Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-01-28

% AAlAN 20 STATE. ana that tile rald
representative would be succeeded by another.
i; is rule based upon the nature OF diplO-
nieiic relations. and designed 60 make them
frank and cordial, that the representative OF .
nation must be persona cratA TO the govern
ment TO VII ch he l. accredited.
In the conference with which Won were
pleased 90 favor me on the 20th inst I had
the honor TO state that the representative Of
tie United States at Santiago was not per-
soma grata 10 the government of Chile. witch
would he very e.ad to receive another repre-
sentative from the United States
fou were pleased to acknowledge that the
government 81 Chile had a right 20 ASK that q
change should be mRao. Aiterward. having
given you notice. addressed 20 you in writing
you verbally
have deemed il my duty 10 state IN this
note The foregoing facts. which show the
lrieha'! and cordial purpose OF our confer
ences, IN which Won took n most important
part WITH sentiments. &c., PEDRO MoSrr.
Hon. JAMES g. EIAINF. sc.
Nj. Blame To Mr.. Montt
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
N.saiNGroS, January -. 1891.
Sir: have the honor 10 acknowledge your
favor dated the 234 instant but not received
by me until MonGsy. the 25th. beg TO COM
mcni on two OF three 81 its reci.als 4 think
from zeal Tor your country YOU have made
some mistakes, which 1 shall proceed TO cor
rccL
loa are right in saying that considered the
proceedings q! the government NJ Chic IN
i..ai,ins tie iuiicsa! investigation of the IN
happy affair ~ Valparaiso entirely praise
worldly But You VIII remember that early
- Tie 18th of November / complained Of the
le"t'ih .. The Judicial proceedings. and from
iiiic 10 tine rene wed tho comp LIANT wing you
very lately that the court had already been eighty
Ga.s N session considering a matter which
~ the United states would have been wholly
an or Aaff ln.aI
That tie spanish Law WAS slow IN It's procosses
bu. exact IN It's conclusions; and with your
statements rad to be content, though i'm
patient ior a final judgment
loar offer OF arbitration Was never uucon-
dlt.onal and exact Had 1t been would have
insisted on your reducing il to writing. for Il
Noaid have been my duty TO lay It before the
itesic"nt ioT consideration. But I was unable
TO report mere verbal exchange of views be-
tween Us as an agreement TO arbitrate. lou
did say to me several tunes that IN that Distant
iutGrc when the Chilean court should render
ats Judgment al the United states should
not be satisfied with III the two countries could
arbltraie tho matter. And even then YOU al
ways maintained that Chile would not yolun-
taf4ly propose arbitration herself. but would
do 30 when requested by some friendly power
10 take that course. ON one occasion Nou
mentioned Spain az a nation likely to intervene
with Chile most effectively. Aour mention OF
arbitration was alHay s. az a tLod TO he adopted
Ia The nature # We were not content. ar / lave
said, with the judgment Of the court. lou re-
marked that TO adopt II before would De dis
crediling the Judgment OF the court an advance.
lou atNas looked To the future for the pro-
po-al ana acceptance OF arbitration.
You say IN Your note:
"A .ooh ucCasIUn - inform Won on the LIST OF
January that my government authorized me 70
coHc!uae an agIocmeGt looking 20 arbitration
and my government sLbscq uently approved
Inc agreement concluded by me-. -
Ana yet yea do NOS pretend that a word
ever Nrltt,n OF the agreement which YOU say
We maze between Us. AZ is impossible that
ever sought 10 bind the government OF tie
United States IN tia. way. It would have been
IN the highest degree lInprudent Tor ME to do
go.
Ia regard TO the Malta note. which was the
subject OF contention between us YOU sum it
up uy the following dvglaratlon:
Il added, However, that II was far from be-
ing me purpcse OF ms government to ack IN Q
manner al all offensive 10 tle President of the
Ihitvd StaICs or IL any member OF his cGUinet,
ana that ar Mattas note, n rightly inter-
preted, admitted oi lao such construction. 4
aItefHard Lau the honor 10 inform YOU that 1
lad received INSTRUCTION from my government
10 inform ihai OF the United States that con-
s!derinS the views expressed by Messrs. Buch-
alian ana WEBSTER, IN lo49 ana 1850. that tho
messages soat by the President 10 Congress are
domestic communications which cannot serve
as "a basis iOr the Interpretation of foreign
powers of tEelr representatives, my govern
A.t Ia haA 40 ObyCl slOl To etEiklliE OF the
note oi December ia such words as might lie
cOnHlaered disagreeaDle by the United states
government"
By Your own statement you evidently st-
tempted 10 justify the Malta note. 4 certainly
could not accept your language, aud never
dld accept language OF that Kind ms an
apology suffc!cnt IUr the case. The Malta
uosc was hlcnly alscourIeous TO the President
aud the secretary OF the Navy. imputing 70
tneIa uHtruth ana insIncerity. such language
alNNH. INal- sTrHF 49,.
ungent apology. which you offered. Ii could
DC apoiosized Ior only by frank withdrawal
loa always contenGea that al MAS a commune
cation betwcon oincors Of your own govern
nent, ana mat At was not proper for TINS gov
erElnent TO take any cOgulzance of H. lou
quoted the well-known declaration in the Hull
scinann case IN re gard TO the message of Pres
ldeat 10 Congress NOT being subject TO criticism
iE foreign country. lOn md not see tho
great difference involved by your govern meut
senGlng the Malta circular 10 aa the legations
oi Ih.Ie ana requesting ats several ministers 10
lnD!lsn Il, 30 that CDlle was nos only rcsuonsi-
Die tor tie clscuurteous language. but Tor its
pubhcation throughout the civilized world.
ihat you dbl no: comply with JhIies Request
to publish AZ here Was the strongest proof Of
your own disApprOyal OF lhe note.
In regard TO AIR. Esan you complained many
Hines AND very bitterly 10 me. Especially was
lac deserving OF censuro, you Thought. for not
comm anicaIlng 10 has government the brutal
murder oil some yoang men who were siam by
order OF Balmaceda- NAen on the next
day L showed You the dispatch of Mr..
LSau speaking OF the incident in severe
ana proper terms you Acknowledged that
You were mistaken. 4 thought you would be
satisfied. but You again spoke distaragingly Of
Mr- LSan, and said somewhat impatlently
Why do you not demand has recall instead Of
constantly dIsparaging hmm intending thereby
not to favor hls recall, but 10 put a stop 10 the
frequent mention OF Mr.. Egan ; name.
In referring TO the question you remark:
"lou were pleased 10 acknowledge that the
government oI Chile bad a right 10 ask that A
change should be made"
Undoubtedly she has that right. provided
she assigns a reason. You are too well rkiiied
IN diplomatic usage to be reminded that when
a nation Is pleased to declare that 4 minister is
persona non grata she Is expected to asslgna
reason therefor. We have twice had occasion
to ask Great Dritain to recall her minister ana
III each case We gave a reason why the minister
had ceased TO be useful IL il hardly ncces-
sary to observe that conditions which we COM
plled with ourselves would likewise be exacted
OF Chile.
have thus frankly endeavored 10 correct
some misapprebeusions OF yours in order that
the record OF the state Department Of the
United states shall be kept exact and in au its
proceedings snail Dc proved consistent
accept, slr, the renewed assurances of nv
highest consideration.
JAMES G. BIAnE