Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-01-29
DIPLOMATIC NOTES.
,ur hnswER or THE CHILEAN
oovrRsmENr
u,.ine.. Reply 80 Noait. - EEan's
Note.


n,sino's Reply 10 Moait - EEanr
Note.
nLAfsE 10 MONTH
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Warrington Jan. ~, 1892.
slt-i have tho honor to acknowi'
49, YOUR favor dated tho 28rd inst.i
MI ret received by me until Monday
,be ss,h. beg 10 comment on two or
,bsce olits fecitals. | think that, from
,e,l for your country, you have made
sop,e mistAkes which | shall proceed 10
eof,ct. You nre right IN saying that
considered inc proceedings OF the
government Of Chile In making u IL
dirial investigation VI the unhappy af-
nif nj Valparaiso entirely praisewor-
Inv. But you Will remember that M
enfly AZ the 95th OF November, COM
pliined Of the length OF tho judicial
rroeredings, and from time TO time
renewed the complaint, aaying To you
lately that the court had already been
eighty days Ina session, considering a
matter when In the United States
" luld have been wholly disposed OF In
two or three weeks. You replied that
spanish law was slow IN its processes,
bat exactfin iF conclusions, and with
YOUR statements | had 10 bu content,
thougt impatient for u final Judgment.
Your Dllor for arbitration wRs mover
uucoudiiionniG aud exact. Had IL been,
| would have Insisted ON your re1uc'
Ing 4, IN writing, for It would bave
b,yn MY duty to lay Il before tho
PRECEDENT for consideration, but unable
10 r,pOrt n mere verbal exchange
Of vltws between US ns an agree.
ment to arlilfato. You did say
10 me several times that, in
that distant future, whom the Chilean
court should order Iva judgment az tue
United States should not be satisfied
with ~, tie two oOuntries could pr
bltn.lo the matter, and even then you
always maintained that Guile would
not voluntarily propose arbitration,
but would do 20 when required by
lomefriondly power 10 take That course.
On one Ouc asiOn you mentioned Spain
a. q nation likely to intervene with
Chile and made effective. Your mon.
ton Of arbitration was always ~ n
me,hcd to be adopted Ia the future, n
we we're not content Bs l have said,
with tue judgment " your courls.
You remarked that, to adopt II before,
would he discrodlting the Judgment Of
the court In advance land always looked
10 the futuis fOr the proposal and 40.
ceptauco Ofarbltrstion.
You say In your note: 81 took DC.
clsion 10 Inform you ON the let Of
January that my government author.
lied ne 10 conclude an agreement
lOoalng to arbitration, and my GOV.
eminent subsequently approved tho
ngreemunt concluded by me-" and yet
you DO not pretend that word was
ever written OF tho agreement which
you nay was between US. IL In Inn
possible that | eves sought 10 bind the
government OF the United States IA
that way. II would have been in the
highest degree imprudont for me TO
do 40.
In regard to the Malta note, which
Wss the subject Of contention between
Us, you sum II up by the following
ducarntiOn: 81 added, however, that
II was n'r from being the purpose OF
my government 10 act In manner at
all offensive 10 tho President of tho
United States or any member OF his
I ca1inet aud that Mntta'a note, N
rightly Interpreted, admitted " no
such construction. l afterwards had
The honor TO inform you that had re-
ceiVed Instructions from my governs
ment TO Inform that OF the United
States, considering the vicws express
ell by buchanan and Webster In lsiO
hhu 1907, that n message sent by the
resident 10 Congress was n domestic
communication which cannot serve M
OASIS for the Interpretation Of foreign
towers or their representatives, my
government had no objection N sirik-
ing out OF the note Uf December 4 tn
such words as might DO considered
uisagreeable by the United States gov
eEnmcnl." by your own statement
you evidently attempted 10 Justify tho
Malta note. certainly could not az.
cept your language, and never did ac-
cert language Of that Kind as nn nppol-
0gy sufficient for the case. Tho Malta
note was highly dinCOrteOus to the
PRESIDENT aud secretary OF the navy,
impugning 10 them untru,hs and
nsiuneriy. Such language does not
admit of the conditional or contlgent
apology which you offered. II could be
hpologised Tor only by frank with.
ufaWal. You always commended that il
." N"AHAhhAllAsNlVli btANtNH NliittEn
Of your own government and that II
N.9s not proper for this government to
laGe any cognlzanec OF II. You quoted
Tue well known declaration, that
message TO Congress not being subject
10 criticism In a foreign country, you
ull not see the great difference la.
VOWED by your government IN sending
we Malta circular to all tho legations of
Chilc, requesting it, several ministers
10 publihh II, 30 that Chile was not only
IetIonalhle for the dlscourteous lAu-
buage, but for its publication through
g9t the civilized world. That you
wa not comply with Chile's request
70 publish 1t here Is the strongest proof
o' your own disapproval Of the note.
an regard To kgan, you complained
many tlmes aud very bitterly, 10 me
especially, that he was deserving OF
cehsurr, you thought, for not com.
mnhicating to his government the bru.
,ai murder Of some young men VINO
were slain by the order Of Balmaceda;
Wneh next DAY | showed you The |
uslalch OF Egan speaking OF tho |
.uuluent In general and An proppr |
.rT'ns, you Acknowledged thai Won |
were mistaken. thought you
would be satisfied, hut YOU asnin |
,,poke disparaglnrly Of Lgnn. ami |
= hall somewhat yehemently. 6Why |
uoy9u not demans his recall, Instead Of |
constantly dlsparaglng him,O intend. |
Jug lntfeby not TO favor that recall. lint