The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-01-29

farther In this cOucil iatorY spirit we even
LoILnaY agreed that differences that might
srlse should De submitted 70 arbitration. This
agreement TO accept arbitration has been the
basis OF several OF our conferences especially
that Of the 18th inst, and no Antecedent of
iact interfering Herewith has come to my
knowledge. On the contrary, I took occasion
70 INFORM you, on the first OF January, that my
government authorized me TO con
ciuoe Si an aGreement looking to arbitra-
Ton, and my government subse-
quently approved the agreement concluded
by me with you, of which also informed you.
AS the criminal trial initiated at Valparaiso has
no. yet come TO an end, my government has
not yet been able TO reply 10 the demands made
by that OF the United States. The various dec
nments ana antecedents 10 which have called
your attention in my foregoing communica.
t!ons, were designed to inform the United States
government Of the progress of the judicial iu-
Vestgatton and OF the facts thereby elicited;
theY DO not, however, constitute reply, Which
can only De given when the facts definitely
brought 70 light by the sentence which must be
pronounced by the courts. The testimony
Wnlch the government of the United States has
caused TO be taken in California from the ci ew
OF the Baltimore. cannot take the place Of the
trial which is being held at Valparaiso
where the ohenses were committed. This testi-
mony may be useful for disciplinary or admin
lstratiVe purposes in the United States but ii
cannot serve as a basis OF judicial sentence
either in Chile or the United States The copy
have to-day had the honor to send you of a
statement made by one of the seamen OF the
Baltimore at Valparaiso shows that the sea.
men made no charge againss the police, The
charges which are made here In the absence or
the accused parties, in contradiction OF his first
statement, can have no value, either in law or
your enlightened opinion. IL is to be observed
moreover that the statement made by this sea.
man at Valparaiso 10 attested by Judge, by the
signature or the seaman himself and by that of
the interpreter who was officer of the Baltimore
who had been appointed for tie express pur-
dence.
YOu vera nIaaaed 10 stata In ,,o,,r ,,,o,tr,
TO Mr.. ERan that the undersigned has not com
muicated to the United States government the
note that was addressed TO him by MIR Malta
on the 18th Of December last The first time
that the honorable Secretary of State saw III to
cali my attention to the aforesaid noto OF Mr..
Malta. told him that that note contained inT
structions addressed to me by Mr.. Malta, and
that as mad not been directed TO communicate
it officially TO the department OF state, there
was no reason why the honorable secretary
should take cognizance of il. l further re-
minded you that II was doctrine established
by the American government that documents
exchanged between the President and congress
or between the department OF state and DIP
lomatic representative OF the United States in
foreign countries. could not form the subject
OF discussion for foreign governments. | also
took the liberty to remind you of the case of
the iuustrious Webster aud the representative
OF Austria in 1850. The Austrian government
complained at that time because il considered
the Instructions sent to the representatives OF
the United States an injustice or dSrespecUful
to Austria. said instructions having been pub
nsneu IN the message OF the President, who
sent it 20 the Senate. This department, ," said
Mr.. Webster, has on former occasions in
formed the minister Of foreign powers that
communication from the President TO
either house of congress is regarded
as domestic co mmuncation, of which ordi-
narty no foreign state has cognizancs. and. Ip
more recent cases the great impropriety Of
making such communications subject of cor
responderce and diplomatic discussion has been
fully shown" The circumstances OF publicity
did not change the character of a communica-
tion in the opinion of Dir. Webster. because
such is a common and usual mode OF proceed
ing. in the communication of the President
and Senate 1t was therefore, in the nature Of a
note. and on no other reason than that | based
my aDstentlon from communicating 20 you the
instructions which MIR Malta had sent to me on
the 1lth of December, and ! had the
honor so TO inform you. added
however. that it was far from being the purpose
OF my government to act in manner at all
offensive to the President of the United States
or 10 any member OF his cabinet, aud that Mr.
Matta's note if rightly interpreted, admitted OF
no such construction. ! afterward had the
honor to inform you that had received instruc-
tio IS from my government to inform that of
the United States that considering the views
expressed by MessrG. Buchanan and Webster In
lS49 and 1880 that messages sent by the Presi-
dent to congress are domestic communications
which cannot serve as a bas s for Interpretation
for foreign powers or their representatives My
government had no objection TO striking out of
the note of Dec. l1th such words as might bs
considered disagreeable by the United States
government. On 18th inst. an Official tele
gram was published which had been addressed
by the commandepof the Yorktown to the Sec-
retary of the Navy. 1t was couched in terms
that were offensive to the government of Chile,
and in view Of what we had said concerning the
note OF Dec, II, deemed It my duty to call
your attention to that telegram. The lofty
spirit of Justice which characterizes you did not
permit you 20 hesitate TO tell me that the word
ing Of said telegram was i'm proper and obiec-
tiOpAblp- This declaration n yUbi
was Impartial as Il was just terminated tire
incident. SiRce the early part Of the month of
October, when had the honor TO be invited
to unotnclal conferences with representatives
of the department of state las the credentials
which accredited me as the minister of Chile
had not yet arrvef), 1t has been repeated to
me on various occasions by United States gov
ernment that If the representative of United
States at Santiago was not persona 0Tat0 to the
government Of Chile, iC was sufficient for the
government of Chile so to state, and that said
represent ative would be succeeded by another.
1t is a rule based upon the nature OF diplomatic
relations and designed to make them frank and
cordial that the repres entative OF a nation must
be a persona qrdtd to the government to which
he is accredited. In the conference with which
you were pleased to favor me on the Goth inst
l had the honor to state that the representative
of the United States at Santiago was not per-
soma 0Tdtd to the government OF Chile,
which would be very glad to
ceve another representative from the
United States, you were pleased to
q right to that change should be made
Afterward having your notice, addressed to
you in writing the same communication had
made to you verbally ] have deemed it my
duty to state in this note the foregoing facts
which show the friendly and cordial purpose of
our conferences, in which you took most Inn
portant part. With sentiments ETC.,
PEDRO MoNTT.
To Hon. james g. Blaine ETC.:
BLAINE TO MoNTT.
Mr.. Blaine's note to Mr.. Montt reads as
follows:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, Jan %, 1892. (
SIR-I have the honor to acknowledge your
favor dated the 23d inst, but not received by
me until Monday, the 25th. l beg to comment
on two or three Of its recitals. | think from
zeal for your country you have made some mis-
takes which l shall proceed to correct. You
are right in saying that l considered the pro-
ceedings of the government of Chile in making
judicial investigation OF the unhappy
affair at Valparaiso entirely praise
worthy, but you will remember that
as early as the 25th Of November, | complained
of the length OF the judicial proceedings and
from time to time renewed the complaint, say
ing to you very lately that the court had al
ready been eighty days in session considering
matter which in the United States would have
bsen 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 unconditional
and exact. Had it been would have insisted
have been my duty to lay it before the Presi-
dent for consideration, but was un-
able to report mere verbal exchange
of views between US as an agreement to arbi-