St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-01-29

saying to you very lately that the court
had already been eighty days in session
considering a matter which in the
United States would have been wholly
disposed of in two or three weeks. You
replied that the Spanish law was slow
in its process, but exact in its conclu-
sionS; and with your statement had to
be content, though impatient for final
Judgment.
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 was unable to re-
port mere verbal exchange of views
between us as an agreement to arbi-
trate. You did say to me several times
that III that distant future, when the
Chiiian court should render its judy
ment tif the United States should not
be satisfied with it), the two countries
could arbitrate the matter. And even
then you always maintained that Chilli
would not voluntarily propose arbitra-
ton herself, but would do so when re-
quested by some friendly power to take
that course. Gin one occasion you men,
toned Spain as nation likely to inter-
mention of arbitration was always as a
method to be adopted in the future, if
we were not content. as l have said,
with the Judgment of the court. You
remarked that to adopt it before would
be dlscrediting the judgment of the
court in advance. You always looked
to the future for the proposal and &C
ceptance of arbitration.
You say i'll 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-
tratlon, and my government subse-
quenty approved the agreement con-
cluded by me-"
And yet you do not pretend that a
word was ever written of the agreement
which you say we made between us. 1t
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
us, you sum it up ny the following
declarations:
Il added. however, that it was far
from being the purpose OF my govern
menU to act IN manner at all unenslve
to the president of the United States, or
to any member of his cabinet, and that
Mr.. Matta,s note, if rightly interpreted,
admitted of no such construction"
al afterwards had the honor to inform
you that | had received instructions
from my government to inform that of
the United States, considering the views
expressed by MeSsrs. Buchanan and
Webster, in 1S49 and 1850. that the mes
SageS sent by the president to congress
are domestic communications, which
cannot serve as basis for the inter-
probation of foreign powers of their rep
resentatlyeS, my government had no
objection to striking out of the note of
Dec. II such words as might be consid-
cred disagreeable by the United States
government"
BY your own statement, you evident
ly attempted to justify the Malta note.
L certainly could not accept your Ian
guage, 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. imDuting to them
untruth and insincerity. Such language
does not admit of the conditional or
contingent apology, which you offered.
1t could be apoligized for only by a
frank withdrawal. You always con-
tended that it was communlca-
ton between off GERS of your own
government, and that it was not
proper fer this government to take any
cognizance of it. You quoted the well
known declaration in the HUFFMAN case
in regard to the message of a president
to congress not being subject to criti-
eism in a foreign country. You did not
see the great difference involved by
your government sending the Malta
circular to all the legations Of Chill and
requesting its several ministers to pub
lish it; so that Chilli was not only re-
sponsfble for the diScourteouS language
but for its publication throughout the
civilized world. That you did not COM
ply with Chlli's request to publish 1t
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.
Especially was he deserving of cenSure,
you thought, for not communicating to
his government the brutal murder of
some young men who were slain by
order of Balmaceda. When on the next
day showed you the dispatch from Mr.
Egan, commenting on the incident in
severe and proper terms, you acknOwl-
edged that you were mistaken. / thought
you would be satisfied, but you again
spoke diSparagingly of Mr.. Egan, and
said. somewhat impatiently: why do
you not demand his recall instead of
constantly dlsparaging him? intending
thereby not to favor his recall, but to
put stop to the frequent mention of
Mr.. Egan'S name
In referring to the question you re-
mark: You were pleased to acknowl-
edge that the government of Chill had
right to ask that change should be
made. Undoubtedly she has 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
persona non grata she is expected to as
sign a reason therefor. We have twice
had occasion to ask Great Britain to
recall her minister, and in each case we
gave reason why the minister had
ceased to be useful. 1t is hardly neces
sary to observe that conditions which
we complied with ourselves would like
wise be eXacted-of Chill. | have thus
frankly endeavOred to correct some
mlsapprehenSions of yours in order that
the record of the state depart ment of
the United States shall be kept exact,
and in all its proceedings shall be con-
slStent, Accept, sir, the renewed as
surances of my highest consideration.
JAMES q. BLAINE.
Senior Don Pedro Mont.
PERETRA SOIIAREC TurNcS