The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1889-03-02

OllciaI Correspondence on It-Bayard's
Chilly Letter Telling Hin to Go
and Iiis Reply to SALISBURY.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2O.-The Presi-
dent to- day transmitted to Congress
the correspondence relating to the
withdrawal of Lord Sackyille rs
British Minister. In the letter to
Lord Sackvillc announcing the Presi-
dents desire, Secretary Bayard
says:
"The President Of the United
States has instructed me to inform
you that, for good and sufficient
causes, which are known to yourself
and Lave been duly brought to the
knowledge of your Government, he
has, with great regret, become con
WINGED that it would be incompati-
Bile with the best interests and detrim
entail TO the good relations Of both
Governments that you should any
longer hold your present official po
elton in the United States, and that
accordingly the Government of Her
Britannia Majesty will, without de-
lay, be informed of this determine
ton, in order that another channel
may be established for the transmits
sion of such communications as may
be desirable by the two Governments
in the transaction of their bust
ness"
Secretary Bayard reviews the case
at length in letter to Minister
Phelps, dated January 80. He says
that Lord Sackville's offence con-
sisted in "his intentional interfer-
ference in our domestic politics, in
assuming by his advice to control
the political action" of men who,
though formerly British subjects,
had sworn allegiance to the United
States "alone." The Murchison let
ter is then discussed, and Mr. Bay
ard says that, whether fictitious
and fraudulent or no, it declared the
writer to be actuated by motives of
manifest perfidy to the United States.
1t grossly impugned and aspersed
the motives of the President 1t So
licited from the official to whom it
was addressed an authoritive confiri
nation or denial of those impugn-
ments and aspersions, upon informa-
ton which his official relations to
this Government we're supposed to
supply, and thus to abuse the conf
dence he enjoyed"
In regard to Lord Sackville's plea
that the letter was marked private,
Mr.. Bayard says that according to
his lordship's own admission, its
writer was stranger to him, and,
therefore, the request for .advics did
not rest on persohal intimacy He
was Invited to interfere in American
politics and to assist his correspond
ent and many others to use their
privileges as citizens, not in the in
terest of foreign Government. The
question was simply whether for
eign diplomatic representative shall
assume the function of influencing
elections in this country.
Mr.. Bayard says that Lord Sack
vile emphasized his iinpugnihehts of
the action OF this Government in
newspaper interviews and then, after
generally questioning their accuracy,
excused himself from making any
contradiction, on the ground that
ait could only have led to hhdigni-
fed and unseemly controversy"
These interviews, Mr.. Bayard says,
rendered the situation more diff
cult.
Mr.. Bayard then describes his
conversation With Lord Sackyille, on
October p6, in which he called his
attention seriously to his statements
in the New York Tribune. He says:
sIn the most emphatic language l
expressed to him my amazement at
and Reproduction of his conduct, and
ayowed my sense of the gravity of
the situation he had created" Yet
Lord Sackville merely disavowed
any intention to offend and the use
Of special words attributed to him.
This denial was contained in a per-
sonal note, and Mr.. Bayard denies
that the issue was a personal one.
| Mr.. Bayard then deals with Lord
Salisbury's note laying down the
rules which govern the dismissal Of
diplomatic agents. Salisbury stood
by the principles laid down by Lord
Palinerstoh In 1S48, when Sir Henry
Bulwsr was dismissed by the Span
ish sernment. Palmerston in
structed Bulwer to give certain adj
vice to the Queen of Spain as to the
internal government of Spain. Bull
wer gave this advice on April s, and
April 10 vas sunmarily dismissed
in indignant terms aimed at the For
eign Minister and not at the Ambas-
sador. Mr.. Bayard points out that
in this case the objection was to the
action of Lord Palmerston and the
British Ministry, while sthe offence
Of Lord Sackville consisted in per-
sonal misconduct wholly inconsist-
ent with his official duty and rela-
tions, of which no suggestion of APP
prevail by his Government has yet
been intimated."
Mr.. Bayatd then proceeds to al
swer Lord salisbury's contention
that it is for Minister'S own Gov
eminent to decide whether he shall
be recalled when his recall is asked
on the ground of interference in the
politics of the country to which he
Is accredited. He says that such a
claim would be equivalent to saying
that, BIZ such law; that Government
is entitled to determine how far it
will interfere in the politics of for
eign States, and what degree Of in
terefence by it's ministers in the in
terhal affairs Of such States it may
see proper to sustain. He contends
that, whenever the conduct of an
I Ambassador unsettles the confidence
of the receiving Government. that
Government may without offence re-
quest his recall.
i Does 1t Pays