No. 125.
Mr. Asta-Buruaga to Mr. Evarts.
Washington, April 24, 1880.
Sir: In the conference which I yesterday had the honor to have with your excellency, in relation to the war in which my country is involved with Peru and Bolivia, you informed me that you had received official advices from the former of those republics, to which, in view of their gravity, you deemed it indispensable to call my attention.
By those advices your excellency was informed that the corvette Chacabuco and the transport Loa had appeared, on the 10th of March last, off the island of Lobos de Afuera, and that after notifying the governor of the island of the object of their visit, they had proceeded to burn and destroy the wharf, platforms, cars, boats, and other appurtenances of the port, and to take on board everything movable that they could find on the island, including mules, horses, cattle and provisions, belonging both to the company which is engaged in taking guano there, and to the store of the parties who supply it with provisions (over which the flag of the English consul was floating), without leaving anything on the island for the inhabitants to eat, save a quantity of rice and jerked beef sufficient to last them for eight days; that the commander of the Chilian vessels had declared, on performing these acts, that he had positive orders to take whatever he could find, to await re-enforcements, and then to destroy all the ports of Peru between Paita and Callao. Finally, that without any provocation on the part of the inhabitants, and without any warning to them, shots had been fired at their dwellings.
Yonr excellency further informed me that you had also received official advices that instructions had recently been issued by the ministry of war and marine to the Chilian squadron in the sense stated by the aforesaid commander, and that you were likewise informed that, as regarded those orders, representations had been addressed to the Government of Chili by the diplomatic ministers accredited to it, in behalf of neutral interests in Peru and Bolivia; your excellency observing that, in view of this intelligence, and since it was proposed to destroy property in those ports, ninety per cent, of which was understood to belong to foreigners, a large proportion belonging to North American citizens was thereby endangered, for which reason you requested me to give you some satisfactory explanation concerning the nature of these proceedings, and the reasons which had led to the adoption of such extreme war measures, since such acts of hostility affected not only the combatants and other inhabitants, but also neutrals, whose property and commerce thereby received injuries for which it was the duty of their respective governments to demand reparation, in the interest of their citizens. Your excellency remarked that you referred to this state of things in order that I might call the attention of my government to it, as likewise to the view which was taken of its action, reminding me that, during the course of this war, the government of this country had uniformly maintained strict neutrality, notwithstanding the fact that it had been urged, in various quarters, to assume a different attitude.
To all the above statements made by your excellency in the aforesaid conference, I had the honor to rely that I had no knowledge of the facts alleged, but that I would refer them to my government, together with [Page 138] your excellency’s observations, feeling confident that it would hasten to rectify the inaccuracy with which I thought that those facts had reached your excellency, and to manifest the legitimacy with which hostilities are adopted, even to a rigorous degree, under the present circumstances of the war, for the purpose of completely subduing the enemy.
I nevertheless think it proper for me, in the mean time, to give you an idea of the line of conduct that has been followed in this war, in which Chili was forced to engage in defense of her rights.
In the early part of the war, Chili carried on hostilities against the two allied republics with extreme mildness, respecting the property of her enemies even to excess. She made war, arms against arms, without the rigor which is authorized by a state of war, or by the necessity of putting a speedy end to a deplorable and ruinous struggle, in order to re-establish peace on a solid and permanent basis. The prevalence of a state of war allowed her, however, within the sphere recognized by civilized nations, to disable and destroy her armed enemies, and whomsoever in any way, even incidentally, took part in warlike operations against her; to render useless or destroy any property belonging to her enemies, and any means of communication and traffic; to deprive the enemy of all resources, provisions, and means of subsistence, and if military necessity required it, to extend her action with the same legitimacy to all inhabitants and property in the hostile country, so as to render it unable to continue hostilities.
A precedent for this course is found in the war in this country in 1861–’65, and in the recent European wars.
Chili did not do so. She now, however, finds herself obliged to comply with the demands of a military necessity, although she is careful not to disregard the dictates of humanity and the precepts of international law; she is obliged to do so by the conduct of her enemies, who, as is shown by Peruvian official documents, conduct hostilities on land by illicit means, and carry on an irregular warfare with armed prowlers. Nothing, therefore, remains for my government but to adopt severe repressive measures against hostilities of that character, in order not to prolong the contest indefinitely, at an immense sacrifice of blood and treasure and to the great detriment of even foreign commerce. Under these circumstances, it is not strange if Chili has ordered the bombardment of armed ports whence resources are procured for the enemy, or that she should cripple the activity of railways and other means of communication which enable him to transport troops and munitions of war; nor is it strange that she should order the destruction of wharves, apparatus, and material intended to facilitate the loading and unloading of vessels, and to serve to maintain establishments like that of the island of Lobos, from the working of which the Government of Peru derives means to continue the war. Those establishments, moreover, in several of the ports, even if controlled by neutrals residing there or associated with enemies, partake of the same hostile character.
If, through hostilities which are performed through military necessity, the property or interests of foreigners residing in the enemy’s country are injured, it is an evil similar to many others which emanate from the exceptional condition of a state of war. My government, however, has endeavored to avoid, as far as possible, doing injury to neutrals residing in the territory of the enemy, and I make bold to assert that it cannot be justly charged with doing anything detrimental to those interests without imperious necessity. Nevertheless, it is a recognized rule of international law that, if a neutral suffers injury through the unavoidable hostile acts of a belligerent, he does not thereby acquire a claim [Page 139] to indemnity; because, if he has preferred to continue or comes to reside in a belligerent country after the commencement of hostilities, it “has been his intention to submit to all the contingencies consequent upon a state of war.
There is still another circumstance to which I will take the liberty of calling your excellency’s attention, and it is that the bulk of the property in the ports of Peru has been transferred, perhaps surreptitiously, to foreign hands, since the beginning of the war, with a view to investing it with a neutral character, which explains why so large a proportion of that property has been represented to you as belonging to foreigners.
Yet, in spite of all, I can likewise assure your excellency that the Government of Chili, with the fairness and justice that characterize it in its dealings with friendly nations, will not refuse to make such reparation as may be called for by sound reason and the recognized principles of international law, and it hopes that the claims which it may prefer on account of the acts of foreign citizens during the war will be considered in the same spirit of reciprocity.
Hoping, sir, that the contents of this note will be satisfactory upon some of the points which formed the subject of our yesterday’s conversation, until I shall have reported them to my government, so that it may explain them more fully, I have the honor to avail myself of this occasion to reiterate to your excellency the assurances of my most distinguished consideration.
Hon. Wm. M. Evarts,
Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c.