Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1892-01-29


YOU very lately that the Court had al
ready been eighty days in session con-
sidering a matter which in the United
States would have been 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 state
ments had to be content, though i'm
patient for a final judgement. Your
offer of arbitration was never uncondl-
tional aud exact. Had IL been, l would
have insisted on you reducing 1t to
writing, for it would have been my
duty TO lay ii before the President for
consideration. But l was unable TO re-
port a mere verbal exchange OF views
between US as an agreement to aroi-
trate.
You did not say to me several times
that in that distant future, when the
Chilean court should render its judg-
ment, Gf the United States should not
be satisfied with it) the two countries
could arbitrate the matter. And even
then you always maintained that Chile
would not voluntarily propose arbitra-
ton herself, but would do so when re-
uuested by some friendly power to take
that course. On one occasion you men
toned Spain as a nation likely to inter-
veue with Chile most effectively.
''Your mention of arbitration was al
ways as a method to be adopted in the
future, il we were not content, asI have
said, with the Judgment OF the court.
You remarked to adopt it before, would
be discrediting the judgment OF the
court i'm advance. You always Locked
to the future for the proposal and &C
ceptance Of arbitration.
ARBITRATION WAS OFFERED.
"You say in your note: Il took occa-
sion 10 inform you on the first Of Janu-
airy that my government authorized me
me 70 conclude an agreement looking TO
arbitration, aad my government suoSe-
quently approved the agreement con-
Guided by me- And yet you do not pre-
tend that word was ever written OF
the agreement which you say was made
between us. 1t is impossible that ever
sought 20 bind the government OF the
United States in that way. 1t would
have been In the highest degree impru-
didn't for me TO do so.
In regard 10 the Malta note, which
was the subject of contention between
US, YOU sum it up by the following
declaration: 4 added, however, that 1t
was far from being the purpose OF my
government TO act in manner at all
offensive to the President of the United
States, or to any member OF his cabinet,
aud that Mr., Matta'S note, il rightly in
terDreted, admitted Of no such cOnstruc-
ton. ! afterwards had the honor to
inform you that l had received inStruc-
tiOnS from my government to inform
that Of the United States that consider
ing the views expressed by MeSsrs.
Buchanan and Webster in 1S49 and
1850 that the messages sent by the
President 10 Congress are domestic
communications which cannot serve as
a basis for the Interpretation OF foreign
powers or their representatives, my
government had no objection TO strlk-
Ing out OF the note Of December il such
words as might be considered disagree
able by the United States government.
by your own statement, you evident
ly attempted to justify the Malta note.
7 certainly could not accept your Ian
guage, and never did accept language
of that kind as an apology sufficient for
the case. The Malta note was highly
discourteous to the President and the
Secretary Of the Navy, imputing 10
them untruth and insinCerity. Such
language does not admit Of conditional
or contingent apology, which you Of
fered.
A FRANK WITHDRAWAL.
cit could be apologized for only by a
frank withdrawal. You always con-
tended that il was communication be-
tween officers Of your own government,
and that it was not proper for my gov
eminent 20 take any cOgniZance OF 1t.
IN regard to Mr.. Egan you complain
ed many times and very bitterly to me.
Especially was he deserving Of cenSure,
YOU thought, for not communicating TO
his Government the brutal murder Of
some young men who were slain by
order of BalmaCeda. When on the next
day I showed you the dispatch OF Mr..
Fgan speaking of the incident in severe
and proper terms, you acknowledged
that Won were mistaken. thought you
would be satisfied, but you again spoke
disparagingly of Mr.. Egan, and said
somewhat impatiently: why do you not
demand his recall instead Of constantly
disUaraging himP intending thereby,
not TO favor his recall, but to put stop
TO the frequent mention OF Mr.. Egan's
name. In referring TO the question, you
remarked: You were pleased TO &C
knowledge that the Government OF
Chile had a right TO ask that change
should be made
Undoubtedly she has that right pro-
vlded she assigns reason. You are too
we'll skilled in diplomatic usage to be
reminded that when a nation is pleased
to declare that minister is persona non
Gratq, she is expected to assign reason
therefor. We have twice had occasion
TO ask Great Britain to recall her min
lister, and in each case we gave reason
why the minister had ceased TO be use
full. Ii is hardly necessary to observe
%s