Mr. Kilpatrick to Mr. Seward.

No. 120.]

Sir: I have the honor to report that I have had two interviews with the minister of foreign relations, Mr. Fontecilla, in relation to the proposition for peace, which I had the honor to receive from you some time since. In my first interview, which took place a few days after the reception of your communication, I learned that Chili was most anxious to make peace by means of an armistice, but that the great obstacle in the way was a mutual agreement to that effect on the part of the allies, and although the insults and injuries inflicted by Spain were not so fresh as in months past, still there was an evident desire to secure peace on such conditions as would allow the allies to resume hostilities whenever it would be profitable for them to do so.

The interview was not so satisfactory as I could have wished, yet it opened the way for your proposition, which I forwarded on the 9th instant. The minister of state gives in his reply the substance of his ideas expressed to me in our conversation. General Hovey, our minister [Page 323] near the government of Peru, being at my legation, I thought it well to have an interview with the minister and General Hovey on the subject. I accordingly invited him to the legation. He came on the 21st instant, and freely entered into a discussion of the subject. He stated that Chili fully recognized the importance of peace, and earnestly desired that some means might be adopted to secure that end; but that there were many influences, in Chili controlling the question that only those most intimately connected with the government could fully understand, and that these influences would prevent for the present a definite and absolute peace. I requested him to please to give us some idea what those influences were, and to explain what kind of peace Chili desired and would accept. He replied that he had no objection to do so; that he considered both of us and our government to be the true friends of Chili and her allies. The influences he stated were the natural results of Spain’s cruel and unprovoked insults; that his people had not forgotten them, and looked forward to the time when they might secure a just satisfaction; that his government now encountered a strong opposition which would not fail to hold it accountable if it should celebrate an absolute peace that would forever close the door against Chili’s just revenge; that whatever course his government might take, strong opposition would be encountered; yet they were willing to accept an indefinite armistice which would effectually settle the question, give security to trade, and satisfaction to the neutrals, and yet allow either of the belligerents to resume hostilities after timely notice. I asked him if he thought that either party would again resume the offensive? He answered, no, that Spain could not, and that Chili would not, and yet they did not wish to enter into an agreement to that effect. An armistice, he said, would close the war, and at the same time take from the opponents of his government the same power to injure that a definite peace would give them. This was the substance of our conversation, and most fully explains the reply of Mr. Fontecilla to my note of the 9th of June.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

J. KILPATRICK.

Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.