Los Angeles herald., 1892-01-20
NO CHANGE OF MIND.
Chile's Attitude Toward the
Refugees.
She Could Not Guarantee Them
Safe Conduct.
The Procurator Fiscal's Review of
the Baltimore Affair.
Testimony of Two of the Principal Wit
nesses Rejected-Arbitrary Con-
clusions-Does Chile
Want War?
Associated Press Dispatches.

Associated Press Dispatches
New YORK, Jan. 19.-The World will
tomorrow publish the following cable
gram from its Valparaiso correspondent: :
Copyright 1892, by the Press Publishing Com
pany New York World).
VALPARAISO (Via Galvestonl, Jan. 10.
1t is true the Chilean government
notified Captain Evans of the Yorktown
that it was unable to guarantee the
safety of the refugees on board his ship
if he undertook to transfer them to
any departing steamers, and neither
could the government prevent any
steamer on which they took passage
from being searched in any Chilean port
at which the vessel might touch while
on the way north. There was no change
OF mind on the part OF the Chilean au-
thorities in regard to the refugees. In
proof of this it is only necessary to look
at the facts. By the following state
ment from high authority it is claimed
she government was powerless in the
premises:
t'The government of Chile has no
right under the constitution of the
country to interfere with the courts or
public prosecutors, and could not pre-
vent the seizure of the refugees in any
part of Chile they touched on the way,
in any direction, to neutral port"
This plain and direct statement of the
law and facts should put at rest any
notion, if any such exists, that the sur
render of the refugees to the American
authorities had stout, tight string at
tached to it.
THE BALTIMORE AFFAIR.
Tie report OF the procurator fiscal to
the Judge of crimes in the Baltimore
affair has been given to the public, and
there has been time to examine it. The
document contains 5000 words, and says
efforts were directed from the first to
ascertain the origin OF the trouble, but
were unavailing. Several different ac-
counts OF the affair were received. The
commandant OF police states that the
row began in some unknown tavern in
one part of the city. Another witness
says it began by American sailors beat
ing a Chilean sailor in an altogether diff
ferent part of the town. The Chilean
police say it began with fight between
a left-handed sailor and an American.
And the last of all the incidents re-
ported, is that it was commenced by
some Chileans splitting in the faces of
two American sailors in the street. A
crowd near by was waiting to attack
them should they resent the insult; SO
it was at the time, the Baltimore's
men took refuge on tram car, but the
crowd stopped the car and hauled the
men out. beating them with sticks and
stones and knitting them.
The procurator fiscal has accepted the
story the trouble began with resentment
by Americans of splitting in their faces.
For all that, my information leads me
to believe that the attack broke out
simultaneously in different parts OF the
city. as charged in President Harrison's
message. This is denied by the Chileans,
and the procurator closes the introduce
ton to his report by asserting that the
fight owes its origin to two drunken
Baltimore sailors striking a Chilean
sailor. He then recounts the list Of in
jured, and says it has only been possible
to establish the culpability OF four men.
REJECTED TESTIMONY.
The testimony of James Johnson and
Charles Langin, two of the Baltimore's
crew, whose testimony was taken here,
was rejected in the following language
Show is it, if, as johnson deposes, they
left the house together and went to-
gether to the scene of the occurrence, it
results that they did not know each
other, nor had they spoken to each other
until they met at the scene of Boatswain
Mate Higgins death" How.is it that.
before knowing Langin, he deposes
that the day of the occurrence they were
dining together in boarding house :?
johnson also says that on the day OF the
occurrence he dined with Langin in an
eating house in Cochrane street.
Moreover, is it possible that the act of
raising wounded man and knowing if
he walks or not, could pass unobserved
under such or any other circumstances ?
The conclusion drawn is that persons
who indulge in such inconsistencies are
not worthy OF belief"
He says further that their testimony
is contradicted by that of numerous
witnesses, which fully proves that it is
not possible to attribute Higgins death
to the police, but it was the work OF
some unknown person, thus far unde-
tected.
OTHER INCONSISTENCIES.
I will add that testimony OF those
numerous witnesses is as full of incon-
sistencies as is that of Johnson and
Langin. Further, their testimony con-
firms much OF Johnson's and Langin's,
such as the raising of Riggin, calling for
liquor; holding Higgins head on john
sons shoulder; hearing shouts, etc. But
no one testifies who fred the shot.
Lansin's testimony is substantially this ::
When Riggin rose the first time, two
policemen came up. They drew short
swords and knocked him down again,
then stood back and let the crowd beat
him. Afterwards squad of soldiers
approached and marched by twos, under
command of mounted officer. They
marched to within six feet from where
Johnson was holding Riggin in his
arms. There they halted, and the first
two soldiers leveled their rifles and fred
at the two American sailors.
II was about fifteen feet off on one
Hide," continued Langin. mo one was
between me and them, the crowd being
back of tho soldiers at that moment.
No other shets we're hrsd by any enc. I