the island. That is the latest word on the subject, and there can be no kind of question whatever that in the comparison which the Sun has made, the advantage and the way of honor stand pre-eminently in favor of Rome. And now, from this fact of Rome’s advantage in the comparison, there is a very important conclusion which history itself has drawn, and which stands before us and all people almost as the handwriting on the wall; that is, that Rome did not long respect the liberty of Greece which she had proclaimed. On this, ancient history itself has recorded that shortly ‘the Romans rendered themselves the sovereign arbiters of those whom they had restored to liberty, and whom they now considered, in some measure, as their freedmen. They used to depute commissioners to them, to inquire into their complaints, to weigh and examine the reasons on both sides, and to decide their quarrels; but when the articles were of such a nature that there was no possibility of reconciling them on the spot, they invited them to send their deputies to Rome. Afterward they used, with plenary authority, to summon those who refused to come to an agreement, obliged them to plead their cause before the Senate, and even to appear in person there. From arbiters and mediators, being become supreme judges, they soon assumed a magisterial tone, looked upon their decrees as irrevocable decisions, were greatly offended when the most implicit obedience was not paid to them, and gave the name of rebellion to a second resistance. . . .’ ‘We shall hear one of the chief magistrates in the republic of the Achæans inveigh strongly in a public assembly against this unjust usurpation, and ask by what title the Romans were empowered to assume so haughty an ascendant over them; whether their republic was not as free and independent as that of Rome; by what right the latter pretended to force the Achæans to account for their conduct; whether they would be pleased, should the Achæans, in their turn, officiously pretend to inquire into their affairs; and whether matters ought not to be on the same footing on both sides. All these reflections were very reasonable, just, and unanswerable; and the Romans had no advantage in the question but force.’ And when that was the outcome of Rome’s open proclamation of the liberties of the Greek states, what may be expected to be the outcome of the dealings of the United States with Cuba, in which there has been no proclamation of a single liberty of Cuba? The prophecy declared, long ago, that ‘an Image to the Beast’ was to come up sometime, somewhere. When is it, and where is it, to be?