Oakes weekly Republican. (Oakes, Dickey County, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1883-1898, 1892-02-05
BLAINE'S ANSWER.
The Secretary Corrocts Some stnteme enta
t?,H. tty as,n+t,


AialIo 1y asontt,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WAsIIINGroN;
Jan. 81, lS92.-Sir: have the honor to
acknowledge your favor dated the a3rd
inst. but not received by me until Mor-
day, the 25th. l beg to comment on two
or three of it's rccitals think from zeal
for your country you have made some
mistakes, which l shall proceed to cor
rect.
You are right in saying that I consid-
cred the proceedings Of the government OF
Chilli in making the judicial investigation
of the unhappy affair at Valparaiso en-
tirely pruiseworthy. But you will remem-
ber as early as the 25th Ut November ]
complained Of the length of the judicial
proceedings. and from time to time re-
newed the complaint, saying to you very
lately that the court had already been
eighty days in session, considering a mat
| ter 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 processes, but exact in its
conclusions, and with your statements
had to be content, though impatient for
| final Judgment. Your offer of arbitration
was never
I 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 presi-
dent for consideration. But was unable
to report mere verbal exchange of views
between us as an agreement to arbitrate
The Malta Note.
III regard to the Malta note, which was
the subject Of contention between us, you
sum it up in the followin. declaration:
~ added, however. that it was far from
being the purpose Of my government tn
act in a manner ut all offensive to the
president of the United States or to any
member of his cabinet, and that Mr..
Matta's note, if rightly constructed, adj
mittcd of no such construction; | after:
wards had the honor to inform you that
had received instructions from my govern
ment to inform that of the United States,
that, considering the views expressed by
Messrs. Buchanan and Webster in 1S.9
and 1850, that the messages sent by the
president to congress are domestic com
munications, which cannot serve MS q basis
for the Interpretation OF foreign powers OF
their representatives, my government had
no objection to striking out of the note of
Dec. II such words as might he considered
disagreeable by the United States govern
ment."
BY your own statement you evidently
attempted to justify the Malta note.
certainly could not accept your languag,
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 i'll
sincerity. Such language does not admit
| of conditional opp1nr,-
which you offered 1t could be apollo
gized for only by frank withdrawal
That you did not comply with Chili's re
quest to publish it here was the strongest
proof of your own disapproval of th.
note.
The Egnn Matter.
In regard to Mr.. Egan, you complained
many times and very bitterly to me. Els
pecally was he deserving of censure, yol
thought, for not communicating to hi
government the brutal murder of som,
young men who were slain oy order o
Balmaceda. When on the next day
showed you the dispatch of Mr.. Egan o
the incident in severe and proper terms
you acknowledged that you were mis-
taken. thought you would be satisfied
but you again spoke disparagingly of Mr.
Egan, and said somewhat impatiently
"Why do you not demand his recall in
stead of constantly disparaging him:" in
tending thereby not to favor his recall ,bu
to put a stop to the frequent mention o
Mr.. Egan's name. In referring to tn
question YOU renr,rl "You We're pleased
to acknowledge that the government o
} Chilli had right to tx that a chang
should be madc.r UnL otedly she ha
that right, provided she ..ssigus q reason
| Il Il ,,. I'LL Z