The record-union., 1891-04-09
weather Forecast.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DIPLO-
MATIC EXPRESSION.

ingly stignatize all who venture to criti-
else Mr.. Blaine's indemnity concession
in his letter to the italian Charge
d'Affairs as 'sself-constituted diplomats"
are mere sneerers. It is the right and the
office of every citizen to criticise public
officials. 1t is not necessary that one
should be diplomat to construe plain
English, nor to understand the funda-
mental principles underlying dual gov
ernment such as ours.
The press which contends that Mr.
Blaine used the language he did without
error, but meant something else than that
he expressed in his letter make him out a
mere juggler with words. We prefer to
accept a higher estimate of the intelli-
gence of the Secretary of State. When
he said to the Italian representative that
the United States distinctly recognizes
''the principle of indemnity to those Ital
ian subjects who may have been wronged
by violation of rights secured to them
under the treaty." it must be assumed
that he committed an error or intended
precisely what the plain meaning OF his
words import-that the United States
recognizes the principle as against itself,
not as against municipality in State.
Any other construction of the language
makes Mr.. Blaine word trickster and
puts him on level with the definition
some one has applied to diplomacy, that
it is means to deceit. We prefer to be-
heve that Mr.. Blaine unwittingly erred.
Since his expression cannot, however,
bind Congress, it is not a matter of so
much importance, but as a question of
construction of official language it is in
teresting.
If Mr. Blaine meant then that aliens
nay sue cities for failure to protect their
persons and property, why not have said
so? He cannot be thought of as enter
tanning the belief that Italian statesmen
do not know precisely what are the rem
edies of italian subjects who are wronged.
1n0 I1BlllS SGCuIcQ W IIGllldII SuDJCCIo
under the treaty of 1871 are those secured
to American citizens under the law.
When Mr.. Marsh and Emilio Visconti
Venosta concluded that treaty they knew
exactly what the rights referred to
were, and exactly what the procedure TO
remedies was. When the two Govern
ments ratified the treaty both knew what
the rights of citizens and aliens were
and what the processes for their main
tenance.
1t was not necessary-if he did not
blunder-for Mr.. Blaine to have more
than referred to the calls of the treaty.
But he went beyond that and said that
the United States recognizes the principle
of indemnity. The Italian Cabinet
might well construe this into confession
that the Federal Government admits,
through its Secretary of State, that Italian
subjects have a right to claim of the
United States indemnity for wrongs done
them. In his notes Baron Fava distinctly
said that his Government was dealing
with the United States as Power, and
the Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs
for Italy emphatically told Minister
Porter that Italy had nothing TO do with
States of the United States. Italy was
demanding of the United States, not OF
Louisiana or New Orleans; as Power
she was preferring a demand or claim
against the American nation and it alone.
Italy could neither sue in the Federal
courts at New Orleans, compel her sub
jects to sue, nor prevent them from TAX
ing their legal remedies. All this the
Italian Secretary and the Italian Minister
knew, hence their attempt to wiring from
the Federal Government admission of its
responsibility to indemnity, and Mr..
Blaine .unwittingly fell into the trap.
This is evidently true, since so late as last
night dispatches from Rome quote Italia
as saying: 1.-THE Americans have but one
god-their strong box. In this strong
box we must strike them, demanding the
largest possible indemnity" There is
here no suggestion that individuals shall
sue New Orleans, but that the King OF
Italy shall demand Indemnity of the Re-
public of the United States. 1t is not
illogical TO conclude that the error of ex
preston under consideration has led
Italia to indulge in the declaration
quoted.
If, then, our Secretary of State did not
make an error in his expression to I'm
perali, nor if he did not mean TO confess
Federal responsibility, as is contended by
those who defend the language, he should
have said, as did Secretary Evarts, on a
former occasion;
know of no principle of National ohliga
tion and there certainty is none arising from
bent on the Government OF the United States
10 make indemnity 10 the Chinese residents
OF Denver. Whatever remedies may b.
afforded TO the citizens OF Colorado or 10 citi
zens OF the United States nom other states q
the Union resident In Colorado ar,
equally open To the Chinese. This i,
al that the principles OF international law and
the usages OF national comfy demand.
When Mr.. Blaine succeeded Mr.. Evarts
in 1851 he replied, in the same case:
In regard 10 the liability OF this Government
to make pecuniary indemnity TO the Chinest
sufferers, conculring, as | do, in the conClu
slons reached by Mr.. Evarts and conceiviRl
the principles upon which they rest to be n
consonance with public law and the universal
practice OF nations, mast Insist that tha
principle is the one by which the obligation.
OF this Government are to be measured.
1t would have been quite as easy fol
him, had he not fallen into error, to have