No. 54.
Mr. Trescot
to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Viña del Mar, Chili, March 4, 1882. (Received April 17.)
Sir: In dispatch No. 8, I informed you that the secretary for forign affairs of Chili desired that the conclusions reached in our own confidential [Page 80] conferences should be summarized in a protocol. I therefore prepared for his consideration a draft of the three conferences. For this he then proposed to substitute a draft of his own. Upon comparison I found that while there was a general substantial agreement there was wanting in both a sufficiently full statement of the points of discussion, each of us having naturally dwelt more particularly on the views which he had himself expressed. I therefore wrote to Mr. Balmaceda a letter, inclosing draft of protocol confined simply to the points agreed upon. After mutual correction we adopted the protocol which you will find in Inclosure No. 1.
I suggested to Mr. Balmaceda that any protocol was premature, as its whole value depended upon the acceptance of the conditions of peace which had been referred to the Government of the United States for consideration.
But he thought that it would restore the confidence of the people and Government of Chili in their old and amicable relations with the United States if it could be understood that the incident of the arrest of Senor Garcia Calderon had been satisfactorily explained; that the special mission was an act purely of friendly intervention, and that Chili was willing to accept the good offices of the United States, if the United States could find, in the terms offered by Chili, the basis of such a settlement as they could recommend to the adoption of Peru. When the terms of the protocol were finally settled I found to my surprise that Mr. Balmaceda desired it should be sealed as well as signed. I called to his attention that this instrument was not an act, but a record. It was simply an agreement that the good offices of the United States would be accepted by Chili, if offered upon certain conditions which I had no authority to accept, and which I only undertook to refer to my government for consideration and instruction.
He said that it was always the custom in the Chilian foreign office to seal as well as sign protocols, and as the protocol itself provided for the reference to and decision by the Government of the United States, and had absolutely no vitality independent of the consent of the Government of the United States, I agreed to execute it as he desired.
In the conversations which preceded the protocol 1 had read to Mr. Balmaceda the dispatches from Mr. Christiancy, Mr. Osborn, and General Kilpatrick, in which they had informed the Government of the United States that the Government of Chili had resolved to support the Calderon government in Peru, and in which General Kilpatrick had even gone further and assured the Government of the United States that the Government of Chili was willing to negotiate with Calderon on the basis of a war indemnity without demanding a cession of territory, except in the case Peru was unable to furnish a reasonable indemnity. While, as you have been informed by earlier dispatches, Mr. Balmaceda was of opinion that General Kilpatrick had fallen into very grave errors in his estimate and statement of the views and intentions of the Chilian Government, he frankly recognized that, acting upon those dispatches from diplomatic representatives entitled to its confidence, the Government of the United States had in its relations to the Calderon government acted in the interest of peace, and with impartial regard to the rights of both belligerents. He was frank, earnest, and explicit in his disavowal of any intended offense to the United States, and claimed that Chili was only acting in the legitimate exercise of her belligerent rights. That Chili had tolerated rather than recognized the Calderon government, but that it had never rested on any substantial basis, and that its issue of paper money, the constant desertion of its soldiers to [Page 81] the Peruvian troops still in the field, its maintenance of resistance to the Chilian Government, and its communication with the armed forces scattered over Peru from Lima, which was in the military occupation of Chili, rendered its continuance inconsistent with the existing authority or the military purpose of Chili.
I told Mr. Balmaceda that if the Calderon government was recognized by Chili as sufficiently strong, constitutional, and representative to make a treaty of peace and cede Peruvian territory to Chili, it was a government sufficiently strong, constitutional, and representative to be recognized by neutrals, and that a reasonable deference to the friendly relations of the United States would seem to have required notice of the intended action of Chili, but I could accept the disavowal as sufficient to withdraw the subject from further discussion and would transmit the explanation to the United States.
But assuming that this explanation would be satisfactory as to the special action of Chili in forbidding the exercise of any authority of the Calderon government within the lines of Chilian military occupation, and even in the arrest of Señor Garcia Calderon, who was commander-in-chief of the Peruvian forces, he could scarcely expect the Government of the United States to recognize as a belligerent right the abolition of all government in Peru by military order and a consequent anarchy which would render any peace impossible; that the neutral powers had rights, interests, and old established relations with Peru, and so long as they respected the belligerent rights of Chili they were only exercising their own equally clear right in recognizing a government with which they could communicate, and if the United States found itself able to offer its good offices, the acceptance of the offer must imply the recognition of a government with which to deal in Peru as well as in Chili.
When we came to reduce this conclusion to an article in the protocol I found that Mr. Balmaceda was not willing to express himself with the same fullness as in our conversation. I was desirous that the form of words used should represent distinctly the ideas expressed above. I would have insisted on this form but that—
- 1.
- I was instructed by your telegram received at Valparaiso, January the 4th, 1882, not to make an issue which should terminate the negotiation.
- 2.
- I was instructed by your telegram of the 10th to Panama and thence by mail, which, however, only reached me on the 31st, that “the Calderon affair and its surroundings can be attended to here when you come home.”
- 3.
- When I pressed upon Mr. Balmaceda my preference of the form I had presented, he replied to me by showing me the correspondence between yourself and Mr. Martinez, in which, under date of the 7th January, you expressed the satisfaction of the Government of the United States with the explanation he had made you on behalf of the Chilian Government. He said he considered that question as settled, and I did not feel authorized to press the matter further. I regret that I had not been informed of this correspondence, for if I had been I should not have considered it proper to reopen the discussion of a subject which had been settled by my superiors at home.
You will observe, however, that in the protocol Mr. Balmaceda confines the exercise of belligerent rights to prohibiting the authority of the Calderon government within the lines of Chilian occupation, and declares that Señor Garcia Calderon is a “prisoner of war,” while he at the same time expresses the readiness of the Chilian Government to [Page 82] facilitate the communication of the diplomatic representative of the United States with any Peruvian authority whom he may recognize as authorized to negotiate with him.
The rest of the protocol needs no comment. My instructions had no reference to forcible intervention, and the avowed purpose of my mission was if possible to bring the belligerents to a friendly understanding, and there could therefore be no possible objection to saying so.
I was also expressly instructed not to offer the mediation of the United States unless it was solicited, and mediation of necessity implied the consent of both belligerents.
The terms of peace being such as Chili was willing to offer, it was her right to state them in such language and to such extent as she deemed proper.
And you will observe that the withdrawal of the United States from any further intervention is conditioned upon her approval of the terms and her willingness to recommend them to Peru. In case, as has happened, that the Government of the United States does not approve the terms, and declines to offer good offices upon such conditions, entire liberty of action is reserved.
When the protocol had been signed, I communicated to Mr. Balmaceda the decision of the United States, which you had made known to me in the telegram of the 4th of February. When I made this communication Mr. Balmaceda desired that I would so modify the language as not to qualify the terms offered. I was willing to substitute a milder phrase for the word “exorbitant.”
But this did not satisfy him. He said he thought that the offer of good offices having been accepted in a friendly spirit, and in special deference to the United States, we ought not, in withdrawing it, to censure the terms in such emphatic language.
The withdrawal itself was sufficient. You will remember that the language used was: “The Government of the United States can take no part in any negotiation based both upon the cession of Tarapacá and a further indemnity of twenty millions.”
In the mean time I received your telegram of the 22d, in which you clearly limited the language of the telegram of the 4th.
From the first it might have reasonably been inferred that you would offer your good offices in the alternative, either upon the cession of Tarapacá or upon a liberal war indemnity, but not upon both combined. Your last telegram only authorized me to accept a liberal war indemnity as the basis of good offices.
I avail myself, therefore, of Mr. Balmaceda’s objection to withdraw the letter and substitute that which follows the protocol, and which simply says that the United States cannot offer its good offices on these terms.
This letter, although dated the 14th, the same date as the original, was not really agreed upon until after the receipt of your telegram of the 22d. (Inclosure No. 2.)
On the 24th Mr. Balmaceda replied that the Government of Chili was not prepared to make any modification in its terms. (Inclosure No. 3.)
This fact I immediately telegraphed you. This subject is therefore now before you upon the decision of the Government of Chili that it will not modify the terms of peace.
I deemed it proper, while informing Mr. Balmaceda confidentially of your estimate of the terms of peace, not to commit the government by any formal qualification, but to leave you entirely free, upon learning [Page 83] the refusal of the Chilian Government to modify them, to instruct me what answer to make.
I therefore wait to know whether I shall simply accept the refusal and withdraw the good offices, reserving to the government entire liberty of action as to the future conduct of Chili, or whether I shall state the reason of the withdrawal, expressing to the Government of Chili the belief of the United States that such terms are exorbitant, or whether I shall take any other action such as the Government of the United States shall consider called for under the circumstances.
I have the honor, &c.,