The record-union., 1892-01-29
VERY PEACEFUL OUTLOOK.
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE.

CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE.
from time to time renewed the complaint,
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 laws were slow in pro-
cess, but exact in conclusions, and with
your statement / had to be content,
though impatient for the final judgment.
Your offer of arbitration was never un-
conditional and exact. Had it been,
would have insisted on your reducing 1t
to writing, for it would have been my
duty to lay it before the President for
consideration; but | was unable tc report
a mere verbal exchange of views between
the Chilean and United States as an
agreement to arbitrate. You did say to
me several times that in that distant fu-
ture when the Chilean Court should rem
der its judgment if the United States
should not be satisfied with it,, the two
countries could arbitrate the matter, and
even then you always mentioned that
Chile would not voluntarily propose ar
bitration, but would do SO when re-
quested by some friendly power to take
that course. On one occasion you men
toned Spain as a nation likely to inter
vene with Chile. Your mention of arbi-
tration was always as a method to be
adopted in future if we were not content,
as l have said, with the judgment Of the
courts. You remarked that to adopt IL
before would be to discredit the judg-
ment of the court in advance. You
always looked to the future for the pro-
posal and acceptance of arbitration. You
say in your note: 81 took occasion to
inform you on the first Of January that
my Government authorized me TO con-
clude an agreement looking TO arbitra-
ton, and my Government subsequently
approved the agreement concluded by
me-" And yet you do not pretend that a
word was ever written of the agreement,
which, you say, was between us. 1t is
impossible that / ever sought to bind the
Government ofthe United States in that
way. 1t would be 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 1t up by the following declaration
Il added, however, that it was far from
being the purpose of my Government 10
act in a manner at all offensive to the
President of the United States or any
member of his Cabinet, and that Malta s
note, if rightly interpreted, admitted OF
no such construction. L afterward had
the honor to inform you that l received
instructions from my Government to in
form that of the United States that, con-
sidering the views expressed by Bu-
chanan and Webster in 1910 and 1850, that
the messages sent by the President TO
Congress were domestic communications
which cannot serve as a basis for the in
depreciation of foreign powers or their
representatives, my Government had no
objection to striking out of the note OF
December lIth such words as might be
considered disagreeable to the United
States Government"
By your own statement you evidently
attpn1nfp6 rn inSfifyr tho Mafta
certainly could not accept your language
and never did accept language of thai
kind as an apology sufficient for the case.
The Malta note was highly discourteous tC
the President and Secretary of the Navy,
impugning to them untruths and insin-
cerity. Such language does not admit OF
the conditional or contingent apology
which you offered. 1t could be apologized
for only by frank withdrawal.
You also contended that it was the
communication between officers of your
own Government, and that it was not
proper for this Government to take any
cognizance of it. You quoted a we'll
known declaration to Congress as not be-
ing subject TO criticism in a foreign coun-
try. You did not see the great difference
involved by your country in sending the
Malta circular to all the Legations OF
Chile and requesting its several Ministers
to publish it, so that Chile was not only
4CSpOISlOl6 IOl IllG QlSCOuI JSOUS ldDS
but it's publication throughout the civil
lied world. That you did not comply
with Chile's request to publish it here is
the strongest proof of your own disap-
proval 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 communicating
to his Government the brutal murder oi
some young men who were slain by the
order of Balmaceda. When, the next
day, [ showed you the dispatch of EgaI
speaking OF the incident in general in the
proper terms, you acknowledged that you
were mistaken. l thought you would be
satisfied, but you again spoke disparag-
ingly of Egan, and L said, somew hat ve-
hemently, why do you not demand his
recall, instead of disparaging him?'' in.
tending thereby not TO favor his recall
but to put stop to the frequent mention
of Egan'S name.
Referring to the question, you re-
marked that you were pleased to acknowl
edge that the Government OF Chile has
right to ask that a change be made
Undoubtedly she has that right, provided
she assigns q reason. You are too wei
skilled in diplomatic usage to be re
minded that when nation is forced t.
declare Minister is persona. non C7dtC
that she is expected to assign a reason
therefor. We have twice had occasion. t.
ask Great Britain to recall her Ministers
and in each case given a reason why tn,
Minister ceased to be useful. Ii is hardly
necessary to observe that the conditions
which we complied with ourselves would
likewise be exacted of Chile.
have thus frankly endeavored to cor
rect some misapprehensions of yours il
order that the State Department of tht
United States shall be kept exact, and il
all its proceedings shall be proved con
SiStent
Accept our renewed assurances and IN!
highest consideration.
JAMES G.. BLAINE.