Los Angeles herald., 1892-01-29

ti6cation, give incontestable authority
to the trial held at Valparaiso.
In the course of our conferences we
have sometimes considered the case in
which the government of the United
states and the government of
Chile should fail to agree when
investigation should be termin-
ated and the two governments should
have formed their final opinion, and
agreed on arbitration as the best means
of settling the difficulty; and advancing
further in this conciliatory spirit. we
even formally agreed that the differ
ences that might arise should be SUBJ
mitted to arbitration. This agreement
to accept arbitration shas been the basis
of several of our conferences, especially
that of the 18th inst, and no antecedent
or fact interfering Herewith. has come
to nay knowledge. On the contrary, /
took occasion to inform you the 1st of
January, that my government had au-
thorized me to conclude an agreement
looking to arbitration, and my govern
ment subsequently approved the agree
ment concluded by me with you, of
which also informed you.
As the criminal trial initiated at Val
paraiso has not come to an end, my
government has not yet been able to
reply to the demands of the United
States. Various documents and incl
dents to which have called your atten-
tion in my foregoing communication,
were designed TO inform the United
States government of the progress of the
judicial investigation, and of the facts
thereby elected. They do not, however,
constitute a reply, which can only be
given when the facts which have been
definitely brought to light by the SEN
tence which must be pronounced by the
courts. The testimony which the gov
ernment has caused to be taken in Cal
ifornia from the crew OF the Baltimore,
cannot take the place of the trial being
held at Valparaiso where the offense
was committed. The testimony may be
useful for disciplinary or administrative
cannot serve as basis of judicial sem
tence, either in Chile or the United
States.
The copy which have today had the
honor to send you OF the statement
made by one of the seamen of the Bal
timore at Valparaiso, shows that the
seaman made no charge against the
police. The charges which he makes
here, in the absence of the accused
parties, in contradiction of his first
statement, have no value, either in law
or i n your enlightened opinion.
1t is to be observed, moreover, that
the statement made by this seaman at
Valparaiso, is attested by the Judge, by
the signature of the seaman himself,
and by that OF the interpreter who was
an officer of the Baltimore, who had
been appointed for the express purpose
of inspiring the deponents with conf
dence.
You were pleased to state in your in
structions to Egan that the undersigned
has not communicated to the United
States government the note addressed to
him by Malta on the 1Ith of December,
last. The first time the honorable Sec
retary of state saw fit to call my atten-
ton to aforesaid note of Malta, / told
him that the note contained instructions
addressed to me by Malta, and that as 1
had not been directed to COM
municate it officially to the de-
partment of state, there was no
reason why the honorable secretary
should take cognizance of it. further
reminded you there was doctrine es-
tablished by the American government,
| that documents exchanged between the
| president and congress, or between the
department. of state and diplomatic rep
resentatives of the United States in
| foreign countries, could not form the
subject of discussion for foreign govern
ments. / also took the liberty to re-
mind you OF the illustrious Webster and
the representative of Austria in 1850.
The Austrian government complained
at that time because it considered
instructions sent to the rep
resentative of the United States
unjust or disrespectful to Austria, said
instructions having been published in
message of the president who sent it to
the senate. "This department" said
Mr.. Webster, "has, on former occa-
sion, informed the ministers of foreign
powers that a communication from the
president to either house of congress is
regarded as domestic communication
of which, ordinarily, no foreign state has
cognizance, and in more recent cases the
great improperly OF making such COM
munication the subject OF correspon-
dence and diplomatic discussion has
been fully shown" The circumstance
of it's publicity does not change
the character of the communication,
in the opinion OF Webster, because
'ssuch is the common and usual mode of
procedure OF communications of the
president to the house and senate" 1t
was, therefore, on the nature of the note,
and no other reason, that passed by
abstention from communication to you
the instructions which Malta had sent
me on the 1lth of December, and / had
the honor so to inform you. / added,
however, thar it was far from being the
purpose of my government to act in
manner at all offensive to the president
of the United States or any member OF
his cabinet, and that Matta's note, if
rightly interpreted, admitted of no such
construction.
l afterwards had the honor to
inform you / had instructions
from my government to inform
that of the United States, that consider
alton of the views expressed by Bu-
chanan and Webster in 1S49 and 1850,
that messages sent by the president to
congress were domestic communica-
tions which cannot serve as basis for
interpretations of foreign powers or
their representatives. My government
had no objection to the striking out of
the note of December 11th such words
as might be considered disagreeable by
the United States government.
On the 18th instant an official tele-
gram was published, which had been
addressed by the commander of the
Yorktown to the secretary of the navy,