The National tribune., 1892-02-04
Secretary Blaine 10 Minister MONT.
DEPARTMENT or STATE
NAFa-uHr.ag4s.5.r... -

NAsHINGTOH, Jan. q, 1892.
SIR: j have the honor 10 aclinowI edge your
favor dated the 23d inst, but not received by me
until Monday, the 25th. j beg to comment on two
or three OF lie recitals think from zeal for your
shall proceed 10 correct.
You are right ia saying that considered the pro-
cecdings OF the Government Of Chile la making
the Judicial investi gatiun 81 tie uuhappy affair Al
Valparaiso entirely prHseWOuhy. But YOU will
remember that early a. the 25h November 4
complained 81 he length Of the judicial proceed
ings aud from time 10 Time renewed the complain
saying to you very lately that the court had Al
ready been ~ days iH session considering "A matter
which, in tile United States, would have been
wholly disposed Of in two three weeks You
replied that the Spanish Inv was slow III its pro-
cesseH but exact ia its conclusions; aud with your
statements had 10 be content, though impatient
for final Judgment.
Your offer Of arbitration was never unconditional
aud exact. Had ii been would have insisted on
your reducing u 10 writing for u would have been
my duty 70 lay u before the President for con-
HldefHliOn. But ] WAS unable 10 report n mere
verbal exchange OF views between AZ an agree
ment TO Rrbitrate. You did say 10 me aeyeral
times that DO thHt distant future when the Chilean
court should render it, judgment o. the United
states should not be satisfied with II the two cOun-
tries could arbitrRte tie matter. Aud even then
you always maintained that Chile would not vol
UNFAIRLY propose arbitration herself but would do
30 when requested by some friendly power to take
that course On one occasion YOU rneutioued
Spain 81 nation likely 20 intervene with Chile
most effectively. Your mention Of arbitration was
always az "A method 10 be adopted la the future IN
We were moi COIlGul have SAID. with the 1udg-
nent Of the court You remarked that 20 adopt ID
before would be discrediting the judgment Of The
oourl ln advance. You always looked 10 the future
LOT lhe proposal and acceptance VI arbitration.
You say ln your note.
II took occasion 20 inform you on the let OF
January that my Government authorized me 10
conclude an agreement looking 10 arbitration and
my Government subsequently, approved tho agree
ment concluded by me-"
Aud yet you do not pretend that n word was
ever written Of the agreement which you say we
hat 4 eye
sought 10 bind tie Government Of the United
States "a that way. IL would have been in the
highest degree
IMPRUDEET FOR ME- TO DO so.
IN regard 10 the Malta note which was a sub.
lect Of contention between as you sum IL IN lv
the following declaration.
Il added however that a was far from being
/ the purpose Of my Government 10 act la "A manner
at all offensive 10 the President Of Tie United
\ States, or 10 any member 81 hls Cabinet aud that
Mr. Matia's note, q rightly interpreted admitted
= nitcrwnrd bad the honor 10 Inform you that
/ had received instructions from uy Government ~
inform that Of the United ~lAtes TINT cauzideri np
/ tie views expressed by Mc--rr Buchanan aud
Webster u 1883 aud 1850 lhht lie messages seut by
Rhe President 10 Congress are domestic cunlnuui.
cations which cannot serve "a basis FOR the inter
probation by foreign powers their Representa-.
hNcH, my Government had $50 objection 10 striking
out 81 the note ~ Dee u such n, rd- a. might De-
eumcut.n
by your own statement sou evidently attempted
4 70 justify the Malta mole. j certainly could not
accept your language mud never did accent Ian.
RuRRe 81 that kind as apology "a lcient for Tie
case. The Malta note was highly droOurteous 10
the President aud tlIe Secretary 81 the Navy i'm
puHug 70 lhcm uutruth aud iHsinCcrity. such
language does mot admit Of conditional or contn,
gent apology which you offered. ID could be
"l5ologized Tor ouly by a frank withdrawal. You
Away commended that ID wac "a communication be.
4 tween officers ~ your own Government aud that
u was not proper Tor this Government 10 lake any
cogntzauce Of it You quoted the well
iETf IA IN lie Ia Fv. "a
message Of President ~ Congress not being sub.
ject 10
CRITICISM IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
! You did not the great difference involved by
! your Government sending the Malta circular 10 All
tie Legations 81 Chile aud requesting its several
Ministers 10 publish il; that Chile war not on
responsible for the di-cOurteous language but for
lie publication thTOug h0ut tie civilized word THAI
/ you did not comply with Chile's request 10 pub.
1 lish " here wac thc strongest proof Of your own
/ disHpprOval Of the note.
IN regard to Mr. I.gan you complained many
! Times aud very bitterly 20 me. Especially was he
deserving u ceHHure you thought, Tor not com.
1 munlcaiiuR 20 Ills Government the brutal murder
/ Of some young men who were slain by order III
l3almRceda When on lie neyt dav 4 siovy,sg ,oI
the dispatch Of Mr.. Egau, speaking Of the Incl
dent Ia severe and proper terms YOU Hck wledRod
/ that you were mistaken. thought you would bc
satisfied, bat you again spoke dispArRgingly Of Mr.
1 EEan, and said somewhat impaiirntly " WHY dc
YOU not demand las recall instead Of constantly
diHpAraRinR him? intending thereby not 10 IA voI
his recall but 10 pat stop 10 the freouent mention
Of Mr. Egau's name.
ln referring 10 the question you remarked.
You were pleased 10 acknowledge that the
Government 81 Chile had right 10 ask thai !
! change should be mRdeh
Undoubtedly she las that right provided shs
assigns q You too wei sk lied IA diplo
matte uses to be reminded that when a nation 4
plensed 10 declare that a Minister u gleys0nd no,
grdta she ~ expected 10 assign a reason therefor
| We have twice lad occasion 10 ask Great Britain
10 recall heT Minister, and Ia each case we gave ,
reason why Tie Minister had ceased 20 be useful
ID ~ hardly necessary 10 observe that condition
which complied with ourselves would INK evils,
br eRuctcd OF Chile.
I nave thus iIAukly endeayOred 20 correct som,