No. 558.
Mr. Buck
to Mr. Bayard.
[Extract.]
Legation of
the United States,
Lima, October 28, 1886. (Received
November 20.)
No. 171.]
Sir: I have received Department’s No. 97, of
September 23, 1886, and I have to report that Congress, on the 24th instant,
passed an act similar to the one referred to in that number, annulling all
the interior acts of the Pierola and Iglesias Governments. I inclose a
newspaper copy of the act, not yet signed or officially published, and
translation. As the President has not the veto power, the signing and
putting into effect is perfunctory.
The President has also signed the act annulling the Darsena contract. * *
*
It will be observed the terms of the general act, referring to the Pierola
and Iglesias Governments, at least ostensibly, are sweeping in their effect,
and how far the act may reach, and whether it will affect foreign interests
generally, will depend upon the construction given it. * * *
I concluded that I had best put into writing the substance of what I had to
say to the minister of foreign relations on the subject. This I did, heading
it “Memorandum,” as see copy herewith sent; and when I met him yesterday
evening, per appointment, I had it read to him, and then left with him a
copy. He said that the general principles announced were correct, and no one
with the least knowledge of international law would deny them; but as no
American interest was as jet infringed, he thought it premature that I
should pass to him the
[Page 923]
note. I
replied that the act of Congress was in its terms general and sweeping, and
I thought my Government desired that he should be advised of its view of the
international principles involved in the abstract; but since he had
expressed full agreement with the views I had presented, I did not demand an
answer, but would leave the paper as a “memorandum” of what I had said, so
he might have it translated at his leisure, and I should send a copy to
Washington, in a report to my Government. He then again expressed agreement
with the general principles; but said he would reserve the right to reply if
it should seem proper upon more careful consideration, but thanked me for
relieving him of the necessity of answering. The whole interview, as was the
previous, was perfectly agreeable and cordial.
After my interview of Monday my colleagues of England, France, Germany, and
Brazil called to see and consult with me relative to the proper course, in
view of the action of Congress, whether there should be joint diplomatic
expression or not. I advised that I thought joint expression was not
required; that I had already myself seen the minister of foreign affairs and
should, perhaps, embody my views in a “memorandum.”
But the French minister afterwards asked General Salazar, the dean of the
diplomatic corps, to call a meeting of the body, which he did for yesterday
evening. I then expressed to my colleagues, collectively, the view somewhat
more strongly, which I had previously presented at my own house, that it did
not seem to me advisable that there should be joint expression; indeed, that
I had taken such separate action as I thought best, and had an engagement
for a future personal interview, made at the minister’s request, and I could
neither join in a united expression nor permit any one else to speak for my
Government in the premises; that I thought it would both be more friendly to
the Government here, and more effective that each representative should act
separately, according as the interests and the views of his Government
should suggest.
So, when the question was put, whether it was proper that there should be
joint diplomatic action, it was unanimously determined in the negative.
However, the English minister had already directed a note to the Government
here, stating that England would never admit the non-responsibility of the
present Government of Peru for the acts of its predecessors, and he sent a
long cablegram to London announcing the fact.
The French minister had also addressed a short note to the Government
here.
The Spanish minister had presented his views in a personal interview, and the
German minister had expressed some intention of doing likewise, and the
Chilian minister cabled for instructions.
But I think there is no difference of opinion among the members of the corps
concerning the principle of responsibility. It did not seem to me worth
while to cable at a considerable cost, as I know no immediate necessity for
doing so.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 171.—Translation.—From
“The Commercial,” October 25, 1886.]
[October 25,
1886]
All the governmental interior acts proclaimed by Messrs. Nicolás de
Piérola and Miguel Iglesias are declared null, and the latter shall be
held responsible according to the military and civil laws. (Sitting of
the 24th October, 1886.)
[Page 924]
[Inclosure 2 in No. 171.]
Mr. Buck to Mr.
Ribeyro.
Legation of the United States,
Lima, October 26,
1886.
Mr. Minister:
In view of the recent action of the Peruvian Congress, declaring null all
interior acts of certain Governments anterior to the present, recognized
by foreign nations; and in consideration of the fact that what were
internal acts and what were acts affecting foreign interests may become,
under the said action of Congress, matters for executive or judicial
construction, I think it proper to advise your excellency of the view
entertained by my Government relative to the principles Of international
law involved, so far as they may affect the interests of United States
citizens vested under obligations incurred by the Governments of Peru
referred to.
For the greater part of the several years since 1879, the Piérola or
Iglesias Government was recognized by foreign powers as the lawful
government of this country, and throughout that long period of national
strife and varying fortunes which happily terminated in the national
peace of last December, when the diplomatic representatives of foreign
nations in this capital, prompted by the desire to stay the shedding of
fraternal blood, exercised their intermediary good offices in bringing
about a peace, under which Generals Iglesias and Cáceres mutually
manifesting “there should reign in all political parties complete
oblivion of past differences, leaving neither conquerors nor conquered,
but Peruvians, bound by the indissoluble tie of love of country” (seethe
act signed by General Cáceres and the members of the diplomatic corps in
the building of Congress of this capital, on the 2d of December, 1885),
and under which previously contending parties transferred their powers
and arms into the hands of the provisional government, under whose
auspices the present executive and legislative powers of this country
were elected and installed. During all that anterior period, the United
States, in company with other nations diplomatically represented in
Peru, acted upon the principle of recognizing that political
organization which manifested the ability to maintain international and
commercial relations “with foreign countries.
The acts of such a government are universally considered binding upon the
nation it represents.
This view is considered undeniable from an international standpoint, even
when change in the essential form of government is involved, and it
applies with greater force still when the change is only in the
personnel of the government.
Foreign cabinets can not, as a rule, pass judgment upon questions which
may divide a people as pertaining to their internal political condition,
nor become partisans in the rights or the wrongs involved in the local
political issues of other countries, nor can they question the motives
that produce results without also questioning the capacity of a people
to influence their own conditions and destinies; they can only accept
facts as they appear.
The interests of recognizing nations, as well as both the interest and
dignity of the nation recognized, demand this.
Obligations affecting foreign interests, incurred by a government which
has been able to secure general recognition from the nations with which
it maintains diplomatic and commercial relations, and contracts made by
it, in accordance with the then existing laws of the country, are to be
regarded as the obligations of the people it represents, and not as the
personal engagements of the rulers.
The latter may change with the currents of popular impulses, with the ebb
and flow of varying influences, and the mutations of public opinion, or
with the fluctuation of circumstances, or with the fortunes which a
people may suffer or create for themselves, but the people remain
bound.
It results, as I think your excellency will see, that my Government could
not consent that the interests of her citizens should be prejudiced
through the instrumentality of decrees, whether they be legislative or
executive, which proceed merely upon the assumption that some former
government which has been internationally recognized as the lawful
Government of Peru, was not such government.
I do not anticipate that the action of the Peruvian Congress will be
construed to have held in its contemplation a disclaimer or repudiation
of responsibility for the acts of any former duly recognized government,
as affecting the interests of United States citizens.
But it seems to me proper the present Government of Peru should
understand the views, based upon international principles, which have
actuated the United States Government in its relations with this
Republic, and the bearing of those views upon the interests of United
States citizens.
With this frank and friendly presentation of what I understand in this
connection to be the position of my Government, I take pleasure in
presenting again to your excellency, etc.,
