The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-01-27
Considered by the President and Cabinet Yes
terdsy, and to Be Turned Over to the Con-
gressionsl Committees, Likely. To-Day.
Everything Asked Said to Have Been
Conceded, but Notin a Proper Way.
Rsparation for the Valparaiso Outrage Not a
Matter for Observation-Disclosures through
British Channels-AC Correspondents Story.
CHILI.s BAcK-DowN.

CHILpS BACk-DOWN.
Telegram from Minister Egan which Is Said
TO Confirm the Press Dispatches.
SPECIAL TO the Indianapolis Journal.
WAsHINGToN, Jan. 26-lt transpIred late
this afternoon that Minister Egan had COM
municated to the Secretary of State the
reply of the Chilian government to the
note of Secretary Blaine, of the 21st inst,
as was stated in the press dispatches this
morning from Santiago. The general in
credulity of the public regarding the San
tiago dispatches was due to the fact that,
yesterday, Minister Egan had notified the
department. that the ChIlian government
asked for two or three days longer In
which to make its answer owing to the abb
sence of President MonSt at tho springs
above Santiago. Public expectation had
settled down to delay of that length of
time, and the published statement of to-
day, indicating that President Montt had
returned to tho capital. was wholly un-
looked for. 1t was not until tonight that
the fact of the reception of the message be-
came circulated. and the sentiment among
public men was one of doubt and uncer-
tainty. They knew not at first what
to say on the subject when asked
for opinions ss to the new phase
of the matter. The statement of
the contents of the message In TO- days tel-
egram is said to be practically correct.
Minister Egan said in effect that Chill
had agreed to withdraw the offensive note
sent by Senior Malta, to withdraw its re-
Guest for the recall of Minister Egan and
to submit tho Baltimore affair to the arbi-
tration of some neutral nation or to sub
NIT the matter to tho dsoision of tho United
States Supreme Court. Mr.. Egan stated
these propositions at greater length than
the press dispatch. but the exact additions
cannot now be ascertained. There 10 rea-
son to believe. however. that the Chilian
government not only offers to withdraw
the offensive note, but in addition offers to
apologize for it. It also agrees to the posi-
tions taken by the United States in regard
to the right of asylum and the safe con-
duct of refugees.
CONSIDERED BY THE CABINET.
The reply of Chill was the subject of q
consultation between the President and
Secretary Blaine at . late ssnr this after
noon. 90 well a. at the rneetiD. of tho Cab
met at noon. The views OF the United
States government upon she reply will;
probably not be communicated to Chill for
o day OF two. In the meantime, the text
of the message Of Minister Egan, it is ex-
pected. will be sent to the committee on
foreign affairs in the two houses of Con-
Rress for their information and to aid them
in the consideration of tn Presidents mes
sage and accompanying documents trans
mitted yesterday.
Inquiry tonight strengthens the impres-
sion that the reply of Chill is not salts
factory TO the members of the United
States government. Although the an
swer proposes. it 10 understood, to
withdraw the Malta note. the tenor
of the offer is not agreeable. Aud
the proposition said to be contained in the
reply to arbitrate the Baltimore affair is
taken to mean the whole question. whether
or not Chill shall apologize, as well as pay
indemnity. OF course that will not be en-
tsrtained. The United States must be the
Judge of the propriety of demanding an
apology-that cannot be arbitrated,
and therefore no reference to it in the
night, if Chilli apologized for the Baltimore
incident. the matter of amount of indemnity
by way of reparation, or whether or not
anything should be paid to the families Of
Riggin and Turnbull. might very we'll be-
come the subject Of arbitration; but the
apology must come. The proposition Of
Chilli TO throw the whole thing into the
Supreme Court for arbitrati on Is varlously
viewed. BY some it is thought to be
q declaration by Chill of full con-
fideuce In the justice and right
of her cause-a confidence so great and i'm
pllcit that she is willing to make a creature
of the other party to the controversy sole
judge of its merits. Others, however, think
1t Is, in common parlance. bluff, and that
Chill is not honest or sincere in her profes-
sions 1t is reclted that Chilli knows how
Court are restricted and limited by the
Constitution, and that she made the offer
knowing that it could not be entertained.
CANNOT ASSUME JURISDICTION.
The argument is advanced that the Su-
preme Court cannot and would not assume
jurisdiction over snch q matter One
justice or any number of them might act
as arbitrstors, as was done when five of
them took part in the proceedings of the
Electoral Commission in 1S76-77 but the
court, as q whole. could not take cog
nizahce of the case. The executive and
the legislative branches. by the terms Of
the Constitution. are charged with con-
Quoting and disposing of diplomatic mat
ters and they probably wonld not CEN
sent. If they could, to turning
them over TO the judicial brapch of
the government. This point was urged
In two notable cases only recently
Mr. Blaine and the Attorney general made
very strong contention that the Supreme
Court cannot deal with matter that 10 the
subject of diplomatic dispute. This was in
the Sayward case which grew out of the
Behring sea dispute. The petition for q
writ of prohibition in this case was taken
under consideration by the court upon thu
ground that it was legal question, and
not a diplomatic dispute that was brought
before them. The other was in the Well
La Abra claims. now under consIdera-
tiop in the Senate. Mexico asserts
that the awards to American claimants
In these cases were obtained by fraud,
and asks to have the money not
yet paid to the ella lmants returned to her.
Ii is proposed in the measure under dis
cnssion TO refer the subject TO the Court of
Claims for examination and decision. with
right of appeal to the Supreme Court. MIR.
Hoar, chairman of the Senate Judiciary
committee. argued against this latter pro-
vision on the ground that while Congress
might vest jurisdiction In the Court of
Claims to ascertain fact upon examina-
ton, that court being the creature of Con-
crest. ii could not confer jurisdiction upon
the supreme Court over matters outside of
the limits imposed by the Constitution, for
The roaaOU that that cOurf Waa erAafad l,v