Xor  does  it  appear  necessary  to  the  purposes  of  this  reply  that  I  should
recite  your  premises  seriatim.  It  will  be  sufflicieut  to  regard  the  object
you  appear  to  have  in  view,  which  I  take  to  be  to  cast  upon  the  Gov-
ernment of  the  United  States  implied  responsibility  for  *  permitting '
or  *  tolerating'  expressions  of  sympathy  in  the  United  States  on  the
part  of  those  misguided  persons  who  seek  to  disturb  the  peace  of  Spain,
and  to  urge  the  obligations  of  this  Government  to  prevent  such  expres-
sions from  beiog  made.  Incidentally  you  appear  to  impugn  the  sufli-
eiency  of  the  existing  modes  of  procedure  in  the  United  States  with
reference  to  infractions  of  law,  as,  for  instance,  when  you  advert  to  the
apprehended  results  of  trial  by  a  jury  of  the  vicinage  where  the  offense
may  have  been  committed,  and  assume  that  the  prevalence  of  popu-
lar sympathy  with  the  accused  would  <  almost  certainly'  result  in  ac-
qaittal.
"  While  the  tenor  of  your  note  leads  me  to  believe  that  you  hold  it  the
doty  of  a  Government  to  repress  outward  manifestations  of  opinions
which  may  resalt  in  overt  violations  of  la\^,  I  would  perhaps  do  you  in-
jostice  if  I  thought  you  held  it  likewise  an  obligation  on  the  part  of  the
Executive  to  repress  public  sympathy  with  the  actors  in  the  case.
^^The  sympathies  of  masses  of  men  may  be  mistakenly  bestowed  upon
unworthy  objects,  but  error  of  this  character  is  not  in  itself  a  crime
amenable  to  the  punitive  arm  of  justice.
