Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, For the Year 1887, Transmitted to Congress, With a Message of the President, June 26, 1888
No. 563.
Mr. Buck
to Mr. Bayard.
Lima, February 28, 1887. (Received April 4.)
Sir: Referring to my No. 210, of the 19th instant, I now inclose copy of the note of Señor Chacaltana, minister of foreign relations, replying to my “memorandum” of October 26, 1886, and with it a translation.
[Page 928]I also send copy of my note, dated the 26th instant, in answer, which was delivered to the foreign office this morning.
Since the present minister refers to and has treated my said “memorandum” as an official note, I think it best there should be on the files of the foreign office an account of the interview, reading of the paper, and the then minister’s (Señor Ribeyro’s) comments as they really happened and were reported at the time.
In view of Department’s approval of my indicated “memorandum” in its No. 112, of November 30, 1886, seemingly making clear its attitude on the subject, and having in mind the present interrupted mail conditions, I have without delay replied to the minister’s note, endeavoring to do so with sufficient emphasis to meet present requirements, and yet with due conservatism, as well as with a certain deprecation as to any anticipation of differences.
I have, etc.,
Mr. Chacaltana to Mr. Buck.
Sir: Your excellency’s dispatch relative to the law enacted by the last Congress, in virtue of which the interior governmental acts of Messrs. Pierola and Iglesias were annulled, has been received at this office. In it your excellency declares the opinion of your Government in reference to the principles of international law violated by the said legislative act respecting the interests of citizens of the United States, in consequence of obligations contracted with them by the different governments of Peru.
Notwithstanding, your excellency, as appears from the tenor of the dispatch I have the honor to answer, only proposes to make a frank and amicable declaration of principles in defense of the aforesaid interests, the undersigned considers himself obliged to point out the reasons that prevent him from accepting some of the ideas expressed in the said declaration.
Your excellency commences by alleging the circumstance of the recognition by foreign powers of the governments of Messrs, Pierola and Iglesias, in order to make it appear that their acts have been universally considered as obligatory upon the Peruvian nation, and to deduce from this the conclusion that the engagements entered into by said gentlemen can not cease to be considered as having force under the action of any government.
Your excellency will permit me to observe that if such reasoning were to be accepted by this office, Peru would be obliged in future to depend for the legitimacy or illegitimacy of its governments and their stability or instability not so much on the exercise of inherent rights of national sovereignty as on the recognition that other nations with which it cultivates amicable relations would give them. Nevertheless, your excellency is perfectly aware that the powers of the state in a country entirely as free as Peru is can not be constituted or legitimized, save under the direct influence of exclusively national elements.
Your excellency himself, on interpreting, in another part of your dispatch, the wise and just international doctrine in this matter, relieves me of the labor of entering into more extensive consideration of this point.
“Foreign cabinets,” your excellency says, “can in no manner give their judgment in matters that divide a nation internally, and that are only under the dominion of its internal political condition, nor take sides for or against one of two elements born of the local politics of other countries; in the same way they can not question the motives that produce results without questioning at the same time the right of a nation to direct its own circumstances and destinies; they can only accept the facta as they present themselves.”
Nevertheless, foreign cabinets would judge in matters of the internal political government of Peru) they would declare themselves partial in regard to the elements born of local politics, and would discuss the Government’s own right to lead the Republic on the road of its immortal destinies, if, as your excellency insinuates, the validity or nullity of governmental acts did not depend on that which is established by the laws regulating said acts, but on the action of powers completely foreign to the [Page 929] growth of our political government, and to the authorities charged with giving it practical life.
In this respect it is appropriate that your excellency should recall a most essential circumstance for the due appreciation of the principles strenuously expressed in said law of nullity, that is to say, that this law is nothing but the faithful expression of article 10 of the political constitution of the state, in virtue of which are declared null the acts of those who usurp public functions.
Now, then, when the aforesaid constitution was proclaimed neither your excellency’s worthy predecessors nor the citizens of the nation so well represented by your excellency considered that the said article compromised the interests placed under its protecting safeguards.
On the contrary American citizens on establishing their residence in Peru did it naturally with the purpose of submitting themselves to the government of the existing laws, for it is impossible to suppose that they believed themselves placed in an exceptionally favorable position.
If they accepted and submitted themselves to the constitutional principle referred to; if under its protection they have lived during all the time of the independent life of Peru; if many foreigners have taken refuge under that principle when they have become victims of arbitrary proceedings of subaltern authorities, the undersigned does not see the reason why a law that has merely been the faithful translation of the aforesaid constitutional principle can be objected to and engender distrust when its application is only to certain determined epochs in which the public power was usurped by citizens who received no mandate from the people.
To consent to that constitutional law, and at the same time to object to the last decree is equivalent in fact to accepting a principle and rejecting its consequence, or to desiring that a given cause should not develop its natural and spontaneous results.
In order to strengthen the force of your argument your excellency is pleased to remember that, being grateful for the good offices interposed by the diplomatic corps in December, 1885, Generals Caoeres and Iglesias declared “that in all political parties there should reign the most complete oblivion of past dissensions, there existing no vanquished nor conquerors, but Peruvians bound by the indissoluble tie of love of country.”
This opportune recollection of the events that preceded the establishment of the Government to which the undersigned has the honor to belong, properly completed, as I propose doing, upholds the opinions maintained in this dispatch.
The understanding of the honorable diplomatic corps in those moments of true affliction to the Republic was a basis for another agreement that on the same day was arrived at by the delegates of Messrs. Cáceres and Iglesias, who, interpreting the voice of public opinion, decided upon the formation of a provisional government, which was to serve as a foundation for the definite establishment of the anxiously-looked-for constitutional regime.
In virtue of the second clause of said agreement, the constitution of 1860 was at the moment proclaimed.
The force and vigor of said constitution was felt through the decree in virtue of which the executive power was assumed by the council of ministers, and the circular that was opportunely handed to the diplomatic and consular corps residing in Lima. Under the auspices of said constitution elections for president, vice-president, senators, and deputies were called for; and under the auspices of the same fundamental law, the Government of his excellency General Cáceres was established. Therefore, that constitutional law, consented to and applauded by all parties as the saving anchor of the institutions and future welfare of Peru; that law, which arose from the abyss of the national disasters as the true and only ensign of the reconciliation of the Peruvian family; that law, whose empire was restored with the powerful moral aid of the honorable diplomatic corps, of which your excellency formed part—that is the law which establishes in its tenth article the nullity of the acts of those that usurp public functions.
Consequently, if that constitutional law is, as it can not but be, the true mandate conferred on the powers constituted by the popular will to terminate the grand work of the political reorganization of the Republic, obeying it, the national congress has not only been able, but has found itself in duty bound, to declare the nullity of the interior governmental acts of Messrs. Pierola and Iglesias.
And thus proceeding, it has justly believed that it did it with the moral concurrence of all those who, yielding guidance to noble, generous, and high sentiments, as your excellency and colleagues of the honorable diplomatic corps placed at the service of Peru their prestige and good offices, in order to re-establish the government of the political constitution in which are annulled the acts of those who usurp public functions.
Notwithstanding these observations, the national congress, proceeding with scrupulous consideration for the interests that might be found under the exclusive protection [Page 930] of international rights universally recognized, has limited the sphere of action of said law to interior governmental acts, leaving by implication the exterior ones in force; that is to say, those that refer to the international relations that Peru cultivates with friendly nations.
Under this point of view, the law embraces the acts that pertain to the exclusive dominion of the interior politics of Peru, and refers to the exercise of rights appertaining to the national authority. And if the exercise of this right should in any way affect the interests of foreign subjects, that should not surprise your excellency, “because the interests of all those who reside in a nation, however advanced she may be, can not but be affected by the fluctuation of her local politics and the various incidents arising out of the passionate struggles of parties. And the said interests are still more exposed to suffer serious damages, when the said foreign subjects, taking advantage of the abnormal situation of the republic and the easy condescension of the usurpers of public powers, pretend to obtain advantages ruinous to the country that would not be consented to under the healthful influence of governments regularly established.
I do not believe that citizens of the nation your excellency represents are found in this case, and therefore it will not be possible that they fall under the rigor of the referred to law, especially in the sense that your excellency fears.
I must likewise point out to your excellency that if only the interests of foreign subjects are to be considered worthy of protection by international law, in so far as they are connected with the acts of governments reputed legitimate, or recognized by foreign nations, it would follow that the claims founded on acts of chiefs (caudillos) who had not been recognized as chiefs of government, notwithstanding the popularity that might surround them, ought to be dismissed at once. This has not been, however, the rule of conduct observed by the Government of the undersigned, which neither accepts nor repels diplomatic claims without ascertaining beforehand, by means of a conscientious and careful examination of them, whether they are or may be invested with the conditions prescribed by international law.
In virtue of this rule of conduct, inspired by justice and sentiments of the most noble and frank friendliness, the claims of subjects of different nationalities proceeding from events which happened under the different governments that have existed in the Republic during the last years of the war, though not all were recognized by the Government of your excellency, are discussed in this office.
Under the influence of similar sentiments, my Government has pleasure in giving your excellency the assurances that when the time arrives for discussing and resolving any of the claims patronized by your excellency, their merits will be estimated under the light of the principles of international law, and of the justice that rules the moral relations of men and peoples.
The Government, without abdicating, therefore, the statute law and essential prerogatives of the national sovereignty, without establishing odious preferences when exercising the rights belonging to its character, without renouncing the exercise of the authority that the people have conferred on it in accordance with the political charter of 1860, is disposed to recognize in favor of the citizens of the Great Republic the guaranties that our laws and the principles of international law concede to them.
With sentiments of my highest consideration and esteem, and asking that your excellency excuse-the involuntary delay of this answer, I subscribe myself your excellency’s very obedient servant,
Mr. Buck to Mr. Chacaltana.
Lima, February 26, 1887.
Sir: The note of your excellency, dated January 25, replying to my “memorandum” of October 26, 1886, bearing upon certain legislation of the Peruvian Congress claiming to annul all internal acts of the Pierola and Iglesias Governments, was only delivered at this legation on the 18th instant, late in the evening.
Having advised the Peruvian cabinet in the said “memorandum” of the views of the United States Government on the subject, I must consider those views conclusive, and I can not feel at liberty to further discuss the opinions, if they imply contention, with which your excellency has thought proper to respond, unless my Government, should hereafter otherwise instruct me.
Indeed, I do not see that there need necessarily follow, from what your excellency has written, a difference of views between our two Governments on pertinent international principles stated in my “memorandum,” and I cordially hope there may be none.
[Page 931]It may, however, he proper, without entering upon general discussion, to make the following observations:
My “memorandum” of October 26 last was read to Señor Ribeyro, then minister of foreign affairs, on the day of its date, in my presence, and thereupon 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 yet infringed, he thought it premature that I should pass to him the note. I replied that the act of Congress in verbiage was 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, which I did. 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.
I supposed, however, of course if a reply were made, it would not be unreasonably delayed; and as months had passed without dissent from the position taken in the said “memorandum,” I naturally concluded the expression of the minister that “the general principles were correct, and no one with the least knowledge of international law would deny them,” might be taken as final. I do not adopt the form of the minister’s expression as my own, but have quoted it as used, and reported by me to Washington, at the time. Certainly, after so ready an appreciation of my language by the then minister, I could hardly suppose I had left any room for the remark that I had “insinuated” (“lo insinua”) aught.
I might add in this connection that nothing in my “memorandum” could, it seems to me, by any fair or legitimate construction, imply or “insinuate” any derogation to the fullest exercise of national independence by Peru, or of her prerogative to recur to any of her past constitutions or laws, or to create others, or set up or pull down within her own borders at will; so far as her acts may not trespass beyond recognized limits upon the rights and duties of equally independent and sovereign powers, to exceed which limits might be an exercise, not of independence, but of internationally dangerous license. And I expressly limited my observations upon the action of the Peruvian Congress to its possible effect through any construction adverse to rights internationally vested in citizens of my own country. I did not assume to discuss any engagements (if there are such) of Messrs. Iglesias or Piérola (“dichos Señores”) or either of them, entered into without authorization, or in violation, of then (at the time) existing law.
My Government has assumed no interference in the politics of Peru, and I do not think there can be implied any confusion of partisanship with any deductions logically drawn from the presentation of views made in my said “memorandum.” It has only, in common with most Governments maintaining diplomatic and commercial relations with this country, recognized facts as they stood out before the eyes of the world, failure to recognize which might have induced with some show of validity the accusation of partisanship.
On the other hand, if the United States Government has at any time, through approved acts of its representative, manifested in an acceptable way an earnest desire to see bloodshed cease, peace restored, and national harmony prevail under the orderly “reign of law,” it has been prompted by a disinterested national friendship, coexistent with the life of this Republic as an independent member of the family of nations; and while every true and elevated aspiration of Peru for constitutional and healthy republican conditions has the cordial sympathy of the Federal Government, yet, except so far as recognition may imply the duty of protection to their own citizens, the United States have assumed no responsibility for the existence of any Government—the present, that established in December, 1885, or any preceding—or any constitution that has been proclaimed in Peru, and so far from such assumption, if it be implied in any quarter, I apprehend my Government would consider such idea of responsibility as derogatory to the status of a nation which it concedes to be sovereignly independent, with all powers which that recognition can justly imply—so sovereign that it is to the nation of Peru it looks as obligee in international relations, irrespective of who may, for the time, in succession wield executive power, or what may be the particular conformation of its political autonomy at any stated period.
Having said thus much merely to correct what seem to me indications in your excellency’s note not warranted by anything contained in my “memorandum” of October 26 last, I have only to add, in the nature of a precautionary view, entirely friendly in intent—though it may seem almost monotonous reiteration—if the object of said note, as might possibly be inferred in part, is to assume for the chancery or the tribunals of Peru a right of construing under said legislation of Congress, the acts of certain preceding Governments adversely to the internationally vested rights of United States citizens, acquired in accordance with then existing laws, under any Government [Page 932] recognized by the United States on the ex post facto pronunciamento by a succeeding Government (however called into existence) of the invalidity of such a preceding recognized Government, I can not admit such assumption, but must reserve in every case the right of my own Government to determine for itself every matter which may devolve responsibility upon it, and claim the exercise of its discretion or protection in behalf of its own citizens.
But I will not anticipate the arising of any trouble out of the action of Congress referred to, especially as I note with satisfaction the statement that your excellency does not apprehend any difficulties relative to this matter in connection with the interests of United States citizens.
I also give due appreciation to the assurances expressed by your excellency of just intentions and willingness to consider all claims presented by my Government on the basis of an enlightened construction of international and moral rights.
I shall forward to Washington a copy of your excellency’s note, and with it a copy of this for the appreciation of my Government, by the first mail.
Meanwhile I avail myself, etc.,