The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1898-02-11

| While the department refused to add
| anything to this Tneagre announce
| ment, it can be stated without ques ton
| that Mr.. Woodford was directed to lay
| the facts developed before the Span
| ish government, together with the
| statement that in view of the minister s
| refusal to deny the authorship of the
| letter the Spanish government is look
| ed to with confidence to deal with the
| case properly. This amounts to an in
Vitation to recall the minister, presum-
| ing that he himself has not already
taken steps to vacate his position.
No doubt is entertained of a COM
| pliance with the implied suggestion
| but in case there should be undue de-
lay IN acting, the state department
would feel called upon to move di-
rectly in the matter and give the min
lister his passports, as was done with
Sir Julian Pauncefote's predecessor
who wrote the celebrated Murcheson
letter.
The circumstances under which a
letter of this character could escape
from the privacy of the two persons
between whom it passed excites much
comment. The general belief is that
1T was never delivered to Senior Can
alejas, but was stolen while en- route
Canalejas was in Washington some
months ago and then went to Cuba for
the purpose of observing the condition
of affairs there. AS a former minister
in liberal cabinets-having been minis
ter of juStfce-and as the editor of Ell
HeraldO at Madrid, he was accorded
a warm reception by Minister Duquy
de LONE, who gave a banquet in his
honor which was attended by a num-
Der of prominent public men. He then
left for Cuba, and his mission neces-
sarily brought him into continued cor
reSpOndence with Minister de LONE
As the letter bears no date, the time
that it was forwarded can only be
fixed by the context. That it was af-
ter the presidents message is evident
The mention of the approaching au-
tOnOmOuS cabinet establishes that it
was before the inauguration of the cab
net, January 1st. This places the let
ter, according to the prevailing i'm
preston, as having been written about
the middle of December. At that time
Senior Canalejas in understood to have
been at HAVANA, prosecuting his mis-
sion. The handling Of the mail is
done by the Spanish authorities, so
that in this case it is believed the loss
OF letter of this character could oc-
cur only in one Of two ways-either
through treachery of an official of the
postal service or by being taken after
it had reached the hotel where Senior
Canalejas was stopping.
PRECEDENTS IN SUCH CASES
The rule as laid down in the Sack
Vile case is generally regarded at the
standard precedent for our guidance in
such matters, though there are not
hacking other precedentS. To plead
that the letter was purely personal,
that it was not even addressed to an
official or to a citizen of the United
States, will not suffice. Lord Sack
vile set up such an excuse, but Presi-
dent Cleveland declared that it was in
sufficient and the minister was COM
PEELED to leave Washington. Inasmuch
as the line Of action in that case may
form the basis for action in this, al
ways presuming that the Spanish min
lister does not himself cut the knot and
relieve the government from the neces
sity of performing a disagreeabe duty,
! it may foe stated that with Lord Sack
| Vile the department of state itself
initiated the action
Lord Sackville had written a letter
to one Murcheson, in Pomon, Cal, in
, September 1883, in reply to his request
. for guidance, as a naturaliZed Ameri-
can, of British birth. in casting his
vote for president. The reply was sent
from Beverly, Mass, where the min
lister was stopping and would not now,
nor probably at any time except in the
heat of our great four year elections,
be regarded as particularly offensive.
His lordship simply said that any po-
litical party which openly favored the
mother country at that time would
lose popularity and the party then in
power was we'll aware of this fact. He
believed, however, that President
Cleveland would manifest spirit of
Cancellation in dealing with the ques-
| tions involved in his message.
Upon seeing this letter printed, Sec
retary Bayard sent for Lord Sackville
/ and the latter frankly confessed the
| authorship. Thereupon, Mr.. Bayard
| cabled TO Mr.. Phelps, our minister at
| London, uI4der date of October 25th.
| that Lord Sackville had declared that
/ his reply TO Murcheson had been strict
| ly private and not intended for publ
| cation. Mr.. Bayard thereuDon ex-
| pressed his surprise and amazement
| and condemnation of the minister 5
: act" THE government Of the United
/ States" he said, could not be indif-
| ferent to any interference in the do
mestic issues by foreign representa-
/ tives, and Mr.. Phelps was directed TO
| invite Lord Salisbury's attention TO the
| occurrence and express the confident
| reliance of this government upon the
! action of her majeSty'S government in
| the premises" But Lord Salisbury
1 did not take kindly TO the suggestion.
/ He replied that he could not act until
| he had received the ministers explana-
/ ton. He did not regard the letter alone
| as sufficient to warrant the minister's
| recall. thus ending his diplomatic ca
/ reer. which would not necessarily be
| the case If he were dismissed by the
! government Of the United States, for