Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1892-01-29
Blaine 10 MOntt.
The following WAS sent by Mt Blaine to
Mr.. Mont, Jan. 27

Blaine 10 MOntt.
The following w.s sent by Mt Blaine TO
Mr.. Mont, Jan. 81
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WAsHIsGroE, Jan. 81, 1892.
Sir FL have the honor to Acknowledge
YOUR favor dated the 23 inst not received
by me until the 25lh. beg to Comment
on two or three Of its recitals. think
from zeal for your country you have made
some mistakes which | shall proceed to
correct.
You are right 10 saying that | considered
the proceedings Of the government of Chill
in making the judicial invesiigstion OF the
unhappy sff air at Valparaiso entirely praise
worthy. But YOU will remember that as
early a. the 25th of November l compIaioed
Of the length Of the judicial proceedings
and from line TO time renesed the con-
plsint. saying to you very lately that the
court h.d already been so days in session
considering q matter which in the United
States would have been wholly disposed of
in two or three weeks.
Ycu replied that Spanish law is slow in
process but exact in conclusions, and with
your statements had to be content though
impatient for fusl judgmeot. Your OFFER
af arbitration was B.ver unconditional and
exact. Had it been | would insisted on
your reducing it to ~rilirg; for it would
have bee n my du to lay il before the Pres
iiept for consideration. But was unable
to report n ere verbal exchange Of viess
between US an agreement to srbi!raie.
You did say to me several times that in
that Sistsn. future when the Chilian court
should render its judgement, ('f ,he United
States should not De saisf ID with it) the
two countries could arbitrase the mater.
bu. even then you always maintained that
Chill could not voluntarily propose srbit-
ration herself but would do go when re-
que.ted by some friendly power to take
thst course.
On one occasion you mentioned Spain as
the nation likely to intervene with Chill
most effectively. Your mention of aroi-
tration vss slways always asa method to
be adopted in the future, il we were not
content, - have said with The judgement
Of the court, You remarked that to sdopt
! it before would be discrediting the iu1se-
ment Of the court in advance. You al
ways looked to the future for the proposal
and acceptance Of arbitration
You say in your note Il took occasion
to inform YOU January lst that my govsrf p
me Mt authorized me to conclude an sgree-
mept locking to arbitration and my goYeIf -
| ma Mt .uose quently approved the agreement
concluded By me-" Yet you do not pretend
that 4 word was ever writ en of an tgtet =
msnt which you say We made between u'.
| 1. il impossible that ever sought to bind
the government Of the Urited States in that
vsy, 1t would have been in the highest
degree imprudent for me to do 50.
In regard 10 the Malta note which was
The enbiect Of ontention between US, you
sum it up by the follow < declaration II
| added, However, hat it Was far from being
the purpose 81 my government to act in a
manner At all offensive TO The Pseslien. of
| the L 1itsd States CT any member OF his
cabinet. Mr.. Malta note, If rightly in
| ,erpresed sdn tied of no such construction,
| 1 afterwards had the honor TO infofm you
| that | fece ived Instructions from my gov
| ernment TO inform that of the United
States that. CONSIDERING the views expressed
bv Messrs. Buchanan and Webster in laf9
| And 1850, messages sent by the President
! To Congress are domestic communications
| which csnnos serve As basis for the inter
| preta,ion Of foreign powers of their rspee-
sen.adves. My government had no otj-c-
tion TO strikif Z oat Of he note OF ID moer
II. such words ~ m sht be colsideted Ill
| agreeable By the United States govern
ment.
| By your own statement you evidently at
tempted to justify the Mats note. GER
sainiy could not accept Jour language and
| never did accept Language OF that KIND ~
An apoltg sufficient for the case.
| The Matts note Vas highly discourteous
10 The Presidsnt and secretary Of The navy,
| imputins TO them untfuih and insioceriiy
| Such lar guage does rot admit Of the ccndi-
sional or contingent apology which you
| offered. Ii could be apoiogIzed for only
BY frank vitadraval.
| You aivsys contebded that il was a
! Communication between the officers Of yous
government and it vas ne. proper for thl
aevernment to take any cognizsnce Of II
/ Yoa quot. the well kaovn declaration in
tie Ruizmsn case in regard to the message
Ct the President to Congress not beicg q
sui i9cs for critieism in foreiz-
| country. You did not see the great
difference involved by your govern
msot sending the Malta eirculal
TO all tie legations Of Chill, apC
rsousstius its several ministers TO pab,isi
il; 90 ihaa Caih vas not only respoasibi'
for the discourteous language but for IL
publication throughout the civilized world
Thss you did not comply with ChiIfs re
, qaess to publish ii here vas the ssronses
proof Of youf own diapprovsl Of the note
, In regard to Mr.. Essn, you complai ie'
. many tines and very bitterly to me. Ef
pecisliy VS. he deserving ceHsafe, yol
: thought, for not communicating to bis gov
} efrmens the brutal murder Of cone your
> men slain BY order Of Bslmac,ds. Wse
. q the next day / showed you the d.spa;c