the Acapulco, and seems to have been intended to facilitate rather than discourage the design of Guatemala to seize General Barrundia at San José. Upon the receipt of this telegram, Commander Reiter went ashore and telegraphed to you, suggesting that, as peace was declared, you should ask the Government to permit the United States steamship Thetis to take General Barrundia from the steamer then in sight and carry him back to the port of Acapulco, in Mexico. Your second telegram, which was in reply to this, informed Commander Reiter of the rejection of this offer by the Government of Guatemala and stated that you had "advised " Captain Pitts to deliver his passenger to that Government. The naval force of the United States in those waters thus became an acquiescent spectator of events, although a merchant vessel of the United States was then lying under the muzzle of guns manned by men who, as you state you had every reason to believe, were prepared to resort to any act of violence, "even," as Señor Anguiano has since declared to you, "to sinking the ship, notwithstanding it might have involved a conflict with our two war vessels then and there present."

I am not disposed to pay undue regard to these ex post facto threats, which are now reported to the Department. I prefer to think that by extravagance of language, uncontrolled by the actual presence of the problem which he was permitted to solve so much to his satisfaction, Señor Anguiano has done injustice to his own sense of humanity. To have sunk the Acapulco, with her freight of innocent lives, in the execution of a purpose for the accomplishment of which nothing but unlawful and invalid excuses have so far been advanced, would have been an act of warfare, and of savage warfare. Even where towns are bombarded in time of war an opportunity is given to the peaceful inhabitants to escape. Less consideration should hardly be shown to those upon the sea. And I am instructed by the President to say that he earnestly trusts the time will never come when the course of events in Guatemala, or the declared purposes of her rulers, will constrain this Government to insure the safety of its merchant vessels entering the waters of Guatemala by stationing naval vessels along the coast and opposite the ports of that country.

The declarations which you report can not, however, fail to deepen the regret here felt that you should have permitted yourself to furnish the warrant and excuse for arbitrary and violent proceedings, without even the semblance of legal forms and authority, on the deck of an American vessel, which thereby became the scene of confusion, of danger, and of assassination. You had been informed by Captain Pitts that General Barrundia would probably resist arrest. You were also apprehensive of the desperate inclinations of those who sought to compass his capture as an "enemy." If he had been willing to surrender himself without resistance, there was good reason to believe that the violence of a mob on shore would relieve the authorities of Guatemala of the duty of preserving their engagement to spare his life. In every respect the time was one of great disorder, when the ordinary law was suspended and life and liberty were at the mercy of the rulers and of an excited populace. If, instead of accepting that lawless and turbulent condition as the ground of your advice and consent to the surren der of General Barrundia, you had made it the basis of a suggestion to Commander Reiter to offer him hospitality on board of the Ranger, within or without the waters of Guatemala, and with or without the consent of her Government, your action would have had the sanction of humane and recognized precedents. In 1849 the British admiralty

consulted the foreign office touching the disorders then prevailing at Naples. On the 4th of August in that year Mr. Addington, the undersecretary of state, replied as follows:

Viscount Palmerston directs me to request that you will acquaint the board of admiralty that his lordship is of opinion that it would not be right to receive and harbor on board of a British ship of war any person flying from justice on a criminal charge or who was escaping from the sentence of a court of law. But a British man-of-war has always and everywhere been considered a safe place of refuge for persons of whatever country or party who have sought shelter under the British flag from persecution on account of their political conduct or opinions; and this protection has been equally afforded, whether the refugee was escaping from the arbitrary acts of a monarchical government or from the lawless violence of a revolutionary committee.

These views, which were accepted at the time, appear subsequently, during the disorders in Sicily in 1860, to have been regarded by Her Majesty's Government as containing sound doctrine. And still later, in 1862, during the revolution in Greece, Vice-Admiral Sir William Martin issued to the officers of Her Majesty's ships in the Piræus the following instructions:

It is to be understood that your duty at this port is to be limited to the protection of the lives and property of British subjects and to affording protection to any refugees whom you may be informed by Her Majesty's minister would be in danger of their lives without such protection.

The doctrines of this Government are not less humane and liberal, and on more than one occasion it has permitted its legations and ships of war to offer hospitality to political refugees. This it has done from motives of humanity. Its views would not have been less pronounced if, in addition to the humane aspect of the subject, it had also been confronted with the duty of preventing the decks of its merchant vessels from being made the theater of illegal violence, upon groundless and unlawful excuses, and without even the pretense of legal formality.

For your course, therefore, in intervening to permit the authorities of Guatemala to accomplish their desire to capture General Barrundia, I can discover no justification. You were promptly informed that your act was regretted. I am now directed by the President to inform you that it is disavowed. The President is, moreover, of opinion that your usefulness in Central America is at an end. You will therefore leave your post with all convenient dispatch, turning over your legation to Mr. Kimberly, as chargé d'affaires ad interim, through whom your letter of recall will subsequently be presented to the Guatemalan Government. I am sir, your obedient servant,

Mr. Blaine to Mr. Kimberly.

JAMES G. BLAINE.

No. 225.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, December 22, 1890. SIR: I have delayed until now to answer Mr. Mizner's dispatch No. 159 of September 10 last relative to the return of the arms which were seized by the Guatemalan authorities from the Pacific Mail Steamship Company's steamship Colima, at San José de Guatemala, July 18, 1890. That company desired to present certain papers bearing upon this unfortunate occurrence, and hence the question has been held in abeyance.

It appears that the Colima sailed from San Francisco for Panama and intervening ports on July 3 last, carrying as part of her cargo

certain arms and ammunition consigned to the minister of war of the Republic of Salvador. The Colima arrived at San José de Guatemala July 17, and thereupon the commandant of the port threatened to seize the arms and ammunition. The reasons assigned therefor were not always, perhaps, consistently maintained in the various conferences which were held, but it sufficiently appears that the only real ground relied upon by the Guatemalan authorities was that the steamship was carrying the arms in violation of the terms of the company's contract with the Government of Guatemala. The same day Mr. Leverich, the company's agent, and the Guatemalan minister of foreign affairs, at a conference at which Mr. Mizner was present, agreed that the arms and ammunition should be transferred from the Colima to the City of Sydney, another steamship of the same company then about to sail northward, and that they should be stored in the company's hulk at Acapulco, Mexico. The arms and ammunition were transferred on the morning of the 18th from the Colima to a small boat in order to be taken on board the City of Sydney, as agreed, whereupon the Guatemalan authorities diverted the course of the boat to the shore and appropriated the arms and ammunition to their own use. In the meantime the authorities had threatened to do the Colima injury if the arms and ammunition were not delivered up, and there is reason to believe that a Krupp gun on shore was pointed at the ship to further menace her. The Colima proceeded on her voyage the evening of the 18th; and afterwards, in compliance with the repeated demands of Minister Mizner, the arms and ammunition were gathered together and returned, on August 31, to another ship of the company and were taken back to San Francisco.

The alleged basis for the action of the Guatemalan authorities was that the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, by the carriage of the arms, had violated its contract with the Government of Guatemala dated February 27, 1886, subsequently renewed June 17, 1889, the seventeenth article of which reads as follows:

The company binds itself not to permit troops or munitions of war to be carried on board of its steamers from any of the ports of call to the ports of, or adjacent to, Guatemala, if there be reason to believe that these materials may be used against Guatemala or that war or pillage is intended.

Whether the act of the Colima was in violation of this article or not is for the present purpose unimportant. Even if it were, it is submitted that there is no warrant either in the contract or otherwise for the seizure of the articles carried. There was not a state of wår existing, and the seizure can not be justified as contraband of war. The arms, to be sure, were not taken from the Colima; but the manner by which the agreement for their transfer was obtained, viz, by menace, and the manner in which it was broken and the arms taken from the small boat are necessarily connected and must be treated as constituting parts of one transaction. And, furthermore, an American ship and her passengers were menaced and threatened with destruction. Whether her owners had or had not violated some contract entered into with the local Government is no excuse whatever for the action of the Guatemalan authorities.

It appears from a memorandum of an interview between Mr. Mizner and the Guatemalan minister of foreign affairs (inclosure No. 2, Mr. Mizner's No. 159) that the latter admitted that his Government had been in the wrong and agreed to return the arms with certain formalities implying that admission, which agreement, however, was not kept. Mr. Mizner says:

It was fully understood that the arms should be put on the first mail steamer going north, which in this instance was the San Blas, the same commandant who took them from the Colima to go on board in uniform and officially deliver them to the captain of the San Blas, with invoices and explanations and such other formalities as might be usual and proper in such cases. All of this the commandant neglected to do. The aims were received on board of the San Blas on the 31st ultimo (August) unaccompanied by any officer or representative of the Government, or any invoice, explanation, or direction whatever.

The Honorable Secretary of the Navy has received a like report from Lieut. Commander George C. Reiter, commanding the U. S. S. Ranger, which was in the port of San José when the arms were returned in the above-described irregular manner.

Without going into details or further considering at this time the extent of the wrong committed, this Government considers that it is clearly entitled to some satisfactory apology or reparation from the Government of Guatemala for the indignity thus offered to an American ship. It would prefer, however, that some suggestion to that end should come from the latter Government itself.

You are directed to read this instruction to the minister of foreign affairs and to leave a copy with him if he so desires.

I am, sir, etc.,

JAMES G. BLAINE.

No. 227.1

Mr. Mizner to Mr. Blaine.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Guatemala, December 31, 1890. (Received January 16, 1891.) SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your delayed dispatch No. 206 of the 18th of last month and to report that I have this day turned over the legation to Mr. Kimberly, as chargé d'affaires. I am also in receipt of a copy of the President's annual message, delivered to the present session of Congress, in which my official services in the recent establishment of peace between these Republics is approved and I am complimented by title in the following words:

The peace of Central America has again been disturbed through a revolutionary change in Salvador which was not recognized by other states, and hostilities broke out between Salvador and Guatemala, threatening to involve all Central America in conflict and to undo the progress which had been made toward a union of their interests.

The efforts of this Government were promptly and zealously exerted to compose their differences, and through the active efforts of the representative of the United States [Mr. Mizner] provisional treaty of peace was signed August 26.

I am at a loss to know how in the next sentence my conduct of a mere incident of that war-the attempted arrest of a single personshould meet with the President's disapproval, when it is remembered that the incident occurred on the 27th of August, the very day when the first condition of the bases of peace, to wit, the retiring of the armies from the frontiers in 48 hours, was about to be carried out under my direction as dean of the diplomatic corps, necessitating my constant presence at the legation to compose any difficulties that might arise; and, as a matter of fact, several complaints were presented to me in writing by these governments charging bad faith, which were arranged to the satisfaction of all.

On the 25th of August the two hostile armies, estimated at 10,000 on a side, after several severe battles, confronted each other on the frontier, awaiting the efforts of the diplomatic corps to effect a basis,

of peace, which, as stated by the President, was consummated through the active efforts of the representative of the United States (Mr. Mizner) on the next day; so that on the 27th, 28th, and 29th of August the all-absorbing question was peace to over two millions of people, and the arrest of a citizen of Guatemala on one of our merchant ships, either in time of war or peace, was an inconsiderable matter compared with the vast interests involved, as no one could possibly foresee that the person to be arrested would resist, nor could it be supposed that the person was armed and would first fire upon his benefactor, the captain of the ship, or that any fatality whatever would occur.

A resolution of the Lower House of Congress having been passed in October last calling for the papers in the case, it is to be regretted that action was taken in the matter before that committee had an opportunity to report, as I am absolutely certain that a full investigation of the case before that committee, including my presence before it, if necessary, would have explained everything to its entire satisfaction.

It will ever be a consolation to me, compensating for the President's disapproval of the attempted arrest of a single person on one of our merchant vessels in local waters, whether in war or in peace, that I was largely instrumental in retiring two hostile armies to their quiet homes, thus saving thousands of human lives, averting untold disaster, and restoring harmony and good will to neighboring states. To the statement of the President that the attempted arrest was in violation of precedent, permit me to say, with all due respect, that I considered the law correctly laid down by your immediate predecessor, Mr. Bayard, when he said:

It is clear that Mr. Gomez voluntarily, entered the jurisdiction of the country whose laws he had violated. Under the circumstances, it was plainly the duty of the captain of the Honduras to deliver him up to the local authorities upon their request.

Gomez was a citizen of, and a political offender against the laws of Nicaragua. No charge of other crimes being made against him, the captain of the steamer on which he entered the local waters had made no request upon anyone concerning him, yet Mr. Bayard said "it was plainly the duty of the captain to give him up to the local authorities." Barrundia was a citizen and a political offender against the laws of Guatemala. Besides being indicted for common crimes, he voluntarily came into the jurisdiction of Guatemala on the merchant steamer Acapulco. The authorities sought to arrest him; the captain of the ship asked me to instruct him; I advised him as follows:

If your ship is within 1 league of the territory of Guatemala and you have on board General Barrundia, it becomes your duty, under the law of nations, to deliver him to the authorities of Guatemala upon their demand.

If there is any difference between the two cases, it is in favor of the right of Guatemala to have made the arrest on the ground of his being both a political and common-crimes offender, and sustains me in giving the advice, as it was earnestly sought by the master of the Apaculco; while in the Gomez case the captain of the Honduras was silent.

The details in both the Gomez and Barrundia cases were to have been left to the respective captains and local consuls, as it would be impossible for a minister, being hundreds of miles away, to give personal attention to such arrests.

In the President's first annual message to Congress it was said that "diplomacy should be frank and free from intrigue," thereby implying it had not been so in the past; if, as must be conceded, Guatemala had the undoubted right to arrest Barrundia, would it have been "frank" FR 90-10