The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1892-01-27
NOT SATISFACTORY.
The Chilean Reply to the Presi-
dents Ultimatum
TRANSMITTED BY MIR. EeAN.
But There Is No Apology for the Assault on
the Baltimore's Sailors.

ING
The Proposition to Throw the Bal
timore Affair Into the Supreme
Court of the United States for Set
tlement Believed by Many to be a
Case of Chilean "BiuH''-That Tri-
bunal Cannot Ajudicate the Matter,
and Arbitration Is Ont of the
Question.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27-It transpired
last night that Minister Egan had com
municated to the secretary of state the
reply of the Chilean government to the
note of Secretary Blaine of the 21st inst,
as was stated in these dispatches yester-
day from Santiago. The general incre-
dulity of the public regarding the San
hago dispatches was due to the fact that
on Monday Mr.. Egan had notified the
department that the Chilean govern
ment asked for two or three days longer
In which to make its answer, owing to
the absence of President Montt at the
springs above Santiago. Public expec-
tation had settled down to delay of
that length of time, and the published
statement of yesterday, indicating that
President Montt had returned to the
capitol, was wholly unlocked for. 1t
was not until last night that the fact of
the reception of the message became
circulated, and the sentiment among
public men was one of doubt and un-
certainty. They knew not, at first,
what to say on the subject when asked
for opinions as to the new phase of the
matter.
First Reports Correct.
The statement of the contents of the
message in yesterdays telegram is said
to be practically correct. Conversation
with those acquainted with the text of
the note give the impression that it was
not satisfactory. No one who was in
position to know them would consent to
discuss the terms of the reply. The fact,
however, that there is no reference to
an apology for the assault upon the Bal
timores sailors is sufficient to account
for the dissatisfaction of officials with
its terms. AS to the Malta note, the
offer of Chile is believed to be fully up
= the demand made by the note of the
Est. to Minister Egan. The matter
q latters recall is believed to have
besn sufficiently settled by the terms of
that note, @-Sa, therefore, no reference
to it-in the reply was necessary.
As has been stated, if Chile apologized
the amount of indemnity by way of
.-gcparation, or whether or not anything
should be paid to the families of Riggin
dfTurnbull, might very well become
he subject of arbitration, but the apol-
ky must come first.
he Supreme Court Cannot Decide.
4 The proposition of Chile to throw the
whole thing into the supreme court for
arbitration is yariously viewed. by some
1t is thought to be a declaration by
Chile of full confidence in the Justice
and right of her cause; n confidence SO
great and implicit that she is willing to
make creature of the other party to
the controversy sole judge of its merits.
Others, however, think it is, in common
parlance, q bluff, and that Chile is not
honest Or sincere in her professions. 1t
is recited that Chile knows how the
jurisdiction and powers of the supreme
court are restricted and limited by the
constitution, and that she made the offer
knowing that it could not be enter
tanned. The argument is advanced that
the supreme court cannot and would not
assume jurisdiction over such a matter.
One justice or any number of them
might act as arbitrators, as was done
when five of them took part in the pro-
ceedlngs of the electoral commission in
SI8-7, but the court as whole could
ut take coGnizance of the case.
The executive and legislative, by the
Rms of the constitution, are charged
sI,h conducting aud disposing of diplo-
hattie matters, and they probably would
not consent, if they could, to turning
Ytllem over to the judicial branch of the
kgoyernment.
Cases in Point.
This point was urged in two notable
|cases recently. Mr.. Blaine and the at
torney general made very strong CON
tentlon that the supreme court cannot
deal with u matter which is the subject
of diplomatic dispute. This was in the
Sayward case, which grew out of the
Behring sea dispute. The petition for a
writ of prohibition in this case was
taken under consideration by the court
upon the ground that it was legal
question and not n diplomatic dispute
that was brought before them. The
other was in the Weil-La Abra claims.
now under discussion in the senate
Mexico asserts that the awards to Amer
lean c1aimantsin these cases were OBJ
tanned by fraud, and asks TO have the
money not yet paid to the claimants re-
turned to her. 1t is proposed in the
measure under discussion to refer the
subject to the court of claims for ex-
animation and decision, with right of
appeal TO the supreme court. Mr. Hoar,
chairman of the senate judiciary com.
mittee, argued against this latter pro-
vision, on the ground that while congress
might vest jurisdiction in the court Of
claims to ascertain fact upon exami-
nation, that court being the creature of
congress, it eonld not confer jurisdiction
upon the supreme court over matters
outside of the limits imposed by the
constitution, for the reason that that
court was created by the same power
that created congress and derived its
power and authority from the same
source.
Chile Must Wait Reply,
The reply of Chile was the subject of
consultation between the president and
Secretary Blaine at late hour last eve
ming, as well as at the meeting of Che
cabinet at noon. The views of the
United States government upon the re-