Los Angeles herald., 1892-01-29

you were pleased to favor me on the goth
instant, had the honor to state that
the representative OF the United States
at Santiago was not persona grata to
the government OF Chile, which would
be very glad to receive another repre-
sentative from the United States. You
were pleased to acknowledge that the
government Of Chile had a right to ask
that q change should be made. After
wards, having your notice, addressed
to YOU in writing the same communica-
ton which had made to you verbally.
I have deemed it my duty to state in
this note the foregoing facts which show
the friendly and cordial purpose of our
conferences, in which you took most
important parts. With sentiments, etc.,
PEDRO MoNTr.
To Hon. James G. Blaine, etc., etc.
BLAINE TO MoNrr.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, January, 9TH
SIR: have the honor to acknowledge
your favor dated 23d inst, but not re-
ceived by me until Monday. the 25th. l
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 in saying | considered the pro-
ceedings Of the government of Chile in
making judicial investigation OF the
unhappy affair at Valparaiso, entirely
praiseworthy; but you will remember
that as early as the 25th November
1 complained of the length of the
judicial proceedings, and from time
to time renewed the complaint, saying
to you very lately that the court had
already been eighty days in session con-
sidering a matter which in the United
States would have been wholly disposed
of in two or three weeks. You replied
that the Spanish laws were slow in pro-
cesses but exact in conclusions, and
with your statement l had to De con-
tent, though impatient for final judg-
ment.
Your offer of arbitration was never
unconditional and exact. Had it been,
/ would have insisted on your reducing
it to writing, for it would have been my
duty to lay it before the president for
consideration, but am unable to report
a mere verbal exchange of views
between the ourselves as an agree
ment to arbitrate. You did say to me
several times that in that dis
tant future when the Chilean court
should render is Judgment, if the
United States should not be satisfied
with it the two countries could arbi-
trate the matter Even then you always
maintained that Chile would not volun-
tarily propose arbitration, but would do
SO when requested by some friendly
power to take that course. Your
mention of arbitration was always as a
method to be adopted in the future if
we were not content, as | have said,
with e.judgment OF the courts. You
remarked that to adopt it before, would
be discrediting the judgment of the
court in advance. You always looked
to the future for q proper proposal and
acceptance of arbitration.
You say in your note: 81 took occa-
sion to inform you on the 1st of January
that my government authorized me to
conclude an agreement looking to arbi-
tration, and my government subse-
quently approved the agreement con-
cluded by me-" and yet you do not pre-
tend that word was ever written of the
agreement which you say was between
us. 1t is impossible that ever sought
to bind the government of the United
States in that way. IL would be in the
highest degree imprudent for me to
do SO.
In regard to the Malta note which
was a subject OF contention between us,
you submit the following declaration :
81 added, however, that it was far from
being the purpose of my government to
act in manner at all offensive
to the president or any member of his
cabinet, and that Matta's note, if
rightly interpreted, admitted of no such
construction. 1 afterwards had the
honor to inform you that had received
instructions from my government to in
form that of the United States that, con-
sidering views expressed by Buchanan
and Webster in 1849 and 1850, that mes
sages sent by the president to congress
were domestic communications which
cannot serve as basis for Interpretation
by foreign powers or their representa-
tives. My government had no objection
to striking out of the note of December
1lth such words as might be con-
sidered disagreeable by the
United States government" By
your own statement you evidently
attempted to justify the Malta note.
certainly could not accept your language,
and never did accept language of that
kind as an apology sufficient for the case.
The Malta no5e is discourteous to the
president and the secretary of the navy,
imputing to them untruths and insin-
cerity. Such language does not admit of
the conditional or contingent apology
you offered. 1t could be apologized for
only by frank withdrawal. You always
coDtended that it was communication
between officers of your own govern
ment, and that it was not proper for this
government to take any cognizance of it.
You quoted the we'll known declaration
of congress not being subject to criti-
cism in foreign countries. You
did not see the great difference
involved by your government sending
the Malta circular to all the legations OF
Chile, and requesting its several minis
ters to publish it, go that Chile was not
only responsible for the discourteous
language, but tor its publication
throughout the civilized world. That
you did not comply with Chile's request
to publish it here, is the strongest proof
of your own disapproval OF the note.
In regard to Egan, you complained
many times and very bitterly to me,
especially that he was deserving of CEN
sure, you thought, for not communi-
eating to his government the brutal
murder of some young men who were
slain by order of Balmaceda. When
next day I showed you dispatch of
Egan's, speaking of the incident
in general, in proper terms, you