File No. 837.00/1167
Minister Gonzales to the Secretary of State
Habana, March 4, 1917—5 p.m.
Department’s March 3, 9 p.m. In my telegram of March 2, 6 p.m., was stated the President’s reply would be submitted next day; it was cabled yesterday.
By proclamation of February 27 President granted amnesty to enlisted men who deserted under force of circumstances. Under this 110 enlisted men have returned to duty, one or two returning lieutenants have been pardoned, hundreds of civilians, including mayors of towns not charged with violence, have surrendered and been liberated. I believe amnesty intended for all civilians except pernicious leaders and flagrant criminals.
I definitely understood from the Department’s addresses to the Cuban people sent through me and President Wilson’s reply to Santiago Chamber of Commerce that the sole present question for the United States was fact of illegal rebellion against constituted Government of Cuba and that no other question could be entertained until the rebels submitted to Constitutional Government of Cuba. In Department’s telegram, however, it is said that an immediate question is the
rights of those in complicity with present insurrection to cast their votes in the partial elections to be held under the decree of the Supreme Court.
Perhaps President Menocal’s reply together with my despatch of March 3, 7 p.m. have already furnished further information concerning this issue, but I assure the Department the question is not as it understands. Nothing has been done against the decree of the Supreme Court. Nothing decreed by law to be done has been left undone except holding partial elections in Oriente. The capital of province where elections officials reside was cut off from access to district where the elections were to be held. The President has announced that he will have these held under proper safeguards as soon as conditions make it possible.
Partial elections have been held according to legal decree in Santa Clara Province. Whether they were properly conducted is a question open on appeal to Supreme Court as were scores of appeals taken from results of November election. Whether the United States Government will insist upon new elections being held is for the Department. My concern is only that whatever my Government does shall be right.
There has not come to me a single statement that voter was denied right to vote in Santa Clara or that force was employed. The liberals took up arms days before the election and few went to polls. It is practically a certainty that many ballots were cast in names of persons not present; that is here a common election fraud belonging to [Page 377] the wrong system referred to in my telegram of March 3, 7 p.m. It is deplorable and the whole system needs a change. But the question from my sense of justice is whether the United States should insist upon purifying six precincts where the conservatives benefited from ballot box stuffing without considering the hundreds of precincts where similar or more gross frauds were practiced in the general elections and from which other party was probably greater beneficiary.