Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

In this connection the following testimony of Mr. Blaine before the committee, in response to questions by Mr. Belmont, becomes of interest:

Mr. BELMONT-Or either of them, because Mr. Trescot at that time was proceeding to Chili and Peru. Was not the effect of those instructions that General Hurlbut should take special care to inform both the Chilian and Peruvian authorities of the character and status of the claim of J. C Landreau, in order that no definitive treaty of peace should be made in disregard of the rights which Landreau might be found to possess?

The WITNESS-Yes.

Q. Was not the effect of those instructions to require General Hurlbut to insist that Chili should stipulate, in a treaty of peace, that if it should be decided by the Peruvian Government that J. C. Landreau had a lien on any territory ceded to Chili, that Chili should thereupon recognize that lien ?A. Yes; that he should make that request.

Q. If Chili had refused to make such stipulation, would not General Hurlbut have been bound to resist, to the extent of his influence, the signing of a treaty of peace without the stipulation?

The WITNESS--What had he to do with the signing?

Mr. BELMONT-I have not finished. Now, Mr. Blaine, without any more non

sense

The WITNESS-Well, I am very glad to hear that, Mr. Belmont; I am very glad to hear it, indeed.

Mr. BELMONT-Now, will you answer the question?

The WITNESS-If you will state it again I will.

Q. I ask if Chili had refused to make such stipulation, would not General Hurlbut have been bound to resist, to the extent of his influence, the signing of a treaty of peace without the stipulation? A. Yes, sir.

Q. He would?—A. Yes, sir. I admit that he ought to have used all his influence to prevent a treaty of peace that should shut out the rights of an American citizen. Q. You say that he would?-A. Yes, sir. He would have been censurable if he had not.

Q. Well, you have given the answer I was seeking.

In further illustration of Mr. Blaine's officiousness, we quote as follows from his letter of instructions (Dec. 1, 1881) while Secretary of State to Mr. Trescott, whom he was about sending on a mission to South America:

*

*

*

"In giving the support of recognition to the Calderon government, so far was this government from doing what could be considered an unfriendly act to Chili that it was, in fact, giving aid to the very policy Chili avowed, and which, in the opinion of competent judges, was the only method of reasonable solution. And this conclusion of the government was strengthened and confirmed by the information which was transmitted to the department by Gen. Kilpatrick, United States Minister to Chili. As soon as the facts indicated the possibility of real and independent vitality in the constitution of the Calderon government, the Chilian authorities issued an order forbidding any exercise of its functions within the territory occupied by the Chilian army that is within the entire territory west of the mountains, including the capital and ports of Peru. Unable to understand this sudden and--giving due regard to the professions of Chili-this unaccountable change of policy, this government instructed its minister at Lima to continue to recognize the Calderon government until more complete information would enable it to send further instructions. If our present information is correct, immediately on receipt of this communication they arrested President Calderon, and thus, as far as was in their power, extinguished his government. The President does not now insist on the inference which this action would warrant. He hopes there is some explanation which will relieve him from the painful impression. It was taken as a resentful reply to the continued recognition of the Calderon government by the United States. If, unfortunately, he should be mistaken, and such motive be avowed, your duty will be a brief one. You will say to the Chilian government that the President considers such a proceeding as an intentional and unwarranted offence, and you will communicate such an avowal to the Government of the United States, with the assurance that it will be regarded by the Government as an act of such unfriendly import as to require the immediate suspension of all diplomatic intercourse.

[blocks in formation]

"Should the Chilian Government, while disclaiming any intention of offence, maintain its right to settle its difficulties with Peru without the friendly intervention of other powers, and refuse to allow the formation of any government in Feru which does not pledge consent to the cession of Peruvian territory, it will be your duty, in language as

strong as is consistent with the respect due an independent power, to express the disappointment and dissatisfaction felt by the United States at such a deplorable policy.

[blocks in formation]

"The United States, with which Peru has for many years maintained most cordial relations, has a right to feel and express deep interest in its distressed condition, and while with equal friendliness to Chili, we will not interpose to deprive her of the fair advantages of military success, nor to put any obstacle to the attainment of future security, we cannot regard with unconcern the destruction of Peruvian nationality. If our good offices are neglected, and this policy of the absorption of an independent state be persisted in, this Government will consider itself discharged from any further obligation to be influenced in its action by the position which Chili has assumed, and will hold itself free to appeal to other republics of this continent to join it in an effort to avert consequences which cannot be confined to Chili and Peru, but which threaten with extremest danger the political institutions, peaceful progress, and liberal civilization of

all America.

Boundary Between Mexico and Guatemala.

Mr. Blaine's officiousness in matters in dispute between the two sister republics, Mexico and Guatemala, may be seen from the following extracts from official correspondence between him, while Secretary of State, and Mr. Morgan, the United States minister at the City of Mexico.

In a letter to Mr. Morgan under date of June 16, 1881, Mr. Blaine wrote:

"Without, therefore, in any way prejudging the contention between Mexico and Guatemala, but acting as the unbiased councillor of both, the President deems it his duty to set before the government of Mexico his conviction of the danger to the principles which Mexico has so signally and successfully defended in the past which would eusue, should disrespect be shown to the boundaries which separate her from her weaker neigh bors, or should the authority of force be resorted to in establishment of rights over territory which they claim, without the conceded justification of her just title thereto. especially would the President regard as an unfriendly act toward the cherished plan of upbuilding strong republican governments in Spanish America, if Mexico, whose power and generosity should be a like signal in such a case, shall seek or permit any misunderstanding with Guatemala, when the path toward a pacific avoidance of trouble is at once so easy and so imperative an international duty."

In another letter to Mr. Morgan, June 21, 1881, Mr. Blaine wrote:

And

"This is a matter touching which the now-established policy of the government of the United States to refrain from territorial acquisition gives it the right to use its friendly offices in discouragement of any movement on the part of neighboring states which may tend to disturb the balance of power between them. More than this, the maintenance of this honorable attitude of example involves, to a large extent, a moral obligation on our part, as the strong but disinterested friend of all our sister states, to exert our influence for the preservation of the national life and integrity of any one of them against aggression, whether this may come from abroad or from another American republic, by his government to avert a conflict with Guatemala by diplomatic means, or, these failing, by resort to arbitration. And you will especially intimate, discreetly but distinctly, that the good feeling between Mexico and the United States requires, and will be fortified by a frank avowal that the Mexican policy toward the neighboring states is not one of conquest or aggrandizement, but of consideration, peace and friendship.'

[ocr errors]

In a letter from Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine, July 12, 1881, he thus alludes to an interview had with Mr. Mariscal, Secretary of State of Mexico :

"In reply to the suggestion of the arbitrament of the President of the United States, he replied that whatever Mexico might be willing to accede to in the future, there was nothing at the present moment to arbitrate about. He said that Mexico had proposed to Guatemala to renew the convention for the appointment of a commission to survey the tract of country which was in dispute, that the question of the appointment of such a commission was pending, and that until that question should be decided there was, in reality, no dispute to submit to an arbitrator. He also declared that if there had been any delay in the appointing of such a commission, the fault was altogether with Guatemala. He also said that troops had been sent to the frontier, as the President had announced in his message to Congress, but that they were sent there for the purpose of protecting Mexican citizens, and not with any view of making war upon Guatemala.

Mr. Mariscal was very earnest in his denials of any cause of complaint on the part of Guatemala, and as to the want of any necessity of an arbitration, so much so, that I deemed it proper, in order that there might be no possible question hereafter, either as to the letter or the spirit of your instructions, or their interpretation by me, to read Senor Mariscal your dispatch, and offered to send him a copy thereof, which he accepted, and which I did."

In a letter from Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine, July 19, 1881, is the following allusion to another interview with Mr. Mariscal:

"Senor Mariscal manifested something of excitement, I thought, and interrupted me by repeating the complaints which Mexico had, as he said, just grounds to make against Guatemala; of her want of fair dealing, and, in fact, duplicity in pretending to negotiate a convention with him for the appointment of commissioners to survey the strip of territory which was in dispute, with the view of finally settling the boundaries between the two countries, while she had been secretly attempting to obtain the interference of the United States in their disputes, thus rendering the appointment of a commission unnecessary. He insisted upon it that it was Guatemala that had committed acts of aggression upon Mexico, instead of Mexico upon Guatemala."

In a letter from Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine, August 11, 1881, he again refers to an interview with Mr. Mariscal, as follows:

"Senor Mariscal said that he would not say that Mexico would altogether refuse the arbitration proposed, but that there were some points of difference between the two countries which could not, under any circumstances, be submitted to question.

[ocr errors]

In a letter from Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine, September 22, 1881, he draws the following significant conclusion, after reporting an interview with Mr. Mariscal:

"Senor Mariscal reiterated that if there should be a war with Guatemala it would be Guatemala's fault. He admitted that the course pursued by the United States was friendly in its character, although he persisted in saying the facts of the case had been misrepresented by Guatemala to you.

"We parted on the best of terms, but he left me more than ever convinced that nothing would prevent a war between the two countries unless a positive position was taken by the United States, and I venture to suggest that unless the Government is prepared to announce to the Mexican Government that it will actively, if necessary, preserve the peace, it would be the part of wisdom on our side to leave the matter where it is. Negotiations on the subject will not benefit Guatemala, and you may depend upon it that what we have already done in this direction has not tended to the increasing of the cordial relations which I know it is so much your desire to cultivate with this nation."

Upon Mr. Blaine's reply to the letter from which we have just quoted, officiousness is indelibly stamped. In it under date of November 28, 1881, he says:

"To leave the matter where it is' you must perceive is simply impossible, for it will not remain there. The friendly relations of the United States and Mexico would certainly not be promoted by the refusal of the good offices of this Government tendered in a spirit of most cordial regard both for the interests and honor of Mexico, and suggested only by the earnest desire to prevent a war useless in its purpose, deplorable in its means, and dangerous to the best interests of all the Central American republics in its consequences. To put aside such an amicable intervention as an unfriendly intrusion, or to treat it, as I regret to see the Mexican secretary for foreign affairs seems disposed, as a partisan manifestation on behalf of claims which we have not examined and interests which we totally misunderstand certainly cannot contribute to the increasing of the cordial relations which you know it is so much our desire to cultivate with Mexico.'

[blocks in formation]

*

[blocks in formation]

"If this Government is expected to infer from the language of Senor Mariscal that the prospect of such a result is not agreeable to the policy of Mexico, and that the interest which the United States has always manifested in its consummation renders unwelcome the friendly intervention which we have offered, I can only say that it deepens the regret with which we will learn the decision of the Mexican Government, and compels me to declare that the Government of the United States will consider a hostile demonstration against Guatamala, for the avowed purpose or with the certain result of weakening her power in such an effort, as an act not in consonance with the position and character of Mexico, not in harmony with the friendly relations existing between us, and injurious to the best interests of all the republics of this continent."

In a letter from Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine dated Mexico, November 2, 1881, is the following significant paragraph :

“The subject is on every tongue. It is constantly discussed by the press, and I feel it my duty to say that nothing has occurred since I have been here which has excited so much bad feeling against us as this proffer of arbitration. Say what I may to the contrary, it is considered as a menace.

In Mr. Blaine's recent letter of acceptance, he has a new foreign policy of the Quaker style. The question naturally arises, which will be his policy if elected President—that pursued while Secretary of State or that announced for campaign purposes? On the theory that acts speak louder than words, the intelligent and conservative citizen will hesitate a long time before voting for one whose well known officiousness, rashness, and audacity are anything but safeguards against foreign complications.

Citizens of the United States have already spent upwards of $50,000,000 in the construction of Mexican railways, and they do not wish their business interests disturbed by needless animosities between the two countries.

Conservative Policy of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic foreign policy is inherited from the sentiments of Washington and Jefferson.

In Washington's farewell address to the people of the United States was the following excellent advice :

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. * * It is our policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

*

The doctrine laid down in Jefferson's inaugural address was as follows: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

Honest Money for Honest Labor.

Speech of Hon. Abram S. Hewitt.

In a speech in the House of Representatives, April 1, 1884, Hon. Abram S. Hewitt, of New York, said:

I agree with the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] in his proposition that this House shall not sanction by any act the increase of the coinage of the standard silver dollar. But I go further than the gentleman from Maine. I think the time has come when this House should put its seal of condemnation upon the coinage of one single additional standard dollar. My friend from Missouri [Mr. Bland] has achieved, I was going to say immortality, but certainly great renown, by having identified himself with a measure which according to his view has made 85 cents' worth of silver equivalent in value to $1. He has done that by act of Congress, and he has done it on the principle of lifting ourselves by our shoulder-straps. Such experiments must always fail. If they could succeed, then my friend from Missouri has discovered the philosopher's stone which would enable us hereafter to dispense with all human efforts and to provide ourselves with all the comforts and luxuries of life by a simple act of Congress.

The gentleman from Missouri now comes into the House with another proposition, which suggests the old nursery rhyme of Mother Goose :

[Laughter.]

There was a man in our town

And he was wondrous wise,

He jumped into a bramble bush
And scratched out both his eyes.

And when he found his eyes were out,

With all his might and main,

He jumped into another bush

And scratched them in again.

The proposition which the gentleman now makes to this House is the proposition of free coinage for silver. By the restricted coinage which goes on under his bill of $2,000,000 per month the Government is making on paper as he said $300,000 of profit per month. By opening the mints to unrestricted coinage he would give up the nominal profit to the Government of $300,000 per month and transfer a real profit of 15 per cent. into the pockets of those who shall be fortunate enough to get in first through the open doors of the mint with their silver bullion. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us apply to this novel proposition the test of fact and of simple principle.

The unit of value by law in the United States is the gold dollar, weighing 25.8 grains. Mr. WARNER, of Ohio-When was it made so ?

Mr. HEWITT, of New York-I am merely stating a fact, and in the time I have I do not wish to be interrupted. It was in 1854 that that was done. Now at 25.8 grains to the dollar an ounce of gold is worth $18.60. By law the relative coinage value of gold and silver is as one to sixteen. Therefore the coinage value of the ounce of silver is $1.16%. We are able to go into the market to buy an ounce of silver at $1.01, and, taking the average of the last year, we are buying at a little less now than $1.01 per

ounce.

What is the proposition of the gentleman from Missouri? That for the silver which we can buy in unlimited quantities in this or any other market in the world for 101 cents per ounce, he would pay out of the treasury of this nation 1162 cents per ounce. In other words, he would give to every man who brings an ounce of silver to be coined 15

« AnteriorContinuar »