WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 14 AND DECEMBER 9, 1891.

WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 14 AND DECEMBER 9, 1891.The Chilian Imbroglio.InJanuary, 1891, civil war broke out in the republic of Chili between the Congressional forces and the established Government under President Balmaceda. Deeds of cruelty signalized the conflict, which continued until August 28, when the insurgent forces landed near Valparaiso and, after a bloody engagement, captured that city. President Balmaceda became a fugitive, and a few weeks later committed suicide, by shooting, at the residence of Señor Uribirru, the Argentine Minister.During the conduct of the war, theItata, an armed vessel, commanded by an officer of the Chilian insurgent fleet, was seized under process of the United States Court at San Diego, Cal., for a violation of the neutrality laws. This seizure and the subsequent escape, surrender, and return of theItata, and the strict neutrality observed by the American Minister, Hon. Patrick Egan, and Admiral Brown, commanding the squadron, caused the victorious Chilians to manifest a spirit of animosity toward the Government and people of the United States. This feeling was intensified by the false statements published in the British press, notably the LondonTimes, touching the conduct of Admiral Brown and the American Minister, and by the fact that the American Legation, exercising the established right of asylum, opened its doors to several prominent political refugees of the defunct Balmaceda Government.On October 16, 1891, this hostility culminated in an attack, in the streets of Valparaiso, upon a number of sailors attached to the U. S. cruiserBaltimore, who were upon shore leave. These sailors, wearing their uniforms, were assaulted by armed men in different localities in the city; one petty officer was killed outright, and eight seamenseriously wounded, one of whom died a few days later. Many of their stab wounds were in the back. The news of this bloody and unprovoked attack sent a thrill of indignation across the American continent, and it was felt that the deadly insult must be atoned in blood. The war feeling was not lessened by the impudent tone of the reply from the Chilian Minister of Foreign Affairs. American indignation subsided somewhat pending a judicial inquiry into the attack, but the determination to expiate the insult had in no degree abated when, on November 14, Señor Don Pedro Montt was presented to President Harrison as the newly accredited Chilian Minister to the United States.The reception of a new Minister is ordinarily a very formal and uninteresting affair, but the circumstances narrated—with the two governments apparently on the verge of war—lent an unusual interest to this official meeting; and the President's remarks, characterized by his usual frankness and firmness, called forth the approval of the whole Nation.The Minister was accompanied by Señors Anibal Cruz, Secretary of Legation; Guillermo Arenanetegan and Valentin del Campo, attachés. After the formal introductions by Secretary Blaine, Señor Montt addressed the President in Spanish as follows:Mr. President—I have the honor to present the credentials which accredit me in the capacity of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the republic of Chili in the United States of North America. The object of the mission which the Government of Chili has confided to me is to cultivate and maintain the relations of peace and friendship between the United States and Chili, which have ever been close and cordial. For the accomplishment of this purpose I rely upon the kindness and good-will which the United States Government has always manifested for the representatives of Chili. Permit me to express my country's sincere wishes for the prosperity and welfare of this noble country, which is so highly favored by Providence, and for your own happiness.The President, in response, said:Mr. Minister—I am glad to receive from your hands the letters accrediting you as the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the republic of Chili to the United States. The presence of a representative of the Government of Chili at this capital will, I hope, tend to promote a good understanding between the two governments and the early settlement, upon terms just and honorable to both, of the diplomatic questions now somewhat urgently awaiting adjustment. The Government of the United States, as well as its people, particularly desire and rejoice in the prosperity of all our neighbors in this hemisphere. Our diplomatic relations with them have always been and will continue to be free from intermeddling with their internal affairs. Our people are too just to desire that the commercial or political advantage of this Government should be sought by the promotion of disastrous dissensions in other countries. We hear with sorrow every fresh tale of war or internal strife, and are always ready to give our friendly offices to the promotion of peace. If these are not acceptable or do not avail, it is our policy to preserve an honorable and strict neutrality, as was done during the recent war in Chili. Tempting commercial and political advantages may be offered for our aid or influence by one or the other of the two contending parties, but this we have not deemed to be consistent with the obligations of international honor and good-will. This Government was quite as determined in its refusal to allow a war-vessel of the United States to carry to a neutral port, where it could be made available for war purposes, the silver of Balmaceda, as it was to give aid to the forces opposing him. The questions involved were Chilian questions, and this Government endeavored to observe those principles of non-intervention upon which it had so strongly insisted when civil war disturbed our own people. I cannot doubt that this policy will commend itself to those who now administer the Government of Chili; nor can I doubt that when excitement has given place to calmness, when the truth is ascertained and the selfish and designing perversions of recent incidents have been exposed, our respective governments will find a basis of increased mutual respect, confidence, and friendship.Mr. Minister, this Government and our people rejoice that peace has been restored in Chili, and that its Government is the expression of the free choice of its people. You may assure your honored President, who has been chosen under circumstances which so strongly testify to his moderation and to the esteem in which he is held by the people of all parties, that the Government of theUnited States entertains only good-will for him and for the people of Chili, and cannot doubt that the existing and all future differences between the two governments will find an honorable adjustment. To you, Mr. Minister, I tender a personal welcome.In his annual message to Congress, December 9, President Harrison concludes his remarks upon Chilian affairs relating to the attack upon the sailors of the cruiserBaltimorewith the following significant paragraphs:So far as I have yet been able to learn, no other explanation of this bloody work has been suggested than that it had its origin in hostility to these men as sailors of the United States, wearing the uniform of their Government, and not in any individual act or personal animosity. The attention of the Chilian Government was at once called to this affair, and a statement of the facts obtained by the investigation we had conducted was submitted, accompanied by a request to be advised of any other or qualifying facts in the possession of the Chilian Government that might tend to relieve this affair of the appearance of an insult to this Government. The Chilian Government was also advised that if such qualifying facts did not exist, this Government would confidently expect full and prompt reparation.It is to be regretted that the reply of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government was couched in an offensive tone. To this no response has been made. This Government is now awaiting the result of an investigation which has been conducted by the criminal court at Valparaiso. It is reported unofficially that the investigation is about completed, and it is expected that the result will soon be communicated to this Government, together with some adequate and satisfactory response to the note by which the attention of Chili was called to this incident. If these just expectations should be disappointed or further needless delay intervene, I will, by a special message, bring this matter again to the attention of Congress for such action as may be necessary. The entire correspondence with the Government of Chili will at an early day be submitted to Congress.

The Chilian Imbroglio.

InJanuary, 1891, civil war broke out in the republic of Chili between the Congressional forces and the established Government under President Balmaceda. Deeds of cruelty signalized the conflict, which continued until August 28, when the insurgent forces landed near Valparaiso and, after a bloody engagement, captured that city. President Balmaceda became a fugitive, and a few weeks later committed suicide, by shooting, at the residence of Señor Uribirru, the Argentine Minister.

During the conduct of the war, theItata, an armed vessel, commanded by an officer of the Chilian insurgent fleet, was seized under process of the United States Court at San Diego, Cal., for a violation of the neutrality laws. This seizure and the subsequent escape, surrender, and return of theItata, and the strict neutrality observed by the American Minister, Hon. Patrick Egan, and Admiral Brown, commanding the squadron, caused the victorious Chilians to manifest a spirit of animosity toward the Government and people of the United States. This feeling was intensified by the false statements published in the British press, notably the LondonTimes, touching the conduct of Admiral Brown and the American Minister, and by the fact that the American Legation, exercising the established right of asylum, opened its doors to several prominent political refugees of the defunct Balmaceda Government.

On October 16, 1891, this hostility culminated in an attack, in the streets of Valparaiso, upon a number of sailors attached to the U. S. cruiserBaltimore, who were upon shore leave. These sailors, wearing their uniforms, were assaulted by armed men in different localities in the city; one petty officer was killed outright, and eight seamenseriously wounded, one of whom died a few days later. Many of their stab wounds were in the back. The news of this bloody and unprovoked attack sent a thrill of indignation across the American continent, and it was felt that the deadly insult must be atoned in blood. The war feeling was not lessened by the impudent tone of the reply from the Chilian Minister of Foreign Affairs. American indignation subsided somewhat pending a judicial inquiry into the attack, but the determination to expiate the insult had in no degree abated when, on November 14, Señor Don Pedro Montt was presented to President Harrison as the newly accredited Chilian Minister to the United States.

The reception of a new Minister is ordinarily a very formal and uninteresting affair, but the circumstances narrated—with the two governments apparently on the verge of war—lent an unusual interest to this official meeting; and the President's remarks, characterized by his usual frankness and firmness, called forth the approval of the whole Nation.

The Minister was accompanied by Señors Anibal Cruz, Secretary of Legation; Guillermo Arenanetegan and Valentin del Campo, attachés. After the formal introductions by Secretary Blaine, Señor Montt addressed the President in Spanish as follows:

Mr. President—I have the honor to present the credentials which accredit me in the capacity of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the republic of Chili in the United States of North America. The object of the mission which the Government of Chili has confided to me is to cultivate and maintain the relations of peace and friendship between the United States and Chili, which have ever been close and cordial. For the accomplishment of this purpose I rely upon the kindness and good-will which the United States Government has always manifested for the representatives of Chili. Permit me to express my country's sincere wishes for the prosperity and welfare of this noble country, which is so highly favored by Providence, and for your own happiness.

Mr. President—I have the honor to present the credentials which accredit me in the capacity of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the republic of Chili in the United States of North America. The object of the mission which the Government of Chili has confided to me is to cultivate and maintain the relations of peace and friendship between the United States and Chili, which have ever been close and cordial. For the accomplishment of this purpose I rely upon the kindness and good-will which the United States Government has always manifested for the representatives of Chili. Permit me to express my country's sincere wishes for the prosperity and welfare of this noble country, which is so highly favored by Providence, and for your own happiness.

The President, in response, said:

Mr. Minister—I am glad to receive from your hands the letters accrediting you as the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the republic of Chili to the United States. The presence of a representative of the Government of Chili at this capital will, I hope, tend to promote a good understanding between the two governments and the early settlement, upon terms just and honorable to both, of the diplomatic questions now somewhat urgently awaiting adjustment. The Government of the United States, as well as its people, particularly desire and rejoice in the prosperity of all our neighbors in this hemisphere. Our diplomatic relations with them have always been and will continue to be free from intermeddling with their internal affairs. Our people are too just to desire that the commercial or political advantage of this Government should be sought by the promotion of disastrous dissensions in other countries. We hear with sorrow every fresh tale of war or internal strife, and are always ready to give our friendly offices to the promotion of peace. If these are not acceptable or do not avail, it is our policy to preserve an honorable and strict neutrality, as was done during the recent war in Chili. Tempting commercial and political advantages may be offered for our aid or influence by one or the other of the two contending parties, but this we have not deemed to be consistent with the obligations of international honor and good-will. This Government was quite as determined in its refusal to allow a war-vessel of the United States to carry to a neutral port, where it could be made available for war purposes, the silver of Balmaceda, as it was to give aid to the forces opposing him. The questions involved were Chilian questions, and this Government endeavored to observe those principles of non-intervention upon which it had so strongly insisted when civil war disturbed our own people. I cannot doubt that this policy will commend itself to those who now administer the Government of Chili; nor can I doubt that when excitement has given place to calmness, when the truth is ascertained and the selfish and designing perversions of recent incidents have been exposed, our respective governments will find a basis of increased mutual respect, confidence, and friendship.Mr. Minister, this Government and our people rejoice that peace has been restored in Chili, and that its Government is the expression of the free choice of its people. You may assure your honored President, who has been chosen under circumstances which so strongly testify to his moderation and to the esteem in which he is held by the people of all parties, that the Government of theUnited States entertains only good-will for him and for the people of Chili, and cannot doubt that the existing and all future differences between the two governments will find an honorable adjustment. To you, Mr. Minister, I tender a personal welcome.

Mr. Minister—I am glad to receive from your hands the letters accrediting you as the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the republic of Chili to the United States. The presence of a representative of the Government of Chili at this capital will, I hope, tend to promote a good understanding between the two governments and the early settlement, upon terms just and honorable to both, of the diplomatic questions now somewhat urgently awaiting adjustment. The Government of the United States, as well as its people, particularly desire and rejoice in the prosperity of all our neighbors in this hemisphere. Our diplomatic relations with them have always been and will continue to be free from intermeddling with their internal affairs. Our people are too just to desire that the commercial or political advantage of this Government should be sought by the promotion of disastrous dissensions in other countries. We hear with sorrow every fresh tale of war or internal strife, and are always ready to give our friendly offices to the promotion of peace. If these are not acceptable or do not avail, it is our policy to preserve an honorable and strict neutrality, as was done during the recent war in Chili. Tempting commercial and political advantages may be offered for our aid or influence by one or the other of the two contending parties, but this we have not deemed to be consistent with the obligations of international honor and good-will. This Government was quite as determined in its refusal to allow a war-vessel of the United States to carry to a neutral port, where it could be made available for war purposes, the silver of Balmaceda, as it was to give aid to the forces opposing him. The questions involved were Chilian questions, and this Government endeavored to observe those principles of non-intervention upon which it had so strongly insisted when civil war disturbed our own people. I cannot doubt that this policy will commend itself to those who now administer the Government of Chili; nor can I doubt that when excitement has given place to calmness, when the truth is ascertained and the selfish and designing perversions of recent incidents have been exposed, our respective governments will find a basis of increased mutual respect, confidence, and friendship.

Mr. Minister, this Government and our people rejoice that peace has been restored in Chili, and that its Government is the expression of the free choice of its people. You may assure your honored President, who has been chosen under circumstances which so strongly testify to his moderation and to the esteem in which he is held by the people of all parties, that the Government of theUnited States entertains only good-will for him and for the people of Chili, and cannot doubt that the existing and all future differences between the two governments will find an honorable adjustment. To you, Mr. Minister, I tender a personal welcome.

In his annual message to Congress, December 9, President Harrison concludes his remarks upon Chilian affairs relating to the attack upon the sailors of the cruiserBaltimorewith the following significant paragraphs:

So far as I have yet been able to learn, no other explanation of this bloody work has been suggested than that it had its origin in hostility to these men as sailors of the United States, wearing the uniform of their Government, and not in any individual act or personal animosity. The attention of the Chilian Government was at once called to this affair, and a statement of the facts obtained by the investigation we had conducted was submitted, accompanied by a request to be advised of any other or qualifying facts in the possession of the Chilian Government that might tend to relieve this affair of the appearance of an insult to this Government. The Chilian Government was also advised that if such qualifying facts did not exist, this Government would confidently expect full and prompt reparation.It is to be regretted that the reply of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government was couched in an offensive tone. To this no response has been made. This Government is now awaiting the result of an investigation which has been conducted by the criminal court at Valparaiso. It is reported unofficially that the investigation is about completed, and it is expected that the result will soon be communicated to this Government, together with some adequate and satisfactory response to the note by which the attention of Chili was called to this incident. If these just expectations should be disappointed or further needless delay intervene, I will, by a special message, bring this matter again to the attention of Congress for such action as may be necessary. The entire correspondence with the Government of Chili will at an early day be submitted to Congress.

So far as I have yet been able to learn, no other explanation of this bloody work has been suggested than that it had its origin in hostility to these men as sailors of the United States, wearing the uniform of their Government, and not in any individual act or personal animosity. The attention of the Chilian Government was at once called to this affair, and a statement of the facts obtained by the investigation we had conducted was submitted, accompanied by a request to be advised of any other or qualifying facts in the possession of the Chilian Government that might tend to relieve this affair of the appearance of an insult to this Government. The Chilian Government was also advised that if such qualifying facts did not exist, this Government would confidently expect full and prompt reparation.

It is to be regretted that the reply of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government was couched in an offensive tone. To this no response has been made. This Government is now awaiting the result of an investigation which has been conducted by the criminal court at Valparaiso. It is reported unofficially that the investigation is about completed, and it is expected that the result will soon be communicated to this Government, together with some adequate and satisfactory response to the note by which the attention of Chili was called to this incident. If these just expectations should be disappointed or further needless delay intervene, I will, by a special message, bring this matter again to the attention of Congress for such action as may be necessary. The entire correspondence with the Government of Chili will at an early day be submitted to Congress.

PROTECTION FOR RAILROAD EMPLOYEES.[Extract from President's Message, December 9, 1891.]Onthe evening of August 5, 1888, at Indianapolis, General Harrison, responding to an address from D. T. Downs, President of the Terre Haute Railroad Club, and in the presence of several thousand railroad employees, speaking of the heroic services rendered by the men who operate the great railroad lines of the country, said:I do not doubt that certain and necessary provisions for the safety of the men who operate these roads will yet be made compulsory by public and general law. The dangers connected with your calling are very great, and the public interest, as well as your own, requires that they should be reduced to the minimum. I do not doubt that we shall yet require that uniformity in the construction of railroad cars that will diminish the danger of those, who must pass between them in order to make up trains.Consistent with these views, President Harrison, in his message to Congress, December 9, 1891, made the following pertinent suggestions:I have twice before urgently called the attention of Congress to the necessity of legislation for the protection of the lives of railroad employees, but nothing has yet been done. During the year ending June 30, 1890, 369 brakemen were killed and 7,841 maimed while engaged in coupling cars. The total number of railroad employees killed during the year was 2,451 and the number injured 22,390. This is a cruel and largely a needless sacrifice, The Government is spending nearly one million dollars annually to save the lives of shipwrecked seamen; every steam-vessel is rigidly inspected and required to adopt the most approved safety appliances. All this is good; but how shall we excuse the lack of interest and effort in behalf of this army of brave young men who in our land commerce are being sacrificed every year by the continued use of antiquated and dangerous appliances? A law requiring of every railroad engaged in inter-State commerce the equipment each year of a given per cent. of its freight cars with automatic couplers and air brakes would compel an agreement between the roads as to the kind of brakes and couplers to be used, and would very soon and very greatly reduce the present fearful death-rate among railroad employees.

[Extract from President's Message, December 9, 1891.]

Onthe evening of August 5, 1888, at Indianapolis, General Harrison, responding to an address from D. T. Downs, President of the Terre Haute Railroad Club, and in the presence of several thousand railroad employees, speaking of the heroic services rendered by the men who operate the great railroad lines of the country, said:

I do not doubt that certain and necessary provisions for the safety of the men who operate these roads will yet be made compulsory by public and general law. The dangers connected with your calling are very great, and the public interest, as well as your own, requires that they should be reduced to the minimum. I do not doubt that we shall yet require that uniformity in the construction of railroad cars that will diminish the danger of those, who must pass between them in order to make up trains.

I do not doubt that certain and necessary provisions for the safety of the men who operate these roads will yet be made compulsory by public and general law. The dangers connected with your calling are very great, and the public interest, as well as your own, requires that they should be reduced to the minimum. I do not doubt that we shall yet require that uniformity in the construction of railroad cars that will diminish the danger of those, who must pass between them in order to make up trains.

Consistent with these views, President Harrison, in his message to Congress, December 9, 1891, made the following pertinent suggestions:

I have twice before urgently called the attention of Congress to the necessity of legislation for the protection of the lives of railroad employees, but nothing has yet been done. During the year ending June 30, 1890, 369 brakemen were killed and 7,841 maimed while engaged in coupling cars. The total number of railroad employees killed during the year was 2,451 and the number injured 22,390. This is a cruel and largely a needless sacrifice, The Government is spending nearly one million dollars annually to save the lives of shipwrecked seamen; every steam-vessel is rigidly inspected and required to adopt the most approved safety appliances. All this is good; but how shall we excuse the lack of interest and effort in behalf of this army of brave young men who in our land commerce are being sacrificed every year by the continued use of antiquated and dangerous appliances? A law requiring of every railroad engaged in inter-State commerce the equipment each year of a given per cent. of its freight cars with automatic couplers and air brakes would compel an agreement between the roads as to the kind of brakes and couplers to be used, and would very soon and very greatly reduce the present fearful death-rate among railroad employees.

I have twice before urgently called the attention of Congress to the necessity of legislation for the protection of the lives of railroad employees, but nothing has yet been done. During the year ending June 30, 1890, 369 brakemen were killed and 7,841 maimed while engaged in coupling cars. The total number of railroad employees killed during the year was 2,451 and the number injured 22,390. This is a cruel and largely a needless sacrifice, The Government is spending nearly one million dollars annually to save the lives of shipwrecked seamen; every steam-vessel is rigidly inspected and required to adopt the most approved safety appliances. All this is good; but how shall we excuse the lack of interest and effort in behalf of this army of brave young men who in our land commerce are being sacrificed every year by the continued use of antiquated and dangerous appliances? A law requiring of every railroad engaged in inter-State commerce the equipment each year of a given per cent. of its freight cars with automatic couplers and air brakes would compel an agreement between the roads as to the kind of brakes and couplers to be used, and would very soon and very greatly reduce the present fearful death-rate among railroad employees.

THE APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS.[From Annual Message to Congress, December 9, 1891.]Perhapsno official utterance of President Harrison received more serious and profound consideration—as indicated through the press of the day—than the following patriotic admonishment regarding the danger lurking within certain possible methods of choosing presidential electors. He said:The method of appointment by the States of electors of President and Vice-President has recently attracted renewed interest by reason of a departure by the State of Michigan from the method which had become uniform in all the States. Prior to 1832 various methods had been used by the different States, and even by the same State. In some the choice was made by the Legislature; in others electors were chosen by districts, but more generally by the voters of the whole State upon a general ticket. The movement toward the adoption of the last-named method had an early beginning and went steadily forward among the States, until in 1832 there remained but a single State—South Carolina—that had not adopted it. That State, until the Civil War, continued to choose its electors by a vote of the Legislature, but after the war changed its method and conformed to the practice of the other States. For nearly sixty years all the States save one have appointed their electors by a popular vote upon a general ticket, and for nearly thirty years this method was universal.After a full test of other methods, without important division or dissent in any State and without any purpose of party advantage, as we must believe, but solely upon the considerations that uniformity was desirable and that general election in territorial divisions not subject to change was most consistent with the popular character of our institutions, best preserved the equality of the voters, and perfectly removed the choice of President from the baneful influence of the "gerrymander," the practice of all the States was brought into harmony. That this concurrence should now be broken is, I think, an unfortunate and even a threatening episode, and one that may well suggest whether the States that still give their approval to the old and prevailing method ought not to secure, by a constitutional amendment, a practice which has had the approval of all. The recent Michigan legislation provides for choosing what are popularly known as the Congressional electors for President by Congressional districts, and the two Senatorial electors by districts created for that purpose. This legislation was, of course, accompanied by a new Congressional apportionment, and the two statutes bring the electoral vote of the State under the influence of the "gerrymander."These gerrymanders for Congressional purposes are in most cases buttressed by a gerrymander of the legislative districts, thus making it impossible for a majority of the legal voters of the State to correct the apportionment and equalize the Congressional districts. A minority rule is established that only a political convulsion can overthrow. I have recently been advised that in one county of a certain State three districts for the election of members of the Legislature are constituted as follows: One has 65,000 population, one 15,000, and one 10,000; while in another county, detached, non-contiguous sections have been united to make a legislative district. These methods have already found effective application to the choice of Senators and Representatives in Congress, and now an evil start has been made in the direction of applying them to the choice by the States of electors of President and Vice-President. If this is accomplished, we shall then have the three great departments of the Government in the grasp of the "gerrymander," the legislative and executive directly and the judiciary indirectly, through the power of appointment.An election implies a body of electors having prescribed qualifications, each one of whom has an equal value and influence in determining the result. So when the Constitution provides that "each State shall appoint [elect], in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors," etc., an unrestricted power was not given to the legislatures in the selection of the methods to be used. "A republican form of government" is guaranteed by the Constitution to each State, and the power given by the same instrument to the legislatures of the States to prescribe methods for the choice, by the State, of electors must be exercised under that limitation. The essential features of such a government are the right of the people to choose their own officers and the nearest practicable equality of value in the suffrages given in determining that choice.It will not be claimed that the power given to the Legislature would support a law providing that the persons receiving the smallest vote should be the electors, or a law that all the electors should be chosen by the voters of a single Congressional district. The State is to choose, and under the pretence of regulating methods thelegislature can neither vest the right of choice elsewhere nor adopt methods not conformable to republican institutions. It is not my purpose here to discuss the question whether a choice by the Legislature or by the voters of equal single districts is a choice by the State, but only to recommend such regulation of this matter by constitutional amendment as will secure uniformity and prevent that disgraceful partisan jugglery to which such a liberty of choice, if it exist, offers a temptation.Nothing just now is more important than to provide every guaranty for the absolutely fair and free choice by an equal suffrage, within the respective States, of all the officers of the national Government, whether that suffrage is applied directly, as in the choice of members of the House of Representatives, or indirectly, as in the choice of Senators and electors of President. Respect for public officers and obedience to law will not cease to be the characteristics of our people until our elections cease to declare the will of majorities fairly ascertained, without fraud, suppression, or gerrymander. If I were called upon to declare wherein our chief national danger lies, I should say, without hesitation, in the overthrow of majority control by the suppression or perversion of the popular suffrage. That there is a real danger here all must agree, but the energies of those who see it have been chiefly expended in trying to fix responsibility upon the opposite party, rather than in efforts to make such practices impossible by either party.Is it not possible now to adjourn that interminable and inconclusive debate while we take, by consent, one step in the direction of reform by eliminating the gerrymander, which has been denounced by all parties, as an influence in the selection of electors of President and members of Congress? All the States have, acting freely and separately, determined that the choice of electors by a general ticket is the wisest and safest method, and it would seem there could be no objection to a constitutional amendment making that method permanent. If a legislature chosen in one year upon purely local questions should, pending a presidential contest, meet, rescind the law for a choice upon a general ticket, and provide for the choice of electors by the legislature, and this trick should determine the result, it is not too much to say that the public peace might be seriously and widely endangered.I have alluded to the "gerrymander" as affecting the method of selecting electors of President by Congressional districts, but the primary intent and effect of this form of political robbery have relation to the selection of members of the House of Representatives. The power of Congress is ample to deal with this threatening and intolerable abuse. The unfailing test of sincerity in election reform will be found in a willingness to confer as to remedies and to put into force such measures as will most effectually preserve the right of the people to free and equal representation.An attempt was made in the last Congress to bring to bear the constitutional powers of the general Government for the correction of frauds against the suffrage. It is important to know whether the opposition to such measures is really vested in particular features supposed to be objectionable or includes any proposition to give to the election laws of the United States adequacy to the correction of grave and acknowledged evils. I must yet entertain the hope that it is possible to secure a calm, patriotic consideration of such constitutional or statutory changes as may be necessary to secure the choice of the officers of the Government to the people by fair apportionments and free elections. I believe it would be possible to constitute a commission, non-partisan in its membership and composed of patriotic, wise, and impartial men, to whom a consideration of the question of the evils connected with our election system and methods might be committed with a good prospect of securing unanimity in some plan for removing or mitigating those evils. The Constitution would permit the selection of the commission to be vested in the Supreme Court, if that method would give the best guaranty of impartiality.This commission should be charged with the duty of inquiring into the whole subject of the law of elections as related to the choice of officers of the national Government, with a view to securing to every elector a free and unmolested exercise of the suffrage and as near an approach to an equality of value in each ballot cast as is attainable.While the policies of the general Government upon the tariff, upon the restoration of our merchant marine, upon river and harbor improvements, and other such matters of grave and general concern are liable to be turned this way or that by the results of Congressional elections and administrative policies, sometimes involving issues that tend to peace or war, to be turned this way or that by the results of a presidential election, there is a rightful interest in all the States and in every Congressional district that will not be deceived or silenced by the audacious pretence that the question of the right of any body of legal voters in any State or in any Congressional district to give their suffrages freely upon these general questions is a matter only of local concern or control. The demand that the limitations of suffrage shall be found in the law,and only there, is a just demand, and no just man should resent or resist it. My appeal is, and must continue to be, for a consultation that shall "proceed with candor, calmness, and patience upon the lines of justice and humanity, not of prejudice and cruelty."To the consideration of these very grave questions I invite not only the attention of Congress, but that of all patriotic citizens. We must not entertain the delusion that our people have ceased to regard a free ballot and equal representation as the price of their allegiance to laws and to civil magistrates.I have been greatly rejoiced to notice many evidences of the increased unification of our people and of a revived national spirit. The vista that now opens to us is wider and more glorious than ever before. Gratification and amazement struggle for supremacy as we contemplate the population, wealth, and moral strength of our country. A trust, momentous in its influence upon our people and upon the world, is for a brief time committed to us, and we must not be faithless to its first condition—the defence of the free and equal influence of the people in the choice of public officers and in the control of public affairs.

[From Annual Message to Congress, December 9, 1891.]

Perhapsno official utterance of President Harrison received more serious and profound consideration—as indicated through the press of the day—than the following patriotic admonishment regarding the danger lurking within certain possible methods of choosing presidential electors. He said:

The method of appointment by the States of electors of President and Vice-President has recently attracted renewed interest by reason of a departure by the State of Michigan from the method which had become uniform in all the States. Prior to 1832 various methods had been used by the different States, and even by the same State. In some the choice was made by the Legislature; in others electors were chosen by districts, but more generally by the voters of the whole State upon a general ticket. The movement toward the adoption of the last-named method had an early beginning and went steadily forward among the States, until in 1832 there remained but a single State—South Carolina—that had not adopted it. That State, until the Civil War, continued to choose its electors by a vote of the Legislature, but after the war changed its method and conformed to the practice of the other States. For nearly sixty years all the States save one have appointed their electors by a popular vote upon a general ticket, and for nearly thirty years this method was universal.After a full test of other methods, without important division or dissent in any State and without any purpose of party advantage, as we must believe, but solely upon the considerations that uniformity was desirable and that general election in territorial divisions not subject to change was most consistent with the popular character of our institutions, best preserved the equality of the voters, and perfectly removed the choice of President from the baneful influence of the "gerrymander," the practice of all the States was brought into harmony. That this concurrence should now be broken is, I think, an unfortunate and even a threatening episode, and one that may well suggest whether the States that still give their approval to the old and prevailing method ought not to secure, by a constitutional amendment, a practice which has had the approval of all. The recent Michigan legislation provides for choosing what are popularly known as the Congressional electors for President by Congressional districts, and the two Senatorial electors by districts created for that purpose. This legislation was, of course, accompanied by a new Congressional apportionment, and the two statutes bring the electoral vote of the State under the influence of the "gerrymander."These gerrymanders for Congressional purposes are in most cases buttressed by a gerrymander of the legislative districts, thus making it impossible for a majority of the legal voters of the State to correct the apportionment and equalize the Congressional districts. A minority rule is established that only a political convulsion can overthrow. I have recently been advised that in one county of a certain State three districts for the election of members of the Legislature are constituted as follows: One has 65,000 population, one 15,000, and one 10,000; while in another county, detached, non-contiguous sections have been united to make a legislative district. These methods have already found effective application to the choice of Senators and Representatives in Congress, and now an evil start has been made in the direction of applying them to the choice by the States of electors of President and Vice-President. If this is accomplished, we shall then have the three great departments of the Government in the grasp of the "gerrymander," the legislative and executive directly and the judiciary indirectly, through the power of appointment.An election implies a body of electors having prescribed qualifications, each one of whom has an equal value and influence in determining the result. So when the Constitution provides that "each State shall appoint [elect], in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors," etc., an unrestricted power was not given to the legislatures in the selection of the methods to be used. "A republican form of government" is guaranteed by the Constitution to each State, and the power given by the same instrument to the legislatures of the States to prescribe methods for the choice, by the State, of electors must be exercised under that limitation. The essential features of such a government are the right of the people to choose their own officers and the nearest practicable equality of value in the suffrages given in determining that choice.It will not be claimed that the power given to the Legislature would support a law providing that the persons receiving the smallest vote should be the electors, or a law that all the electors should be chosen by the voters of a single Congressional district. The State is to choose, and under the pretence of regulating methods thelegislature can neither vest the right of choice elsewhere nor adopt methods not conformable to republican institutions. It is not my purpose here to discuss the question whether a choice by the Legislature or by the voters of equal single districts is a choice by the State, but only to recommend such regulation of this matter by constitutional amendment as will secure uniformity and prevent that disgraceful partisan jugglery to which such a liberty of choice, if it exist, offers a temptation.Nothing just now is more important than to provide every guaranty for the absolutely fair and free choice by an equal suffrage, within the respective States, of all the officers of the national Government, whether that suffrage is applied directly, as in the choice of members of the House of Representatives, or indirectly, as in the choice of Senators and electors of President. Respect for public officers and obedience to law will not cease to be the characteristics of our people until our elections cease to declare the will of majorities fairly ascertained, without fraud, suppression, or gerrymander. If I were called upon to declare wherein our chief national danger lies, I should say, without hesitation, in the overthrow of majority control by the suppression or perversion of the popular suffrage. That there is a real danger here all must agree, but the energies of those who see it have been chiefly expended in trying to fix responsibility upon the opposite party, rather than in efforts to make such practices impossible by either party.Is it not possible now to adjourn that interminable and inconclusive debate while we take, by consent, one step in the direction of reform by eliminating the gerrymander, which has been denounced by all parties, as an influence in the selection of electors of President and members of Congress? All the States have, acting freely and separately, determined that the choice of electors by a general ticket is the wisest and safest method, and it would seem there could be no objection to a constitutional amendment making that method permanent. If a legislature chosen in one year upon purely local questions should, pending a presidential contest, meet, rescind the law for a choice upon a general ticket, and provide for the choice of electors by the legislature, and this trick should determine the result, it is not too much to say that the public peace might be seriously and widely endangered.I have alluded to the "gerrymander" as affecting the method of selecting electors of President by Congressional districts, but the primary intent and effect of this form of political robbery have relation to the selection of members of the House of Representatives. The power of Congress is ample to deal with this threatening and intolerable abuse. The unfailing test of sincerity in election reform will be found in a willingness to confer as to remedies and to put into force such measures as will most effectually preserve the right of the people to free and equal representation.An attempt was made in the last Congress to bring to bear the constitutional powers of the general Government for the correction of frauds against the suffrage. It is important to know whether the opposition to such measures is really vested in particular features supposed to be objectionable or includes any proposition to give to the election laws of the United States adequacy to the correction of grave and acknowledged evils. I must yet entertain the hope that it is possible to secure a calm, patriotic consideration of such constitutional or statutory changes as may be necessary to secure the choice of the officers of the Government to the people by fair apportionments and free elections. I believe it would be possible to constitute a commission, non-partisan in its membership and composed of patriotic, wise, and impartial men, to whom a consideration of the question of the evils connected with our election system and methods might be committed with a good prospect of securing unanimity in some plan for removing or mitigating those evils. The Constitution would permit the selection of the commission to be vested in the Supreme Court, if that method would give the best guaranty of impartiality.This commission should be charged with the duty of inquiring into the whole subject of the law of elections as related to the choice of officers of the national Government, with a view to securing to every elector a free and unmolested exercise of the suffrage and as near an approach to an equality of value in each ballot cast as is attainable.While the policies of the general Government upon the tariff, upon the restoration of our merchant marine, upon river and harbor improvements, and other such matters of grave and general concern are liable to be turned this way or that by the results of Congressional elections and administrative policies, sometimes involving issues that tend to peace or war, to be turned this way or that by the results of a presidential election, there is a rightful interest in all the States and in every Congressional district that will not be deceived or silenced by the audacious pretence that the question of the right of any body of legal voters in any State or in any Congressional district to give their suffrages freely upon these general questions is a matter only of local concern or control. The demand that the limitations of suffrage shall be found in the law,and only there, is a just demand, and no just man should resent or resist it. My appeal is, and must continue to be, for a consultation that shall "proceed with candor, calmness, and patience upon the lines of justice and humanity, not of prejudice and cruelty."To the consideration of these very grave questions I invite not only the attention of Congress, but that of all patriotic citizens. We must not entertain the delusion that our people have ceased to regard a free ballot and equal representation as the price of their allegiance to laws and to civil magistrates.I have been greatly rejoiced to notice many evidences of the increased unification of our people and of a revived national spirit. The vista that now opens to us is wider and more glorious than ever before. Gratification and amazement struggle for supremacy as we contemplate the population, wealth, and moral strength of our country. A trust, momentous in its influence upon our people and upon the world, is for a brief time committed to us, and we must not be faithless to its first condition—the defence of the free and equal influence of the people in the choice of public officers and in the control of public affairs.

The method of appointment by the States of electors of President and Vice-President has recently attracted renewed interest by reason of a departure by the State of Michigan from the method which had become uniform in all the States. Prior to 1832 various methods had been used by the different States, and even by the same State. In some the choice was made by the Legislature; in others electors were chosen by districts, but more generally by the voters of the whole State upon a general ticket. The movement toward the adoption of the last-named method had an early beginning and went steadily forward among the States, until in 1832 there remained but a single State—South Carolina—that had not adopted it. That State, until the Civil War, continued to choose its electors by a vote of the Legislature, but after the war changed its method and conformed to the practice of the other States. For nearly sixty years all the States save one have appointed their electors by a popular vote upon a general ticket, and for nearly thirty years this method was universal.

After a full test of other methods, without important division or dissent in any State and without any purpose of party advantage, as we must believe, but solely upon the considerations that uniformity was desirable and that general election in territorial divisions not subject to change was most consistent with the popular character of our institutions, best preserved the equality of the voters, and perfectly removed the choice of President from the baneful influence of the "gerrymander," the practice of all the States was brought into harmony. That this concurrence should now be broken is, I think, an unfortunate and even a threatening episode, and one that may well suggest whether the States that still give their approval to the old and prevailing method ought not to secure, by a constitutional amendment, a practice which has had the approval of all. The recent Michigan legislation provides for choosing what are popularly known as the Congressional electors for President by Congressional districts, and the two Senatorial electors by districts created for that purpose. This legislation was, of course, accompanied by a new Congressional apportionment, and the two statutes bring the electoral vote of the State under the influence of the "gerrymander."

These gerrymanders for Congressional purposes are in most cases buttressed by a gerrymander of the legislative districts, thus making it impossible for a majority of the legal voters of the State to correct the apportionment and equalize the Congressional districts. A minority rule is established that only a political convulsion can overthrow. I have recently been advised that in one county of a certain State three districts for the election of members of the Legislature are constituted as follows: One has 65,000 population, one 15,000, and one 10,000; while in another county, detached, non-contiguous sections have been united to make a legislative district. These methods have already found effective application to the choice of Senators and Representatives in Congress, and now an evil start has been made in the direction of applying them to the choice by the States of electors of President and Vice-President. If this is accomplished, we shall then have the three great departments of the Government in the grasp of the "gerrymander," the legislative and executive directly and the judiciary indirectly, through the power of appointment.

An election implies a body of electors having prescribed qualifications, each one of whom has an equal value and influence in determining the result. So when the Constitution provides that "each State shall appoint [elect], in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors," etc., an unrestricted power was not given to the legislatures in the selection of the methods to be used. "A republican form of government" is guaranteed by the Constitution to each State, and the power given by the same instrument to the legislatures of the States to prescribe methods for the choice, by the State, of electors must be exercised under that limitation. The essential features of such a government are the right of the people to choose their own officers and the nearest practicable equality of value in the suffrages given in determining that choice.

It will not be claimed that the power given to the Legislature would support a law providing that the persons receiving the smallest vote should be the electors, or a law that all the electors should be chosen by the voters of a single Congressional district. The State is to choose, and under the pretence of regulating methods thelegislature can neither vest the right of choice elsewhere nor adopt methods not conformable to republican institutions. It is not my purpose here to discuss the question whether a choice by the Legislature or by the voters of equal single districts is a choice by the State, but only to recommend such regulation of this matter by constitutional amendment as will secure uniformity and prevent that disgraceful partisan jugglery to which such a liberty of choice, if it exist, offers a temptation.

Nothing just now is more important than to provide every guaranty for the absolutely fair and free choice by an equal suffrage, within the respective States, of all the officers of the national Government, whether that suffrage is applied directly, as in the choice of members of the House of Representatives, or indirectly, as in the choice of Senators and electors of President. Respect for public officers and obedience to law will not cease to be the characteristics of our people until our elections cease to declare the will of majorities fairly ascertained, without fraud, suppression, or gerrymander. If I were called upon to declare wherein our chief national danger lies, I should say, without hesitation, in the overthrow of majority control by the suppression or perversion of the popular suffrage. That there is a real danger here all must agree, but the energies of those who see it have been chiefly expended in trying to fix responsibility upon the opposite party, rather than in efforts to make such practices impossible by either party.

Is it not possible now to adjourn that interminable and inconclusive debate while we take, by consent, one step in the direction of reform by eliminating the gerrymander, which has been denounced by all parties, as an influence in the selection of electors of President and members of Congress? All the States have, acting freely and separately, determined that the choice of electors by a general ticket is the wisest and safest method, and it would seem there could be no objection to a constitutional amendment making that method permanent. If a legislature chosen in one year upon purely local questions should, pending a presidential contest, meet, rescind the law for a choice upon a general ticket, and provide for the choice of electors by the legislature, and this trick should determine the result, it is not too much to say that the public peace might be seriously and widely endangered.

I have alluded to the "gerrymander" as affecting the method of selecting electors of President by Congressional districts, but the primary intent and effect of this form of political robbery have relation to the selection of members of the House of Representatives. The power of Congress is ample to deal with this threatening and intolerable abuse. The unfailing test of sincerity in election reform will be found in a willingness to confer as to remedies and to put into force such measures as will most effectually preserve the right of the people to free and equal representation.

An attempt was made in the last Congress to bring to bear the constitutional powers of the general Government for the correction of frauds against the suffrage. It is important to know whether the opposition to such measures is really vested in particular features supposed to be objectionable or includes any proposition to give to the election laws of the United States adequacy to the correction of grave and acknowledged evils. I must yet entertain the hope that it is possible to secure a calm, patriotic consideration of such constitutional or statutory changes as may be necessary to secure the choice of the officers of the Government to the people by fair apportionments and free elections. I believe it would be possible to constitute a commission, non-partisan in its membership and composed of patriotic, wise, and impartial men, to whom a consideration of the question of the evils connected with our election system and methods might be committed with a good prospect of securing unanimity in some plan for removing or mitigating those evils. The Constitution would permit the selection of the commission to be vested in the Supreme Court, if that method would give the best guaranty of impartiality.

This commission should be charged with the duty of inquiring into the whole subject of the law of elections as related to the choice of officers of the national Government, with a view to securing to every elector a free and unmolested exercise of the suffrage and as near an approach to an equality of value in each ballot cast as is attainable.

While the policies of the general Government upon the tariff, upon the restoration of our merchant marine, upon river and harbor improvements, and other such matters of grave and general concern are liable to be turned this way or that by the results of Congressional elections and administrative policies, sometimes involving issues that tend to peace or war, to be turned this way or that by the results of a presidential election, there is a rightful interest in all the States and in every Congressional district that will not be deceived or silenced by the audacious pretence that the question of the right of any body of legal voters in any State or in any Congressional district to give their suffrages freely upon these general questions is a matter only of local concern or control. The demand that the limitations of suffrage shall be found in the law,and only there, is a just demand, and no just man should resent or resist it. My appeal is, and must continue to be, for a consultation that shall "proceed with candor, calmness, and patience upon the lines of justice and humanity, not of prejudice and cruelty."

To the consideration of these very grave questions I invite not only the attention of Congress, but that of all patriotic citizens. We must not entertain the delusion that our people have ceased to regard a free ballot and equal representation as the price of their allegiance to laws and to civil magistrates.

I have been greatly rejoiced to notice many evidences of the increased unification of our people and of a revived national spirit. The vista that now opens to us is wider and more glorious than ever before. Gratification and amazement struggle for supremacy as we contemplate the population, wealth, and moral strength of our country. A trust, momentous in its influence upon our people and upon the world, is for a brief time committed to us, and we must not be faithless to its first condition—the defence of the free and equal influence of the people in the choice of public officers and in the control of public affairs.

THE CHILIAN MESSAGE, JANUARY 25, 1892.Justas this book is going to the printer there has appeared a most satisfactory closing chapter—the masterly message on the Chilian difficulty. This message quickly won the approval of the civilized world, and has stirred, as it has not been stirred in years, the patriotic pride of our own people. It will rank side by side with Monroe's famous declaration of American policy. It at once impresses one with its character as the official statement of their position by a powerful yet generous people, who, conscious of their own strength, will firmly assert their rights and maintain their dignity, without any disposition to despoil or humiliate their weaker neighbors. The position taken by the President was so firm and the justice of our claims was so clearly set forth that three days after the date of the message he was enabled to announceto Congress that Chili had substantially complied with our demands.Such parts of the message as contained only a recital of facts, or were not necessary to an understanding of the policy announced have, for the sake of brevity, been omitted.To the Senate and House of Representatives:· · · · · ·We have now received from the Chilian Government an abstract of the conclusions of theFiscal Generalupon the testimony taken by the Judge of Crimes in an investigation which was made to extend over nearly three months. I very much regret to be compelled to say that this report does not enable me to modify the conclusion announced in my annual message. I am still of the opinion that our sailors were assaulted, beaten, stabbed, and killed, not for anything they or any one of them had done, but for what the Government of the United States had done, or was charged with having done, by its civil officers and naval commanders. If that be the true aspect of the case, the injury was to the Government of the United States, not to these poor sailors who were assaulted in a manner so brutal and so cowardly.· · · · ·It is not claimed that every personal collision or injury in which a sailor or officer of such naval vessel visiting the shore may be involved raises an international question; but I am clearly of the opinion that where such sailors or officers are assaulted by a resident populace, animated by hostility to the Government whose uniform these sailors and officers wear, and in resentment of acts done by their Government, not by them, their nation must take notice of the event as one involving an infraction of its rights and dignity—not in a secondary way, as where a citizen is injured and presents his claim through his own Government, but in a primary way, precisely as if its minister or consul or the flag itself had been the object of the same character of assault. The officers and sailors of theBaltimorewere in the harbor of Valparaiso under the orders of their Government, not by their own choice. They were upon the shore by the implied invitation of the Government of Chili and with the approval of their commanding officer; and it does not distinguish their case from that of a consul that his stay is more permanent or that he holds the express invitation of the local government to justify his longer residence. Nor does it affect the question that the injury was the act of a mob. If there hadbeen no participation by the police or military in this cruel work and no neglect on their part to extend protection, the case would still be one, in my opinion, when its extent and character are considered, involving international rights.Here follow the details of the attack upon the sailors of theBaltimorein the streets of Valparaiso, October 16th.The scene ... is very graphically set before us by the Chilian testimony. The American sailors, who, after so long an examination, have not been found guilty of any breach of the peace so far as the Chilian authorities are able to discover, unarmed and defenceless, are fleeing for their lives, pursued by overwhelming numbers, and fighting only to aid their own escape from death or to succor some mate whose life is in greater peril. Eighteen of them are brutally stabbed and beaten, while one Chilian seems, from the report, to have suffered some injury; but how serious or with what character or weapon, or whether by a missile thrown by our men or by some of his fellow-rioters, is unascertained.The pretence that our men were fighting "with stones, clubs, and bright arms" is, in view of these facts, incredible. It is further refuted by the fact that our prisoners, when searched, were absolutely without arms, only seven penknives being found in the possession of the men arrested, while there were received by our men more than thirty stab wounds, every one of which was inflicted in the back, and almost every contused wound was in the back or back of the head. The evidence of the ship's officer of the day is that even the jack-knives of the men were taken from them before leaving the ship....No amount of evasion or subterfuge is able to cloud our clear vision of this brutal work....It is quite remarkable and quite characteristic of the management of this affair by the Chilian police authorities that we should now be advised that Seaman Davidson, of theBaltimore, has been included in the indictment, his offence being, so far as I have been able to ascertain, that he attempted to defend a shipmate against an assailant who was striking at him with a knife. The perfect vindication of our men is furnished by this report; one only is found to have been guilty of criminal fault, and that for an act clearly justifiable....The evidence of our sailors clearly shows that the attack was expected by the Chilian people, that threats had been made against ourmen, and that, in one case somewhat early in the afternoon, the keeper of one house into which some of our men had gone closed his establishment in anticipation of the attack, which he advised them would be made upon them as darkness came on....Several of our men sought security from the mob by such complete or partial changes in their dress as would conceal the fact of their being seamen of theBaltimore, and found it then possible to walk the streets without molestation. These incidents conclusively establish that the attack was upon the uniform—the nationality—and not upon the men.· · · · ·The testimony of Captain Jenkins, of the American merchant shipKeweenaw, which had gone to Valparaiso for repairs, and who was a witness of some part of the assault upon the crew of theBaltimore, is strongly corroborative of the testimony of our own sailors when he says that he saw Chilian sentries drive back a seaman, seeking shelter, upon a mob that was pursuing him. The officers and men of Captain Jenkins' ship furnish the most conclusive testimony as to the indignities which were practised toward Americans in Valparaiso. When American sailors, even of merchant ships, can only secure their safety by denying their nationality, it must be time to readjust our relations with a government that permits such demonstrations.As to the participation of the police, the evidence of our sailors shows that our men were struck and beaten by police officers before and after arrest, and that one at least was dragged with a lasso about his neck by a mounted policeman. That the death of Riggin was the result of a rifle-shot fired by a policeman or soldier on duty is shown directly by the testimony of Johnson, in whose arms he was at the time, and by the evidence of Charles Langen, an American sailor not then a member of theBaltimore'screw, who stood close by and saw the transaction. The Chilian authorities do not pretend to fix the responsibility of this shot upon any particular person, but avow their inability to ascertain who fired it, further than that it was fired from a crowd....The communications of the Chilian Government in relation to this cruel and disastrous attack upon our men, as will appear from the correspondence, have not in any degree taken the form of a manly and satisfactory expression of regret, much less of apology. The event was of so serious a character that, if the injuries suffered by our men had been wholly the result of an accident in a Chilian port, the incident was grave enough to have called for some public expression of sympathy and regret from the local authorities. Itis not enough to say that the affair was lamentable, for humanity would require that expression, even if the beating and killing of our men had been justifiable. It is not enough to say that the incident is regretted, coupled with the statement that the affair was not of an unusual character in ports where foreign sailors are accustomed to meet. It is not for a generous and sincere government to seek for words of small or equivocal meaning in which to convey to a friendly power an apology for an offence so atrocious as this. In the case of the assault by a mob in New Orleans upon the Spanish consulate in 1851, Mr. Webster wrote to the Spanish minister, Mr. Calderon, that the acts complained of were "a disgraceful and flagrant breach of duty and propriety," and that his Government "regrets them as deeply as Minister Calderon or his Government could possibly do;" that "these acts have caused the President great pain, and he thinks a proper acknowledgment is due to Her Majesty's Government." He invited the Spanish consul to return to his post, guaranteeing protection, and offered to salute the Spanish flag if the consul should come in a Spanish vessel. Such a treatment by the Government of Chili of this assault would have been more creditable to the Chilian authorities; and much less can hardly be satisfactory to a government that values its dignity and honor.· · · · ·On the 21st instant I caused to be communicated to the Government of Chili, by the American minister at Santiago, the conclusions of this Government after a full consideration of all the evidence and of every suggestion affecting this matter, and to these conclusions I adhere. They were stated as follows:"First. That the assault is not relieved of the aspect which the early information of the event gave to it, viz.: That of an attack upon the uniform of the United States Navy, having its origin and motive in a feeling of hostility to this Government, and not in any act of the sailors or of any of them."Second. That the public authorities of Valparaiso flagrantly failed in their duty to protect our men, and that some of the police and of the Chilian soldiers and sailors were themselves guilty of unprovoked assaults upon our sailors before and after arrest. He [the President] thinks the preponderance of the evidence and the inherent probabilities lead to the conclusion that Riggin was killed by the police or soldiers."Third. That he [the President] is therefore compelled to bring the case back to the position taken by this Government in the note of Mr. Wharton of October 23 last, ... and to ask for a suitable apology and for some adequate reparation for the injury done to this Government."In the same note the attention of the Chilian Government was called to the offensive character of a note addressed by Mr. Matta, its Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Mr. Montt, its minister at this capital, on the 11th ultimo. This despatch was not officially communicated to this Government; but, as Mr. Montt was directed to translate it and to give it to the press of this country, it seemed to me that it could not pass without official notice. It was not only undiplomatic, but grossly insulting to our naval officers and to the Executive Department, as it directly imputed untruth and insincerity to the reports of the naval officers and to the official communications made by the Executive Department to Congress. It will be observed that I have notified the Chilian Government that, unless this note is at once withdrawn and an apology as public as the offence made, I will terminate diplomatic relations.The request for the recall of Mr. Egan upon the ground that he was notpersona gratawas unaccompanied by any suggestion that could properly be used in support of it, and I infer that the request is based upon official acts of Mr. Egan which have received the approval of this Government. But however that may be, I could not consent to consider such a question until it had first been settled whether our correspondence with Chili could be conducted upon a basis of mutual respect.In submitting these papers to Congress for that grave and patriotic consideration which the questions involved demand, I desire to say that I am of the opinion that the demands made of Chili by this Government should be adhered to and enforced. If the dignity as well as the prestige and influence of the United States are not to be wholly sacrificed, we must protect those who, in foreign ports, display the flag or wear the colors of this Government against insult, brutality, and death inflicted in resentment of the acts of their Government, and not for any fault of their own. It has been my desire in every way to cultivate friendly and intimate relations with all the governments of this hemisphere. We do not covet their territory; we desire their peace and prosperity. We look for no advantage in our relations with them, except the increased exchanges of commerce upon a basis of mutual benefit. We regret every civil contest that disturbs their peace and paralyzes their development, and are always ready to give our good offices for the restoration of peace. It must, however, be understood that this Government, while exercising the utmost forbearance toward weaker powers, will extend its strong and adequate protection toits citizens, to its officers, and to its humblest sailors when made the victims of wantonness and cruelty in resentment, not of their personal misconduct, but of the official acts of their Government.Upon information received that Patrick Shields, an Irishman and probably a British subject, but at the time a fireman of the American steamerKeweenaw, in the harbor of Valparaiso for repairs, had been subjected to personal injuries in that city—largely by the police—I directed the Attorney-General to cause the evidence of the officers and crew of that vessel to be taken upon its arrival in San Francisco; and that testimony is also herewith transmitted. The brutality and even savagery of the treatment of this poor man by the Chilian police would be incredible if the evidence of Shields was not supported by other direct testimony and by the distressing condition of the man himself when he was finally able to reach his vessel....A claim for reparation has been made in behalf of this man, for while he was not a citizen of the United States, the doctrine long held by us, as expressed in the Consular Regulations, is "the principles which are maintained by this Government in regard to the protection, as distinguished from the relief, of seamen are well settled. It is held that the circumstance that the vessel is American is evidence that the seamen on board are such; and in every regularly documented merchant vessel the crew will find their protection in the flag that covers them."I have as yet received no reply to our note of the 21st instant, but in my opinion I ought not to delay longer to bring these matters to the attention of Congress for such action as may be deemed appropriate.Benj. Harrison.Executive Mansion,January 25, 1892.

Justas this book is going to the printer there has appeared a most satisfactory closing chapter—the masterly message on the Chilian difficulty. This message quickly won the approval of the civilized world, and has stirred, as it has not been stirred in years, the patriotic pride of our own people. It will rank side by side with Monroe's famous declaration of American policy. It at once impresses one with its character as the official statement of their position by a powerful yet generous people, who, conscious of their own strength, will firmly assert their rights and maintain their dignity, without any disposition to despoil or humiliate their weaker neighbors. The position taken by the President was so firm and the justice of our claims was so clearly set forth that three days after the date of the message he was enabled to announceto Congress that Chili had substantially complied with our demands.

Such parts of the message as contained only a recital of facts, or were not necessary to an understanding of the policy announced have, for the sake of brevity, been omitted.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:· · · · · ·We have now received from the Chilian Government an abstract of the conclusions of theFiscal Generalupon the testimony taken by the Judge of Crimes in an investigation which was made to extend over nearly three months. I very much regret to be compelled to say that this report does not enable me to modify the conclusion announced in my annual message. I am still of the opinion that our sailors were assaulted, beaten, stabbed, and killed, not for anything they or any one of them had done, but for what the Government of the United States had done, or was charged with having done, by its civil officers and naval commanders. If that be the true aspect of the case, the injury was to the Government of the United States, not to these poor sailors who were assaulted in a manner so brutal and so cowardly.· · · · ·It is not claimed that every personal collision or injury in which a sailor or officer of such naval vessel visiting the shore may be involved raises an international question; but I am clearly of the opinion that where such sailors or officers are assaulted by a resident populace, animated by hostility to the Government whose uniform these sailors and officers wear, and in resentment of acts done by their Government, not by them, their nation must take notice of the event as one involving an infraction of its rights and dignity—not in a secondary way, as where a citizen is injured and presents his claim through his own Government, but in a primary way, precisely as if its minister or consul or the flag itself had been the object of the same character of assault. The officers and sailors of theBaltimorewere in the harbor of Valparaiso under the orders of their Government, not by their own choice. They were upon the shore by the implied invitation of the Government of Chili and with the approval of their commanding officer; and it does not distinguish their case from that of a consul that his stay is more permanent or that he holds the express invitation of the local government to justify his longer residence. Nor does it affect the question that the injury was the act of a mob. If there hadbeen no participation by the police or military in this cruel work and no neglect on their part to extend protection, the case would still be one, in my opinion, when its extent and character are considered, involving international rights.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

· · · · · ·

We have now received from the Chilian Government an abstract of the conclusions of theFiscal Generalupon the testimony taken by the Judge of Crimes in an investigation which was made to extend over nearly three months. I very much regret to be compelled to say that this report does not enable me to modify the conclusion announced in my annual message. I am still of the opinion that our sailors were assaulted, beaten, stabbed, and killed, not for anything they or any one of them had done, but for what the Government of the United States had done, or was charged with having done, by its civil officers and naval commanders. If that be the true aspect of the case, the injury was to the Government of the United States, not to these poor sailors who were assaulted in a manner so brutal and so cowardly.

· · · · ·

It is not claimed that every personal collision or injury in which a sailor or officer of such naval vessel visiting the shore may be involved raises an international question; but I am clearly of the opinion that where such sailors or officers are assaulted by a resident populace, animated by hostility to the Government whose uniform these sailors and officers wear, and in resentment of acts done by their Government, not by them, their nation must take notice of the event as one involving an infraction of its rights and dignity—not in a secondary way, as where a citizen is injured and presents his claim through his own Government, but in a primary way, precisely as if its minister or consul or the flag itself had been the object of the same character of assault. The officers and sailors of theBaltimorewere in the harbor of Valparaiso under the orders of their Government, not by their own choice. They were upon the shore by the implied invitation of the Government of Chili and with the approval of their commanding officer; and it does not distinguish their case from that of a consul that his stay is more permanent or that he holds the express invitation of the local government to justify his longer residence. Nor does it affect the question that the injury was the act of a mob. If there hadbeen no participation by the police or military in this cruel work and no neglect on their part to extend protection, the case would still be one, in my opinion, when its extent and character are considered, involving international rights.

Here follow the details of the attack upon the sailors of theBaltimorein the streets of Valparaiso, October 16th.

The scene ... is very graphically set before us by the Chilian testimony. The American sailors, who, after so long an examination, have not been found guilty of any breach of the peace so far as the Chilian authorities are able to discover, unarmed and defenceless, are fleeing for their lives, pursued by overwhelming numbers, and fighting only to aid their own escape from death or to succor some mate whose life is in greater peril. Eighteen of them are brutally stabbed and beaten, while one Chilian seems, from the report, to have suffered some injury; but how serious or with what character or weapon, or whether by a missile thrown by our men or by some of his fellow-rioters, is unascertained.The pretence that our men were fighting "with stones, clubs, and bright arms" is, in view of these facts, incredible. It is further refuted by the fact that our prisoners, when searched, were absolutely without arms, only seven penknives being found in the possession of the men arrested, while there were received by our men more than thirty stab wounds, every one of which was inflicted in the back, and almost every contused wound was in the back or back of the head. The evidence of the ship's officer of the day is that even the jack-knives of the men were taken from them before leaving the ship....No amount of evasion or subterfuge is able to cloud our clear vision of this brutal work....It is quite remarkable and quite characteristic of the management of this affair by the Chilian police authorities that we should now be advised that Seaman Davidson, of theBaltimore, has been included in the indictment, his offence being, so far as I have been able to ascertain, that he attempted to defend a shipmate against an assailant who was striking at him with a knife. The perfect vindication of our men is furnished by this report; one only is found to have been guilty of criminal fault, and that for an act clearly justifiable....The evidence of our sailors clearly shows that the attack was expected by the Chilian people, that threats had been made against ourmen, and that, in one case somewhat early in the afternoon, the keeper of one house into which some of our men had gone closed his establishment in anticipation of the attack, which he advised them would be made upon them as darkness came on....Several of our men sought security from the mob by such complete or partial changes in their dress as would conceal the fact of their being seamen of theBaltimore, and found it then possible to walk the streets without molestation. These incidents conclusively establish that the attack was upon the uniform—the nationality—and not upon the men.· · · · ·The testimony of Captain Jenkins, of the American merchant shipKeweenaw, which had gone to Valparaiso for repairs, and who was a witness of some part of the assault upon the crew of theBaltimore, is strongly corroborative of the testimony of our own sailors when he says that he saw Chilian sentries drive back a seaman, seeking shelter, upon a mob that was pursuing him. The officers and men of Captain Jenkins' ship furnish the most conclusive testimony as to the indignities which were practised toward Americans in Valparaiso. When American sailors, even of merchant ships, can only secure their safety by denying their nationality, it must be time to readjust our relations with a government that permits such demonstrations.As to the participation of the police, the evidence of our sailors shows that our men were struck and beaten by police officers before and after arrest, and that one at least was dragged with a lasso about his neck by a mounted policeman. That the death of Riggin was the result of a rifle-shot fired by a policeman or soldier on duty is shown directly by the testimony of Johnson, in whose arms he was at the time, and by the evidence of Charles Langen, an American sailor not then a member of theBaltimore'screw, who stood close by and saw the transaction. The Chilian authorities do not pretend to fix the responsibility of this shot upon any particular person, but avow their inability to ascertain who fired it, further than that it was fired from a crowd....The communications of the Chilian Government in relation to this cruel and disastrous attack upon our men, as will appear from the correspondence, have not in any degree taken the form of a manly and satisfactory expression of regret, much less of apology. The event was of so serious a character that, if the injuries suffered by our men had been wholly the result of an accident in a Chilian port, the incident was grave enough to have called for some public expression of sympathy and regret from the local authorities. Itis not enough to say that the affair was lamentable, for humanity would require that expression, even if the beating and killing of our men had been justifiable. It is not enough to say that the incident is regretted, coupled with the statement that the affair was not of an unusual character in ports where foreign sailors are accustomed to meet. It is not for a generous and sincere government to seek for words of small or equivocal meaning in which to convey to a friendly power an apology for an offence so atrocious as this. In the case of the assault by a mob in New Orleans upon the Spanish consulate in 1851, Mr. Webster wrote to the Spanish minister, Mr. Calderon, that the acts complained of were "a disgraceful and flagrant breach of duty and propriety," and that his Government "regrets them as deeply as Minister Calderon or his Government could possibly do;" that "these acts have caused the President great pain, and he thinks a proper acknowledgment is due to Her Majesty's Government." He invited the Spanish consul to return to his post, guaranteeing protection, and offered to salute the Spanish flag if the consul should come in a Spanish vessel. Such a treatment by the Government of Chili of this assault would have been more creditable to the Chilian authorities; and much less can hardly be satisfactory to a government that values its dignity and honor.· · · · ·On the 21st instant I caused to be communicated to the Government of Chili, by the American minister at Santiago, the conclusions of this Government after a full consideration of all the evidence and of every suggestion affecting this matter, and to these conclusions I adhere. They were stated as follows:"First. That the assault is not relieved of the aspect which the early information of the event gave to it, viz.: That of an attack upon the uniform of the United States Navy, having its origin and motive in a feeling of hostility to this Government, and not in any act of the sailors or of any of them."Second. That the public authorities of Valparaiso flagrantly failed in their duty to protect our men, and that some of the police and of the Chilian soldiers and sailors were themselves guilty of unprovoked assaults upon our sailors before and after arrest. He [the President] thinks the preponderance of the evidence and the inherent probabilities lead to the conclusion that Riggin was killed by the police or soldiers."Third. That he [the President] is therefore compelled to bring the case back to the position taken by this Government in the note of Mr. Wharton of October 23 last, ... and to ask for a suitable apology and for some adequate reparation for the injury done to this Government."In the same note the attention of the Chilian Government was called to the offensive character of a note addressed by Mr. Matta, its Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Mr. Montt, its minister at this capital, on the 11th ultimo. This despatch was not officially communicated to this Government; but, as Mr. Montt was directed to translate it and to give it to the press of this country, it seemed to me that it could not pass without official notice. It was not only undiplomatic, but grossly insulting to our naval officers and to the Executive Department, as it directly imputed untruth and insincerity to the reports of the naval officers and to the official communications made by the Executive Department to Congress. It will be observed that I have notified the Chilian Government that, unless this note is at once withdrawn and an apology as public as the offence made, I will terminate diplomatic relations.The request for the recall of Mr. Egan upon the ground that he was notpersona gratawas unaccompanied by any suggestion that could properly be used in support of it, and I infer that the request is based upon official acts of Mr. Egan which have received the approval of this Government. But however that may be, I could not consent to consider such a question until it had first been settled whether our correspondence with Chili could be conducted upon a basis of mutual respect.In submitting these papers to Congress for that grave and patriotic consideration which the questions involved demand, I desire to say that I am of the opinion that the demands made of Chili by this Government should be adhered to and enforced. If the dignity as well as the prestige and influence of the United States are not to be wholly sacrificed, we must protect those who, in foreign ports, display the flag or wear the colors of this Government against insult, brutality, and death inflicted in resentment of the acts of their Government, and not for any fault of their own. It has been my desire in every way to cultivate friendly and intimate relations with all the governments of this hemisphere. We do not covet their territory; we desire their peace and prosperity. We look for no advantage in our relations with them, except the increased exchanges of commerce upon a basis of mutual benefit. We regret every civil contest that disturbs their peace and paralyzes their development, and are always ready to give our good offices for the restoration of peace. It must, however, be understood that this Government, while exercising the utmost forbearance toward weaker powers, will extend its strong and adequate protection toits citizens, to its officers, and to its humblest sailors when made the victims of wantonness and cruelty in resentment, not of their personal misconduct, but of the official acts of their Government.Upon information received that Patrick Shields, an Irishman and probably a British subject, but at the time a fireman of the American steamerKeweenaw, in the harbor of Valparaiso for repairs, had been subjected to personal injuries in that city—largely by the police—I directed the Attorney-General to cause the evidence of the officers and crew of that vessel to be taken upon its arrival in San Francisco; and that testimony is also herewith transmitted. The brutality and even savagery of the treatment of this poor man by the Chilian police would be incredible if the evidence of Shields was not supported by other direct testimony and by the distressing condition of the man himself when he was finally able to reach his vessel....A claim for reparation has been made in behalf of this man, for while he was not a citizen of the United States, the doctrine long held by us, as expressed in the Consular Regulations, is "the principles which are maintained by this Government in regard to the protection, as distinguished from the relief, of seamen are well settled. It is held that the circumstance that the vessel is American is evidence that the seamen on board are such; and in every regularly documented merchant vessel the crew will find their protection in the flag that covers them."I have as yet received no reply to our note of the 21st instant, but in my opinion I ought not to delay longer to bring these matters to the attention of Congress for such action as may be deemed appropriate.Benj. Harrison.Executive Mansion,January 25, 1892.

The scene ... is very graphically set before us by the Chilian testimony. The American sailors, who, after so long an examination, have not been found guilty of any breach of the peace so far as the Chilian authorities are able to discover, unarmed and defenceless, are fleeing for their lives, pursued by overwhelming numbers, and fighting only to aid their own escape from death or to succor some mate whose life is in greater peril. Eighteen of them are brutally stabbed and beaten, while one Chilian seems, from the report, to have suffered some injury; but how serious or with what character or weapon, or whether by a missile thrown by our men or by some of his fellow-rioters, is unascertained.

The pretence that our men were fighting "with stones, clubs, and bright arms" is, in view of these facts, incredible. It is further refuted by the fact that our prisoners, when searched, were absolutely without arms, only seven penknives being found in the possession of the men arrested, while there were received by our men more than thirty stab wounds, every one of which was inflicted in the back, and almost every contused wound was in the back or back of the head. The evidence of the ship's officer of the day is that even the jack-knives of the men were taken from them before leaving the ship....

No amount of evasion or subterfuge is able to cloud our clear vision of this brutal work....

It is quite remarkable and quite characteristic of the management of this affair by the Chilian police authorities that we should now be advised that Seaman Davidson, of theBaltimore, has been included in the indictment, his offence being, so far as I have been able to ascertain, that he attempted to defend a shipmate against an assailant who was striking at him with a knife. The perfect vindication of our men is furnished by this report; one only is found to have been guilty of criminal fault, and that for an act clearly justifiable....

The evidence of our sailors clearly shows that the attack was expected by the Chilian people, that threats had been made against ourmen, and that, in one case somewhat early in the afternoon, the keeper of one house into which some of our men had gone closed his establishment in anticipation of the attack, which he advised them would be made upon them as darkness came on....

Several of our men sought security from the mob by such complete or partial changes in their dress as would conceal the fact of their being seamen of theBaltimore, and found it then possible to walk the streets without molestation. These incidents conclusively establish that the attack was upon the uniform—the nationality—and not upon the men.

· · · · ·

The testimony of Captain Jenkins, of the American merchant shipKeweenaw, which had gone to Valparaiso for repairs, and who was a witness of some part of the assault upon the crew of theBaltimore, is strongly corroborative of the testimony of our own sailors when he says that he saw Chilian sentries drive back a seaman, seeking shelter, upon a mob that was pursuing him. The officers and men of Captain Jenkins' ship furnish the most conclusive testimony as to the indignities which were practised toward Americans in Valparaiso. When American sailors, even of merchant ships, can only secure their safety by denying their nationality, it must be time to readjust our relations with a government that permits such demonstrations.

As to the participation of the police, the evidence of our sailors shows that our men were struck and beaten by police officers before and after arrest, and that one at least was dragged with a lasso about his neck by a mounted policeman. That the death of Riggin was the result of a rifle-shot fired by a policeman or soldier on duty is shown directly by the testimony of Johnson, in whose arms he was at the time, and by the evidence of Charles Langen, an American sailor not then a member of theBaltimore'screw, who stood close by and saw the transaction. The Chilian authorities do not pretend to fix the responsibility of this shot upon any particular person, but avow their inability to ascertain who fired it, further than that it was fired from a crowd....

The communications of the Chilian Government in relation to this cruel and disastrous attack upon our men, as will appear from the correspondence, have not in any degree taken the form of a manly and satisfactory expression of regret, much less of apology. The event was of so serious a character that, if the injuries suffered by our men had been wholly the result of an accident in a Chilian port, the incident was grave enough to have called for some public expression of sympathy and regret from the local authorities. Itis not enough to say that the affair was lamentable, for humanity would require that expression, even if the beating and killing of our men had been justifiable. It is not enough to say that the incident is regretted, coupled with the statement that the affair was not of an unusual character in ports where foreign sailors are accustomed to meet. It is not for a generous and sincere government to seek for words of small or equivocal meaning in which to convey to a friendly power an apology for an offence so atrocious as this. In the case of the assault by a mob in New Orleans upon the Spanish consulate in 1851, Mr. Webster wrote to the Spanish minister, Mr. Calderon, that the acts complained of were "a disgraceful and flagrant breach of duty and propriety," and that his Government "regrets them as deeply as Minister Calderon or his Government could possibly do;" that "these acts have caused the President great pain, and he thinks a proper acknowledgment is due to Her Majesty's Government." He invited the Spanish consul to return to his post, guaranteeing protection, and offered to salute the Spanish flag if the consul should come in a Spanish vessel. Such a treatment by the Government of Chili of this assault would have been more creditable to the Chilian authorities; and much less can hardly be satisfactory to a government that values its dignity and honor.

· · · · ·

On the 21st instant I caused to be communicated to the Government of Chili, by the American minister at Santiago, the conclusions of this Government after a full consideration of all the evidence and of every suggestion affecting this matter, and to these conclusions I adhere. They were stated as follows:

"First. That the assault is not relieved of the aspect which the early information of the event gave to it, viz.: That of an attack upon the uniform of the United States Navy, having its origin and motive in a feeling of hostility to this Government, and not in any act of the sailors or of any of them.

"Second. That the public authorities of Valparaiso flagrantly failed in their duty to protect our men, and that some of the police and of the Chilian soldiers and sailors were themselves guilty of unprovoked assaults upon our sailors before and after arrest. He [the President] thinks the preponderance of the evidence and the inherent probabilities lead to the conclusion that Riggin was killed by the police or soldiers.

"Third. That he [the President] is therefore compelled to bring the case back to the position taken by this Government in the note of Mr. Wharton of October 23 last, ... and to ask for a suitable apology and for some adequate reparation for the injury done to this Government."

In the same note the attention of the Chilian Government was called to the offensive character of a note addressed by Mr. Matta, its Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Mr. Montt, its minister at this capital, on the 11th ultimo. This despatch was not officially communicated to this Government; but, as Mr. Montt was directed to translate it and to give it to the press of this country, it seemed to me that it could not pass without official notice. It was not only undiplomatic, but grossly insulting to our naval officers and to the Executive Department, as it directly imputed untruth and insincerity to the reports of the naval officers and to the official communications made by the Executive Department to Congress. It will be observed that I have notified the Chilian Government that, unless this note is at once withdrawn and an apology as public as the offence made, I will terminate diplomatic relations.

The request for the recall of Mr. Egan upon the ground that he was notpersona gratawas unaccompanied by any suggestion that could properly be used in support of it, and I infer that the request is based upon official acts of Mr. Egan which have received the approval of this Government. But however that may be, I could not consent to consider such a question until it had first been settled whether our correspondence with Chili could be conducted upon a basis of mutual respect.

In submitting these papers to Congress for that grave and patriotic consideration which the questions involved demand, I desire to say that I am of the opinion that the demands made of Chili by this Government should be adhered to and enforced. If the dignity as well as the prestige and influence of the United States are not to be wholly sacrificed, we must protect those who, in foreign ports, display the flag or wear the colors of this Government against insult, brutality, and death inflicted in resentment of the acts of their Government, and not for any fault of their own. It has been my desire in every way to cultivate friendly and intimate relations with all the governments of this hemisphere. We do not covet their territory; we desire their peace and prosperity. We look for no advantage in our relations with them, except the increased exchanges of commerce upon a basis of mutual benefit. We regret every civil contest that disturbs their peace and paralyzes their development, and are always ready to give our good offices for the restoration of peace. It must, however, be understood that this Government, while exercising the utmost forbearance toward weaker powers, will extend its strong and adequate protection toits citizens, to its officers, and to its humblest sailors when made the victims of wantonness and cruelty in resentment, not of their personal misconduct, but of the official acts of their Government.

Upon information received that Patrick Shields, an Irishman and probably a British subject, but at the time a fireman of the American steamerKeweenaw, in the harbor of Valparaiso for repairs, had been subjected to personal injuries in that city—largely by the police—I directed the Attorney-General to cause the evidence of the officers and crew of that vessel to be taken upon its arrival in San Francisco; and that testimony is also herewith transmitted. The brutality and even savagery of the treatment of this poor man by the Chilian police would be incredible if the evidence of Shields was not supported by other direct testimony and by the distressing condition of the man himself when he was finally able to reach his vessel....

A claim for reparation has been made in behalf of this man, for while he was not a citizen of the United States, the doctrine long held by us, as expressed in the Consular Regulations, is "the principles which are maintained by this Government in regard to the protection, as distinguished from the relief, of seamen are well settled. It is held that the circumstance that the vessel is American is evidence that the seamen on board are such; and in every regularly documented merchant vessel the crew will find their protection in the flag that covers them."

I have as yet received no reply to our note of the 21st instant, but in my opinion I ought not to delay longer to bring these matters to the attention of Congress for such action as may be deemed appropriate.

Benj. Harrison.

Executive Mansion,January 25, 1892.

Back to IndexNext