Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-01-29
Blafness Reply.
The following is Secretary Blaipe's reply
ATNfr>T or srF

The following is Secretary Blaipe's reply:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WAsIINGToN, December 3, 1881
Stephen \. Hurlburt, Lima:
SIR-In sending my instructions (No. 19)
of the 22d ultimo to you and upon more
careful examination Of the protocol trans
mitted in your dispatch of October 5th signed
by yourself on behalf of the United States,
and Senior Galvez, minister of foreign affairs,
on behalf of Peru, for the cession of naval
and coaling station to the United States at
Chinbote, | find it difficult to discover what
substantial advantages would be gained by
this government in the event of its
| have already had occasion to
mark that the time was not opportune
for any negotiation for a concession from a
power reduced TO such extremity as that in
which Peru stands to-day, and to call your
attention to other grave considerations which
should outweigh any apparent temptation TO
our sense OF immediate self-interest III ask
ing or accepting the concession OF special
privileges in that country. But the advan-
tages offered by this protocol grow more
shadowy its provisions are closely ex-
amined. The first article comedies to the
United States the right to establish coaling
station at Chimbote, and the second immedi
ately adds that this shall not be exclusives;
that Peru reserves the right to concede the
same facilities to any other friendly power
which may solicit them. The third-Sub-
iects to Peruvian law whatever land might
be acquired by the United States for the pur-
pose of a coaling station. And by the
fourth article Peru has the right to withdraw
all that is conceded by agreement, whenever
she sees fit, upon one years notice. A naval
and coaling station on the South Pacific
coast, carefully chosen with the aid of pro-
fessional knowledge of those specially quail
q IL
wants OF our national ships, and over which
we might exercise proper and necessary juris-
diction, with secure tenure, would be of I'M
doubted value, and this government
at a more fitting time may be
DESTROYS and willing to negotiate upon fair
terms for such privilege. In the protocol
presented l observe that you have, with per-
feet Justice, offered no consideration to Peru
for this amiable concession, which would
only enable us to enjoy on her shores the
same privileges which we substantially pos
sess to-day and which she is ready to extend
to every other power with which she is not
in actual war, as the merit at least OF
innocent diplomacy. Nothing was given and
nothing was taken. While your negotiation
OF this protocol may be regarded as an error
OF Judgment, involving no serious or lasting
consequences, regret that another proceed
ing which you report in the same dis
patch is OF a graver nature, and cannot pass
it by without the most decided expression
of disapprobation. You have commenced
an extraordinary negotiation with Calderon
in regard to the railway company OF which
you, while American minister, propose to be-
come the trustee or intermediary, the road TO
be ultimately turned over to an American
company-an unfinished road, which you
say has already cost 10000 The prin-
cipal terms of the arrangement will be the
payment to the Peruvian government OF
81 ,000,0 in money and the same amount in
paid-up stock, to clear up all existing in
cunlbrances, for which sums they concede
the right TO construct and operate the road
for twenty five years after ii is finished. You
consider the grant very valuable and the
possibilities of the company very large.
The special advantages which the
United States may derive from these posi-
bilities is that the price to be charged for
coal carried over the road may be limited, as
the railroad runs to Chimbote, and the rail-
road arrangement is the sequel to and part
Of the plan for a coaling station there. /
have learned OF this negotiation with
profound establishment and regret Ii is
hardly conceivable that under any circum-
stances whatever your government would
consent that its minister should accegt such
a position. But for the minister himself,
without instruction and without permission,
to assume charge of an extensive financial
scheme for the purchase, completion and
transfer of a railroad is an utter disregard of
every rule of precedence and propriety that
should govern the conduct of the representa-
tive OF our country. At time like the pres
ent, when ruin of Peruvian interests and the
embarrassment Of that government in its
almost hopeless attempts to contrive methods
of raising money have given birth to many
speculative schemes and filled the press with
accounts of the coutending companies and
their enticing proposals, the direct partici-
patton of the American minister in the plan
for the reorganization of the railway wreck
cannot fail to lead to Misrepresentation on
the part of other governments, and dis
trust of the United States and its minister,
whose motives and proceedings will be
viewed in the most unfavorable light.
Whether the grant be very valuable
or lthe possibilities of the railroad very large,