WITH A STROKE OF A PEN
Mixed media (pencil, ink, acrylic, and watercolor) on Stonehenge paper, 30" x 44"
The purpose of this work is to graphically denounce the outrage perpetrated against the natural rights of the
residents of the old Spanish colonies as a consequence of Spain’s unconditional surrender to the nascent American
empire, as manifested in the treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Spain, the Treaty of Paris, in 1898.
The signing of the treaty is depicted allegorically, using as a base the only known photograph of the historic
moment, as U.S. Secretary of State John Hay signs the document at a desk in the French Ministry of Foreign Relations, in
Paris, on December 10, 1898.
In the upper part of the painting is the text of the second paragraph of Article IX of the treaty, which reads as
follows:
ARTICLE IX.
The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the
United States shall be determined by the Congress.
Above this text, in red, appears this phrase:
WITHOUT CONSENT!
To each side of the statements above appear portraits of the leaders of the two countries. They are introduced in
place of two unidentifiable oil paintings that appear in the original photograph. To the left is a portrait of President
William McKinley of the United States, and to the right, that of María Cristina of Austria, Regent of Spain during the
minority of her son, King Alfonso XIII, who is shown sitting on her lap.
On the two visible sides of the desk where the treaty is being signed are inscribed the names of the countries
whose sovereignty is being transferred—the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Cuba—and “Treaty of Paris 1898.”
We should note some of the circumstances that surrounded this unfortunate event:

The Cortes, or parliament, in Spain never ratified the treaty. In the face of the impasse in the negotiations
caused by the United States’ demand for an unconditional surrender, the Regent, María Cristina of Austria, sent
a communiqué to Eugenio Montero Ríos, president of the Senate, the council of ministers, and the negotiating
delegation, with the following statement:
“Her Majesty, moved by noble reasons of patriotism and humanity, will not assume the responsibility of bringing
upon Spain once again the horrors of war. To avoid them, she resigns herself to the difficult task of bowing to
the law of the victor, however hard that may be, and as Spain lacks the material means to defend the rights that
she believes are her own, accepts the only terms that the United States offers for the conclusion of the treaty of
peace.”
The Regent, under the constitutional clause that authorized her, as sovereign to do so, then signed the
document.

It is curious to note, too, with respect to the nineteenth-century concept of monarchic sovereignty, that at the
time His Majesty King Alfonso XII died, the queen was pregnant. In consequence, from November 25, 1895, until
the birth of Infante Alfonso XIII on May 17, 1896, sovereignty over the residents of Puerto Rico, Cuba, the
Philippines, and Guam emanated, by law, from the royal fetus. Since María Cristina had given birth to two
female offspring already— Princess Mercedes and the Infante María Teresa—the presumption was that the
unborn child might well be a male and thus become the heir to the throne, so, under that presumption, the
regency was authorized by the Spanish constitution.

Although the Cortes was opposed to the terms of the treaty, ratification by the U.S. Congress was also hindered
by long debate in the Senate, and questioned by distinguished members of the American society of the time.
Final ratification, on February 6, 1899, came thanks to a single vote that created the two-thirds majority
required by the Senate.
Opposition to ratification implied not just moral objection, but objection on constitutional grounds, as well. It
was argued that the terms of the treaty would officialize the transformation of the nascent democratic republic
into an empire, in violation of the principles of the U.S. Constitution. It was argued that neither Congress nor the
president had the right to pass, or sign, laws that would govern colonized countries if the citizens of those
countries were not adequately represented and thus had no part in the drafting of those laws.
In 1898, the American Anti-Imperialist League was formed, and among its members were the most distinguished
liberal figures of the nation—politicians, academics, and literary men such as Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain),
Andrew Carnegie, Grover Cleveland, Samuel Gompers, and William James.
In Congress, George Graham Vest, Democratic senator from Missouri, said the following:
“This treaty will make us a vulgar, commonplace empire, controlling subject races and vassal states in which
one class must forever rule and other classes must forever obey.”
Republican senator from Massachusetts George Frisbie Hoar stubbornly opposed ratification. With a law degree
from Harvard, Hoar was ahead of his time in the field of civil and political rights. He sponsored and belonged to
the Lodge Committee, which investigated war crimes in the Philippines, opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act, and
was an ardent defender of the rights of Afro-Americans, indigenous Americans, and women.

It is logical to think that the reason Article IX of the treaty transfers sovereignty to Congress is that of the five
members of the United States’ negotiating delegation, four were members of the Senate. The young nation had
to decide whether, in extending its sovereignty beyond its continental borders, that power should fall to the
executive or the legislative branch of government. After the decision was made, the imperial or colonial power
over what would later be called “the unincorporated territories” resided, for the reasons given above, with
Congress. The immediate cause that led the United States in this direction was its desire to prevent European
powers, particularly Germany at that moment, with its new Kaiser, from trying to occupy the territories that
Spain was abandoning in the Pacific and to anticipate the maritime defense of the new canal that was to be built
in Central America. It was the same secretary of state, John Hay, who, in 1903, signed the Hay-Herrán Treaty
with Colombia to begin construction on the canal. In the face of the Colombian congress’s refusal to ratify that
treaty, the U.S. navy gave its military support to Panama in that country’s declaration of independence, and the
United States signed a new treaty, with the brand-new Republic of Panama: the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of
November 18, 1903. When Theodore Roosevelt assumed the presidency, he made it clear that the United
States’ intention was to establish its naval and commercial hegemony not just in the Caribbean, but in the Pacific
and Atlantic as well. After all, it had been the U.S. navy that defeated Spain in the two oceans.

By August 1, 1898, the Spanish government had accepted all the conditions imposed by the United States except
turning over Puerto Rico as reparations. Spain sought the aid of the French ambassador in Washington, JulesMartin Cambon, in a final attempt to retain the island. Spain argued that unlike the other territories, Puerto Rico
had not been a combatant in the conflict, and so should be excepted from the treaty. Cambon sought and
obtained an audience with President McKinley, who flatly rejected Madrid’s request—indeed, he threatened to
impose greater sanctions for every day Madrid took to reach a final agreement.
In essence, the lack of participation by the affected residents of the territories subject to the treaty, combined with
all the constitutional and moral objections brought forward at the time, continue to be cause for concern today, and
that leads many to question the validity of the agreement in accordance with current international law.
For that reason, the question whether to invalidate the powers granted to Congress by Article IX of the treaty
merits consideration by the High Court in the Hague and the General Assembly of the United Nations. Since Puerto Rico
is today the only territory still subject to the sovereignty of Congress, favorable resolution of the case would result in the
granting of national sovereignty to Puerto Rico and, possibly, compensation to all those born in the territories whose
civil and political rights were violated by the treaty.
José Buscaglia
“Villa Pitirre,” Rhode Island
2011