United States permission to intervene for the sake of peace. They had suggested that relations between the United States and Cuba should be left to the Cuban Republic to settle. When it finally came to the task of adopting some definite plan covering relations with this country, the committee of the Convention which was dealing with the problem asserted a belief that the object of the United States was to preserve the independence of Cuba. It then went on to express the opinion that the establishment of naval stations "would militate against the independence which both parties desire to preserve." As for the other conditions suggested by us such as the power to control loans it was pointed out that the constitution fully provided for these matters and amply protected the independence of the Island. In a general way, the work of the special committee resulted only in a recommendation that the convention should adopt certain new clauses in the constitution which should bind the Island not to enter into treaties with foreign powers limiting her own independence, and should forbid the use of Cuban territory as a basis for operation against any country. It was also suggested that there should be some declaration accepting the treaty of Paris and substituting the Cuban government in place of that of the United States as a guarantor of the obligations undertaken in that document. It was recommended that the new government recognize all acts of the American military occupation as valid. Further it was urged that Cuba and the United States should regulate their commercial relations by means of a reciprocity treaty looking forward to a free trade regime. The opinion was expressed by the committee that the constitution as already adopted provided very fully for the matter of loans, sanitation, etc., while the naval stations were something for which we had no right to ask.

Almost simultaneously with the action of the Convention in Cuba, official steps were taken at Washington to make clear the attitude of the United States. The provisions which later

became the so-called "Platt Amendment" were presented to Congress.

The point about which much of the discussion of our relation to Cuba has centered, is found in the so-called Platt amendment to the Cuban Constitution. It has been maintained that by the acceptance of this amendment the United States practically assumed control of Cuba or gave that Island the status of a dependency in a way that practically implied an obligation on our part to look after its future welfare. Constant appeal has been made to the Platt amendment as the unquestionable ground upon which all claims concerning our duty to Cuba must ultimately rest. This attitude of mind on the part of a large section of the press and of the public makes it desirable to analyze carefully the responsibilities assumed by the United States and the duties imposed upon Cuba in consequence of the Platt amendment.

February 25, 1901, the Army Appropriation bill being then under discussion, Senator Platt of Connecticut introduced a series of resolutions setting forth the relations of the United States to Cuba. These resolutions were put in the form of an amendment to the Appropriation bill and were so adopted by the Senate on the 27th, by a vote of 43 yeas to 20 nays. The Platt amendment in the form in which it was ultimately adopted, read as follows:

"That in fulfillment of the declaration contained in the joint resolution approved April 20, 1898, 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

2 Congressional Record, 56th Congress, 2d session, Vol. 34, pp. 2954 and 3152.

thereto, shall define the future relations of the United States with Cuba, substantially as follows:

"I. That the government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes or otherwise, lodgment in or control over any portion of said Island.

“II. That said government shall not assume or contract any public debt, to pay the interest upon which, and to make reasonable sinking fund provision for the ultimate discharge of which the ordinary revenues of the Island, after defraying the current expenses of government, shall be inadequate.

"III. That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the Government of Cuba.

"IV. That all acts of the United States in Cuba during its military occupancy thereof are ratified and validated, and all lawful rights acquired thereunder shall be maintained and protected.

"V. That the government of Cuba will execute, and, as far as necessary, extend the plans already devised or other plans to be mutually agreed upon, for the sanitation of the cities of the Island, to the end that a recurrence of epidemic and infectious diseases may be prevented, thereby assuring protection to the people and commerce of Cuba, as well as to the commerce of the Southern ports of the United States and the people residing therein.

"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.

"VII. 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 by the President of the United States.

"VIII. That by the way of further assurance the government of Cuba will embody the foregoing provisions in a permanent treaty with the United States."

The Army Appropriation bill containing this amendment was adopted by the Senate February 27, 1901, and finally became law March 2, immediately following. As soon as the provisions of the Platt amendment had become known in Cuba there ensued a period of heated discussion. Many maintained that the Platt amendment would practically result in destroying Cuban independence. The right retained by our government in clause III to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, etc., was considered as giving us the authority to intermeddle with the affairs of the Cuban government. An effort was made to destroy this impression by means of a despatch sent by Secretary Root to General Wood on the 3d of April, in which the authority feared was expressly disclaimed. In spite of this protest, however, the Cuban constitutional convention continued to hesitate, until finally, June 12, 1901, it adopted an ordinance identical with the terms of the Platt amendment.

In discussing this important document, it does not appear that anything was said in Congress which would throw light upon the proper interpretation of clause I, regarding the power of Cuba to make treaties with foreign nations, except the general statement that the Island should not thereby impair its independence. Commercial treaties were nowhere mentioned in the course of the debates. Most of the discussion hinged upon our power of interfering in Cuban affairs for the purpose of preserving the independence of the Island. The effort was made by amendments to the amendment to limit the authority granted in clause III to interfere with the affairs of the Island, either in case of foreign aggression, or in order to assure Cuban independence. No success, however, attended these attempts.3

What the debate did do was to indicate very clearly the political authority which it was supposed this country might,

Ibid., pp. 3150-3152.

upon occasion, assume.

ment as:

Senator Hoar described the amend

*

"Eminently wise and satisfactory. * In substance, a proper and necessary stipulation for the application of the Monroe Doctrine to the nearest outlying country * and under the circumstances, one which the protection of the United States, as well as the protection of Cuba, fairly and properly requires. * * *I do not suppose that under this clause [clause III] the United States will ever undertake to interfere in such local commotions or disturbances as every country, especially every Spanish-American country south of us, is subject to. I do not suppose that is anybody's intention; but only in those grave cases where international interference is proper."*

Naturally, the amendment was vigorously attacked by the Democrats, on the ground that to force such an amendment upon the Cuban Constitutional Convention was practically to violate our pledged faith in regard to the independence of the Island by reserving the right to interfere and overturn the government whenever we might see fit. This view was expressed by Senator Jones of Arkansas in an extreme form:"

"The reserving to the United States of the right to maintain a government, the United States to be the judge of what that government is, adequate for the protection of life, and property, would seem to me to be reserving to the United States the right to overturn the government of Cuba whenever it saw fit."

Senator Morgan took the same view, and further rebutted the contention of Mr. Hoar that the amendment was justified by the Monroe doctrine:

"The Monroe doctrine never had anything to do with a proposition like this. * * It has no connection with that. That [Art. III of the amendment] gives us the right to go into one of these American States * * [to] * * exercise the power of the government of the United States for the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty.""

*

Senators Pettus and Tillman also forcibly expressed the opinion that the amendment was a distinct violation of the pledge to establish in Cuba an independent government. And

• Ibid., pp. 3145-6.

Ibid., p. 3146.

• Ibid., p. 3147.

Ibid., p. 3149.