No. 401.
Mr. Christiancy to Mr. Evarts.
Legation of
the United States,
Lima,
Peru, July 23, 1879. (Received August
15.)
No. 39.]
Sir: I have the honor to inclose copy of my letter
of this date to Mr. Merriam, our consul at Iquique, together with an extract
of the letter of the consul to me of July 10 (his No. 38), in reference to
the right of the Chilian fleet to prevent the shipping of nitrates from
Pisagua.
As to the circumstances going to show whether the blockade of Iquique had
been raised, you will find them stated with substantial accuracy in my
dispatch No. 34 (July 15). * * *
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 39.]
Mr. Christiancy to
Mr. Merriam.
Legation of the United States,
Lima, Peru, July 23,
1879.
Sir: Your two notes of the 10th instant (Nos.
38 and 39) received.
As to the blockade, you are undoubtedly right in your conclusion (stated
in your No. 39) that, upon the facts stated by you, and as appears by
all accounts I have seen, the blockade has not been raised. The whole
proceeding must be treated rather as an unsuccessful attempt to raise
it.
As to the other matter mentioned in your No. 38, the question of the
right of the Chilian fleets to prevent the loading of nitrates at
Pisagua, I will say that I do not think those nitrates, considered with
reference to their agricultural use and their destination to European
ports, can be treated as contraband of war, properly so called; and if
the nitrate-beds are owned by individuals and worked on their account
only, I do not think the Chilian fleet could lawfully prevent such
commerce by neutral vessels in any other way than by establishing an
effectual blockade of the port.
[Page 889]
But if the nitrate-beds are owned or worked or the nitrate shipped on the
part of the Peruvian Government, so that the proceeds or part of them go
into the Peruvian treasury, then I am inclined to think the Chilian
fleet has, under the laws of war, a right to stop that commerce if they
can, and to use any means for that purpose properly calculated to reach
the end, such as preventing the loading of vessels or destroying any of
the works or lighters used in loading, after having notified the neutral
vessels to leave or cease to load. Nevertheless, should such a course be
attempted by the Chilian fleet towards the American vessels, it might be
well for you to protest in due form against such proceeding, so as to
save any rights which American shipowners or American citizens engaged
in that commerce may in the end be found to have. Such protests can do
no harm, and it is better in such circumstances to err by claiming too
much than too little.
I am, &c.,
- I. P. CHRISTIANCY.
- J. W. Merriam, Esq.,
United States Consul, Iquique.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 39.—Extract of letter
from United States consul at Iquique, of July 10,
1879.]
As the mail closes in a few minutes, I have only time to add that I have
just been informed that Commander Simpson, of the Lord Cochrane,
verbally notified the captain of the American brig Mary Greenwood, on
the 1st instant, at Pisagua, where she is taking in a cargo of nitrate
of soda for the United States, that she will not be allowed to continue
loading after the 15th instant, and that if he finds her in port after
that date he will take her to a Chilian port and confiscate her
cargo.
It is said that the Chilian commander would not give any written order,
and that he inquired particularly as to whether the Peruvian Government
was the owner of the nitrate, and that the captain would only reply that
he was chartered by Grace Bros., of Callao, and that he was ignorant of
the ownership of the cargo.
I am waiting for an official statement of the facts from the agent of the
Peruvian Nitrate Company, before taking action in the matter, and am
also endeavoring to find out whether nitrate of soda can be considered
contraband of war.
I shall keep you informed on the subject.
