No. 117.
Mr. Logan
to Mr. Fish.
Santiago de Chile, October 8, 1874. (Received Nov. 17.)
Sir: My dispatch No. 106 leaves the Chilian cabinet in consultation upon the most proper and expedient answer to the demand of the English government for satisfaction in the Tacna affair. Two or three decisions were arrived at, which were afterward rescinded upon mature reflection. The position was one of great perplexity for the Chilian government, growing out of the statement of facts related in my dispatch herein referred to: and in the extremity of doubt arid embarrassment [Page 178] as to the best course to be pursued, it was finally resolved to refer the case to the supreme court for its opinion, there being no legal authority analogous to that of attorney-general connected with the Chilian governmental organization. This body took the matter under advisement, and has now rendered an opinion upon which the answer to Lord Derby’s note will be based.
The court holds that Chili’s action in the matter was right and proper and that there is no justice in the demand of England; that Captain Hyde had committed an act for which he was clearly responsible under the Chilian law; that the only question in the case was as to the technicality of jurisdiction—the vessel being at the time she was lost eight miles from the Chilian coast; that Captain Hyde was about leaving the country, and that he was arrested for the purpose of deciding the technical question of jurisdiction; that the lower court claimed jurisdiction, which claim was reversed by the supreme court, upon appeal, whereupon Captain Hyde was at once released.
The reply to Lord Derby’s note incloses a copy of this opinion of the supreme court, and argues the whole question at considerable length—claiming that in arresting and detaining Captain Hyde until his amenability to Chilian law could be decided, Chili was only pursuing that course which the safety of all nations imperatively require, and which by the common consent of all civilized governments is accorded to the weakest.
This is the essential point of the reply, though the details are elaborated in extenso, and the argumentum ad hominem is somewhat skillfully resorted to.
In addition to this, however, a point is made upon the general principle involved, and the claim maintained that a coasting trade is an internal traffic, subject to the internal regulation and control of the nation upon whose coast it is prosecuted; and the ground set forth in my dispatch No. 106 is gone over. This latter, however, is the opinion of the Chilian cabinet, as expressed through the minister of foreign relations, and not of the supreme court, which, of course, is concluded by its first decision. The reply is courteous throughout, and concludes by asking a reconsideration of the demands of the English government, as not being founded on international right and justice.
It is hoped that the English government will concur in the views expressed by Chili, but it is feared it will not; in which latter case Chili will request that the case be submitted to an arbitrator, by whose decision she will faithfully and cheerfully abide.
It is further feared, however, that England will act at once upon the reply by concentrating her whole Pacific fleet in Valparaiso Bay. This step would be disastrous to the interests of both nations, causing money losses to the Chilians by the falling of securities, and inflicting irreparable damage to the English trade on the Pacific coast 5 as Chili would at once withdraw subsidies to the English steamship line, and discriminate to the greatest possible extent by legislation and otherwise against English commerce.
I think the Chilian Executive has recovered from his fear, expressed in my former dispatch, that England would seize, in reprisal, the ironclads building for Chili in English waters, as being an act which would deter other nations from patronizing English ship-builders to any great extent in the future.
As for the South American complications, they, too, seem to have withdrawn themselves for the present, and it is more for this reason, perhaps, than any other that Chili has been emboldened to refuse the [Page 179] demands of the English government. As stated to you in my dispatch 102, Peru is most imminently threatened with revolution, and requires the constant vigilance of her authorities to repress it; while within a few days actual revolution has been inaugurated in the Argentine Republic, as you will be advised from other sources, though to what extent it may go cannot now be determined. Bolivia alone is a cipher, besides having symptoms of the same disease afflicting her, now really upon one, and threatening the other of her friends. Hence, Chili feels respited from the dangers she most seriously feared, and finds herself face to face with her English adversary.
As before stated, England may do one of three things upon the reception of the Chilian reply: First, she may concur with the views of Chili and withdraw her demand5 second, she may reply in a temperate manner, insisting upon her demand, in which event Chili will ask for the reference of the case to arbitration; and, third, she may act with precipitancy in the case, and order her Pacific fleet to Valparaiso. Chili fears the latter, having in view the recent Guatemala case; in the event of which it is my own judgment Chili will then comply with the English demand upon the ground of compulsion, but not from any sense or acknowledgment of international error.
Thus stands the case at present, and the reply to Lord Derby’s note, herein stated, will be handed to the English minister in Santiago tomorrow, to be forwarded to his government.
In an interview held to-day with the minister of foreign relations upon other matters, he solicited me, upon the part of his government, to invite your personal mediation, so far as consistent with your position, in behalf of Chili, stating that Mr. Seward, through our representative at St. James, was enabled to prevent serious difficulty between England and Brazil; and that Mr. Fish had most opportunely rendered a like important service to Brazil and the Argentine Republic. It was his belief that through our minister to England you might advise and procure a calmness of procedure which would result in an amicable settlement of the question, and a saving of the interests and honor of both parties. His language was warm and complimentary to both our government and yourself. Believing, as I do, that Chili has not been wholly in error in this transaction, and knowing that she is willing to settle it upon an fair and honorable basis, I would respectfully indorse the request of the minister of foreign relations, warmly recommending such friendly action in the premises as you might be able to take compatible with your own views and the general nature of the case.
As this dispatch will probably reach you some days before the English government can receive information from its minister, there will be time for communication with England before a decision is reached, should it appear proper to you to take any steps in the matter.
I have, &c.,