The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1882-07-25

Mr.. Trescott late envoy to the South Ameri-
can Republic, has written the following letter
to ex-Secretary Blaine:
YORK, Maine, July II, 1882.
Hon. JAMES G. BLAINE:
Dear Sir:-I am in receipt of yours, asking
me, as late special Envoy of the United States
to the bellige-ents in South America, to state
my knowledge of certain matters connected
with your administration as Secretary of State.
From your formal instructions to me and
the personal consultations had with you, before
my departure on that mission, 1 have never
been able to see that there was any ground for
misunderstanding or misconstruing your posi-
tion in regard to the Credit Industriel. 1t has
been consistent throughout, as l understood it.
You always expressed yourself to me as de-
sirous that the Credit Lndustriel might, if pos
sible, be made useful TO Peru in her distress.
But you were entirely unwilling that the
United States should make the programme of
that company part of their own negotiation,
or should assume guarantee of the arrange
ment which 1t might make with the Peruvian
government You did not favor the project of
Protectorate over any port of South Ameri-
ca Your idea was to leave Peru free to nego-
tiate with the Credit Industriel, and you in
structed Gen. Hurlbut, and afterwards myself,
to report the result of such negotiations to the
Department. What action might lie beyond
was, necessarily. for the decision of the gov
ernment and its policy would, in all probabili-
ty, have depended largely upon the report
made by the minister. As matter of fact. ne-
ther Gen. Hurlbut nor myself was sever called
upon to take any action in regard to the Credit
Industriel during our respective missions in
South America.
2-As to your designing war, the supposition
is too absurd for serious consideration. If you
had any such purpose it was carefully conceal
ed from me, and left for South America with
the impression that would have completely
failed in my mission if did not succeed in OBJ
tanning an amicable sttlsmentIof thetdifferences
between the belligerents. You will allow me to
add that would have declined the mission if
had thought otherwise. As understood you
your object was by the friendly solution of the
existing difficulties, to prepare the way for the
meeting of the Peace Congress at Washington,
when you hoped to establish such relations be-
tween the Republics of the two Americas, as
would prevent the possibility of future war
But for the strange misconception for which
cannot account which reached and misled the
Chilian Cabinet. through some of the leading
and influential papers of the United States, l
believe that purI ose could have been accom-
plished under your instructions.
Sin regard to the Cochet and Landreau
claims, it is sufficient to say that you rejected
the first, absolutely. AS to the second, you
instructed Gen. Hurlbut to ask, if the proper
time for such request should come, that Lam
dreau should be heard before a Peruvian
tribunal in support of his claim, and that in
case of peace providing for the cession OF
Peruvian territory, the condition of his claim
should be brought to the attention of Chill and
Peru. This instruction, as stated in your dis
patch, was made in view of the fact that
numerous claims of Europeans for fabulous
amounts were being pressed and you were
anxious, as you expressed it, that the resources
of Peru should not be exhausted in the settle
ment of the claims of foreigners to the preiu-
dice of the one belonging to an American citi-
zen. This notification would not have inter-
posed an obstacle to the conclusion of treaty
of peace, but would have simply signifed to
both parties that its provisions could not put
aside any rights which Landreau might bs
found toapossess after an impartial, judicial in
vestigation.
Under the restrictions of your instructions,
Gen. Hurlbut, although himself approving the
justice of Landreau's claim in his despatch of
Sept. IA, 1881, never brought it in any way to
the consideration of the Peruvian Govern
ment. During my mission in South Ameri-
ca, I never referred to it, SO that in point of
fact during your secretaryship the Landreau
claim was never mentioned either to the Chill
ian or Peruvian government BY the ministers
of the United States. 1t could not therefore
have affected the then pending diplomatic
questions in the remotest degree.
Yours very truly
and respectfully
VIM. HENRY TREscoT.