Mr. Wharton to Mr. Pacheco.
Washington, August 22, 1891.
Sir: Your No. 42, of the 22d ultimo, has been received. You therein communicate a copy of correspondence between your legation and the Guatemalan foreign office in further relation to the affair of the seizure [Page 75] of the arms carried on board the Pacific Mail steamship Colima at the port of San José in July of last year.
Your execution of the Department’s instruction No. 35 of February 28 last does not appear to have been as explicit as may have been desirable. The purport of that instruction was to remove the comparatively unimportant ceremonial incident connected with the return of the arms from the field of discussion by accepting Col. Toriello’s performance on board the City of New York and his statements to Capt. Johnston as sufficient to do away with the charge of discourtesy on his part in the restoration of the property seized. As to the main questions, the improper interference with a vessel under our flag and the injury to property rights growing out of the act of the Guatemalan Government in making the original seizure, it was pointed out that no reparation whatever, although clearly due and reasonably expected, had been tendered by Guatemala to the Government of the United States.
It would seem from Mr. De Leon’s note to you of July 15 that he regarded your presentation of the matter on the 18th of last June as expressing dissatisfaction with Col. Toriello’s apology, because tendered to the steamship company rather than to this Government, and his reply is confined to alleging that the ceremonial performance of Col. Toriello was, under the agreement between Mr. Kimberly and Señor Anguiano, a sufficient reparation to the Government of the United States for the discourteous feature of the incident.
A careful perusal of your note to the minister of June 15, 1891, constrains me to admit that, in placing this limited construction upon your demand, Mr. De Leon found good warrant in your own language. You do not seem to have clearly conveyed to him Mr. Blaine’s conclusion that—
So far as concerns the minor incident of Col. Toriello’s discourteous action in the return of the arms, his apology, thus indirectly tendered by him in person, may he accepted as amply disposing of that branch of the matter, because sanctioned by the Government of Guatemala, which has made its acquiescence therein known to the acting diplomatic agent of the United States. It may therefore disappear from consideration.
So far as concerns the original indignity and injury involved in the act of the Guatemalan Government in detaining the Colima and in seizing the arms which it diverted to its own use, the course of Mr. Kimberly does not appear to have left the question in as satisfactory a posture as this Government would desire, or as is desirable in the relations of the two Governments. The misconception on the part of Guatemala does not rest alone on Mr. Kimberly’s oral statements to Señor Anguiano in the interview of January 24, 1891. Mr. Kimberly’s letter to Capt. Johnston, dated January 28, has become a part of the diplomatic record, and he therein distinctly stated that the ceremonial to be performed by Col. Toriello was to be taken “in expiation of the manner in which the arms and ammunition were removed by this commandant from the Pacific Mail steamer Colima last July.”
Nothing in Mr. Kimberly’s instructions gave him authority to make so sweeping a declaration. The Guatemalan foreign office seems to have appreciated the situation at the time, for on the 4th of February, after Col. Toriello’s apology had been made as agreed upon, Señor Prado, acting minister of foreign relations in Señor Anguiano’s absence, called upon Mr. Kimberly and asked that the word “expiation” in the letter to Capt. Johnston be stricken out and the word “explanation” substituted. This Mr. Kimberly refused to do, stating that the word [Page 76] “expiation” conveyed the precise meaning and literal sense intended by him, and that it could not be changed without authority from his Government. (See Mr. Kimberly’s No. 246, of February 4, 1891.)
You will take early and appropriate occasion to inform the Government of Guatemala that this Government regards the secondary and comparatively trivial incident of the unceremonious return of the arms as disposed of by Col. Toriello’s apology, consenting if need be to the substitution of the word “explanation “for “expiation” in order that the record may be cleared of an unfortunate ambiguity. You will at the same time inform the minister of foreign relations that the question of indemnity for the wrongful act committed in the seizure of the arms and for any injury resulting therefrom (which it was hoped would have been met by a friendly and spontaneous tender of reparation by the Government of Guatemala to that of the United States) is reserved for future consideration.
I am, etc.,
Acting Secretary.