The Indianapolis journal., 1892-01-29

would have insisted on your feuuclng ~ to
writing. for it would have been my duty
to lay it before the President for consider
alton. But was unable TO report mere
verbal exchange of views between us as an
agreement TO arbltrate. lou did say TO
me several times that in that distant future
when the Chilian court should render its
judgment lif the United States should not
be satisfied with i'll the two countries
could srbitrate the matter. And even
then you always maintained that Chill
would not voluntarily propose arbitration
herself, but would do so when requested by
some friendly power to take that course.
On one occasion you mentioned Spain as
nation likely to intervene with Chill most
effectively.
Your mention OF arbitration was always
as a method to be adopted in the future, IT
we were not content, as have said. with
the Judgment of the court. You remarked
that to adopt it before would be dlscredit-
ing the Judgment of the court in advance.
You always looked to the future for the
proposal and acceptance of arbitration.
You say in your: note: took occasion TO
inform You on the 1st of January that my
government authorized me to conclude an
agreement looking to arbitration, and my
government subsequently approved the
agreement concluded by me-" And yet
you do not pretend that word was ever
written of the agreement which you say
we made between us. It is impossible
that ever sought to bind the government
of the United States IN that way. 1t would
have been in the highest degree imprudent
for me to do so.
In regard to the Malta note. which was
the subject of contention between rs. you
sum it up by the following declaration:
II added, however. that 1t was far from
being the purpose of my government TO act
In q manner at all offensive to the Presl-
dent of the United States or to any mem
ber of his Cabinet, and that Mr.. Matta's
note, If rightly interpreted. admitted or
no such construction. i afterwards had the
instruction from my government to inform
that of the United States that. considering
the views expressed by Messrs. Buchanan
and Webster in lS49 and 1850, that the
messages sent by the President to Congress
are domestic communications which can
not serve as q basis for the Interpretation
of foreign powers or their representatives,
my government had no objec tiun to strik-
ing out of the note of Dec. IL such
words as might be considered disagreeable
by the United States government"
BY your own statement you evidently
attempted to Justify the Malta note. i cor
tainly could not accept your language, and
never did accept language of that kind as
an apology sufficient for the case. The
Malta note was highly discourteous TO the
President and the Secretary of the Navy,
imputing to them untruth and insincerity.
Snch language does not admit or condItion-
al or contingent apology. which you of
fered. 1t could be apologized for only by
frank withdrawal You always contended
that 1t was communication between of1l-
GERS of your own government, and that It
was not proper for this government to take
any cognizance of it. You quoted the WELL
known declaration in the Hulsemann case
in regard to the message of President TO
Congress not being subject TO criticism In
great difference involved by your govern
ment sending the Malta circular to all the
legations of Chilli and requesting it's sew
eral ministers to publish 1t; so that Chilli
was not only responsible for the dlsc0ur-
teous language, but for Its publication
throughout the civilized world. That you
did not comply with Chili's request to pub
lish it here was the strongest proof OF your
own disapproval of the note.
In regard to Mr.. Egan you complained
many times and very bitterly TO me. Espec-
tally was he deserving of censure, you
thought. for not communicating to his gov
erDment the brutal murder OF some young
men who were slain by order of Balmaceda.
When. on the next day. l showed you the
dispatch of Mr.. Egan speaking of the inci-
dent In severe and proper terms. you
acknowledged that you were mistaken. L
thought you would be satisfied, but you
again spoke disparaginsly OF Mr.. Egan and
/ said somewhat impatiently. Why 90
you not demand his recall instead of con-
stantly dsparaging himf-intending
thereby not TO favor his recall. but to put a
stop to the frequent mention of Mr.. Egan's
name. In referring to the question.
you remarked. you were pleased to
acknowledge that the government or
Chill had a right to ask that a change
should be made" undoubtedly shows that
right, provided she assigns reason. You
are too well skilled In diplomatic usage
TO be reminded that when nation is
pleased to declare that minister Is per-
soma non grata she is expected to assign
reason therefor. We have twice had occa-
sion to ask Great Britain to recall her min
lister. and In each case, we gave q reason
why the minister had ceased to be useful.
1t is hardly necessary to observe that con-
ditIons which we complied with ourselves
would likewise be exacted of Chilli.
have thus frankly endeevored to cor
rect some misapprehension of yours in or
der that the record of the State Depart
ment of the United States shall be kept ex-
act and in all its proceedings shall be con-
sistent. Accept, sir, the renewed assur-
ances of my highest consideration.
JAMES u. BLAINE.
Senor Don Pedro Montt, etc