support a law providing that the persons receiving the smallest vote
should be the electors or a law that all the electors should be chosen
by the voters of a single Congressional district. The State is to
choose, and under the pretense of regulating methods the legislature
can neither vest the right of choice elsewhere nor adopt methods not
conformable to republican institutions. It is not my purpose here to
discuss the question whether a choice by the legislature or by the
voters of equal single districts is a choice by the State, but only to
recommend such regulation of this matter by constitutional amendment as
will secure uniformity and prevent that disgraceful partisan jugglery
to which such a liberty of choice, if it exists, offers a temptation.
Nothing just now is more important than to provide every guaranty for
the absolutely fair and free choice by an equal suffrage within the
respective States of all the officers of the National Government,
whether that suffrage is applied directly, as in the choice of members
of the House of Representatives, or indirectly, as in the choice of
Senators and electors of President. Respect for public officers and
obedience to law will not cease to be the characteristics of our people
until our elections cease to declare the will of majorities fairly
ascertained without fraud, suppression, or gerrymander. If I were
called upon to declare wherein our chief national danger lies, I should
say without hesitation in the overthrow of majority control by the
suppression or perversion of the popular suffrage. That there is a real
danger here all must agree; but the energies of those who see it have
been chiefly expended in trying to fix responsibility upon the opposite
party rather than in efforts to make such practices impossible by either
party.
Is it not possible now to adjourn that interminable and inconclusive
debate while we take by consent one step in the direction of reform by
eliminating the gerrymander, which has been denounced by all parties as
an influence in the selection of electors of President and members of
Congress? All the States have, acting freely and separately, determined
that the choice of electors by a general ticket is the wisest and
safest method, and it would seem there could be no objection to a
constitutional amendment making that method permanent. If a legislature
chosen in one year upon purely local questions should, pending a
Presidential contest, meet, rescind the law for a choice upon a general
ticket, and provide for the choice of electors by the legislature, and
this trick should determine the result, it is not too much to say that
the public peace might be seriously and widely endangered.
I have alluded to the "gerrymander" as affecting the method of selecting
electors of President by Congressional districts, but the primary intent
and effect of this form of political robbery have relation to the
selection of members of the House of Representatives. The power of
Congress is ample to deal with this threatening and intolerable abuse.
The unfailing test of sincerity in election reform will be found in a
willingness to confer as to remedies and to put into force such measures
as will most effectually preserve the right of the people to free and
equal representation.
An attempt was made in the last Congress to bring to bear the
constitutional powers of the General Government for the correction
of fraud against the suffrage. It is important to know whether the
opposition to such measures is really rested in particular features
supposed to be objectionable or includes any proposition to give to
the election laws of the United States adequacy to the correction
of grave and acknowledged evils. I must yet entertain the hope that
it is possible to secure a calm, patriotic consideration of such
constitutional or statutory changes as may be necessary to secure
the choice of the officers of the Government to the people by fair
apportionments and free elections.
I believe it would be possible to constitute a commission, nonpartisan
in its membership and composed of patriotic, wise, and impartial men,
to whom a consideration of the question of the evils connected with our
election system and methods might be committed with a good prospect of
securing unanimity in some plan for removing or mitigating those evils.
The Constitution would permit the selection of the commission to be
vested in the Supreme Court if that method would give the best guaranty
of impartiality. This commission should be charged with the duty of
inquiring into the whole subject of the law of elections as related
to the choice of officers of the National Government, with a view to
securing to every elector a free and unmolested exercise of the suffrage
and as near an approach to an equality of value in each ballot cast as
is attainable.
While the policies of the General Government upon the tariff, upon the
restoration of our merchant marine, upon river and harbor improvements,
and other such matters of grave and general concern are liable to be
turned this way or that by the results of Congressional elections and
administrative policies, sometimes involving issues that tend to peace
or war, to be turned this way or that by the results of a Presidential
election, there is a rightful interest in all the States and in every
Congressional district that will not be deceived or silenced by the
audacious pretense that the question of the right of any body of legal
voters in any State or in any Congressional district to give their
suffrages freely upon these general questions is a matter only of local
concern or control. The demand that the limitations of suffrage shall
be found in the law, and only there, is a just demand, and no just man
should resent or resist it. My appeal is and must continue to be for
a consultation that shall "proceed with candor, calmness, and patience
upon the lines of justice and humanity, not of prejudice and cruelty."
To the consideration of these very grave questions I invite not only the
attention of Congress, but that of all patriotic citizens. We must not
entertain the delusion that our people have ceased to regard a free
ballot and equal representation as the price of their allegiance to
laws and to civil magistrates.
I have been greatly rejoiced to notice many evidences of the increased
unification of our people and of a revived national spirit. The vista
that now opens to us is wider and more glorious than ever before.
Gratification and amazement struggle for supremacy as we contemplate
the population, wealth, and moral strength of our country. A trust
momentous in its influence upon our people and upon the world is for
a brief time committed to us, and we must not be faithless to its first
condition--the defense of the free and equal influence of the people in
the choice of public officers and in the control of public affairs.
BENJ. HARRISON.
[Footnote 22: See pp. 59-60.]
[Footnote 23: See p. 127.]
SPECIAL MESSAGES.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _December 16, 1891_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, for your information, a letter from the Secretary
of State, inclosing the first annual report and copies of the bulletins
of the Bureau of the American Republics.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _December 23, 1891_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith the report of the board appointed by me under a
clause in the District of Columbia appropriation act approved August 6,
1890, "to consider the location, arrangement, and operation of electric
wires in the District of Columbia," etc., to which the attention of
Congress is respectfully invited.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _December 23, 1891_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
My attention having been called to the necessity of bringing about a
uniform usage and spelling of geographic names in the publications of
the Government, the following Executive order was issued on the 4th day
of September, 1890:
As it is desirable that uniform usage in regard to geographic
nomenclature and orthography obtain throughout the Executive
Departments of the Government, and particularly upon the maps and
charts issued by the various Departments and bureaus, I hereby
constitute a Board on Geographic Names and designate the following
persons, who have heretofore cooperated for a similar purpose under
the authority of the several Departments, bureaus, and institutions
with which they are connected, as members of said board:
Professor Thomas C. Mendenhall, United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey, chairman.
Andrew H. Allen, Department of State.
Captain Henry L. Howison, Light-House Board, Treasury Department.
Captain Thomas Turtle, Engineer Corps, War Department.
Lieutenant Richardson Clover, Hydrographic Office, Navy Department.
Pierson H. Bristow, Post-Office Department.
Otis T. Mason, Smithsonian Institution.
Herbert G. Ogden, United States Coast and Geodetic Survey.
Henry Gannett, United States Geological Survey.
Marcus Baker, United States Geological Survey.
To this board shall be referred all unsettled questions concerning
geographic names which arise in the Departments, and the decisions
of the board are to be accepted by these Departments as the standard
authority in such matters.
Department officers are instructed to afford such assistance as may be
proper to carry on the work of this board.
The members of this board shall serve without additional compensation
and its organization shall entail no expense on the Government.
The report of the board thus constituted has been submitted to me, and
is herewith transmitted for the information of Congress and with a view
to its publication in suitable form if such action is deemed by Congress
to be desirable.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 5, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
The famine prevailing in some of the Provinces of Russia is so severe
and widespread as to have attracted the sympathetic interest of a
large number of our liberal and favored people. In some of the great
grain-producing States of the West movements have already been organized
to collect flour and meal for the relief of these perishing Russian
families, and the response has been such as to justify the belief that
a ship's cargo can very soon be delivered at the seaboard through the
generous cooperation of the transportation lines. It is most appropriate
that a people whose storehouses have been so lavishly filled with all
the fruits of the earth by the gracious favor of God should manifest
their gratitude by large gifts to His suffering children in other lands.
The Secretary of the Navy has no steam vessel at his disposal that
could be used for the transportation of these supplies, and I therefore
recommend that he be authorized to charter a suitable vessel to receive
them if a sufficient amount should be offered, and to send them under
the charge of a naval officer to such Russian port as may be most
convenient for ready distribution to those most in need.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 6, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, a communication
of the 4th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, accompanied by
an agreement concluded by and between the Cherokee Commission and the
Wichita and affiliated bands of Indians in the Territory of Oklahoma,
for the cession of certain lands and for other purposes.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 6, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, a communication
of the 4th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting the
agreement entered into between the Indians of the Colville Reservation,
in the State of Washington, and the commissioners appointed under the
provisions of the act of August 19, 1890, to negotiate with them for
the cession of such portion of said reservation as said Indians may be
willing to dispose of, that the same may be opened to white settlement.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 6, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, a communication
of the 4th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, accompanied by an
agreement concluded by the Cherokee Commission with the Tonkawa Indians
in Oklahoma Territory, for the cession of all their right, title, claim,
and interest of every kind and character in and to the lands occupied by
them in said Territory, and for other purposes.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 11, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, a communication
of the 8th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting the
agreements concluded by and between the Cherokee Commission and the
Kickapoo tribe of Indians in the Territory of Oklahoma, for the cession
of certain lands and for other purposes.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 11, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, a communication
of the 4th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting the
agreement entered into between the Indians of the Pyramid Lake
Reservation and the commission appointed under the provisions of the
Indian appropriation act of March 3, 1891, for the cession and
relinquishment of the southern portion of their reservation in the State
of Nevada.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 11 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, a communication
of the 4th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting the
agreement entered into between the Shoshone and Arapahoe Indians of the
Shoshone or Wind River Reservation, in the State of Wyoming, and the
commission appointed under the provisions of the Indian appropriation
act of March 3, 1891, for the cession and relinquishment of a portion
of their said reservation.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, January 18, 1892_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I transmit herewith to the Senate a report of the Secretary of State,
in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 12th instant, making
inquiries regarding payments of the awards of the claims commission
under the convention of July 4, 1868, between the United States and
Mexico.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 19, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith a letter of the Secretary of the Navy, accompanied
by the report of the commission appointed by me by virtue of a provision
in the naval appropriation act approved June 30, 1890, "to select a
suitable site, having due regard to commercial and naval interests, for
a dry dock at some point on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico or the
waters connected therewith."
The Secretary of the Navy approves the recommendations of the
commission, and they are respectfully submitted for the consideration
of the Congress.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 25, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
In my annual message delivered to Congress at the beginning of the
present session, after a brief statement of the facts then in the
possession of this Government touching the assault in the streets of
Valparaiso, Chile, upon the sailors of the United States steamship
_Baltimore_ on the evening of the 16th of October last, I said:
This Government is now awaiting the result of an investigation which
has been conducted by the criminal court at Valparaiso. It is reported
unofficially that the investigation is about completed, and it is
expected that the result will soon be communicated to this Government,
together with some adequate and satisfactory response to the note by
which the attention of Chile was called to this incident. If these
just expectations should be disappointed or further needless delay
intervene, I will by a special message bring this matter again to the
attention of Congress for such action as may be necessary.
In my opinion the time has now come when I should lay before the
Congress and the country the correspondence between this Government
and the Government of Chile from the time of the breaking out of the
revolution against Balmaceda, together with all other facts in the
possession of the executive department relating to this matter. The
diplomatic correspondence is herewith transmitted, together with some
correspondence between the naval officers for the time in command in
Chilean waters and the Secretary of the Navy, and also the evidence
taken at the Mare Island Navy-Yard since the arrival of the _Baltimore_
at San Francisco. I do not deem it necessary in this communication to
attempt any full analysis of the correspondence or of the evidence.
A brief restatement of the international questions involved and of the
reasons why the responses of the Chilean Government are unsatisfactory
is all that I deem necessary.
It may be well at the outset to say that whatever may have been said
in this country or in Chile in criticism of Mr. Egan, our minister at
Santiago, the true history of this exciting period in Chilean affairs
from the outbreak of the revolution until this time discloses no act on
the part of Mr. Egan unworthy of his position or that could justly be
the occasion of serious animadversion or criticism. He has, I think,
on the whole borne himself in very trying circumstances with dignity,
discretion, and courage, and has conducted the correspondence with
ability, courtesy, and fairness.
It is worth while also at the beginning to say that the right of
Mr. Egan to give shelter in the legation to certain adherents of the
Balmaceda Government who applied to him for asylum has not been denied
by the Chilean authorities, nor has any demand been made for the
surrender of these refugees. That there was urgent need of asylum is
shown by Mr. Egan's note of August 24, 1891, describing the disorders
that prevailed in Santiago, and by the evidence of Captain Schley
as to the pillage and violence that prevailed at Valparaiso. The
correspondence discloses, however, that the request of Mr. Egan for a
safe conduct from the country in behalf of these refugees was denied.
The precedents cited by him in the correspondence, particularly the case
of the revolution in Peru in 1865, did not leave the Chilean Government
in a position to deny the right of asylum to political refugees, and
seemed very clearly to support Mr. Egan's contention that a safe conduct
to neutral territory was a necessary and acknowledged incident of the
asylum. These refugees have very recently, without formal safe conduct,
but by the acquiescence of the Chilean authorities, been placed on
board the _Yorktown_, and are now being conveyed to Callao, Peru.
This incident might be considered wholly closed but for the disrespect
manifested toward this Government by the close and offensive police
surveillance of the legation premises which was maintained during most
of the period of the stay of the refugees therein. After the date of my
annual message, and up to the time of the transfer of the refugees to
the _Yorktown_, the legation premises seemed to have been surrounded by
police in uniform and police agents or detectives in citizen's dress,
who offensively scrutinized persons entering or leaving the legation,
and on one or more occasions arrested members of the minister's family.
Commander Evans, who by my direction recently visited Mr. Egan at
Santiago, in his telegram to the Navy Department described the legation
as "a veritable prison," and states that the police agents or detectives
were after his arrival withdrawn during his stay. It appears further
from the note of Mr. Egan of November 20, 1891, that on one occasion at
least these police agents, whom he declares to be known to him, invaded
the legation premises, pounding upon its windows and using insulting and
threatening language toward persons therein. This breach of the right
of a minister to freedom from police espionage and restraint seems to
have been so flagrant that the Argentine minister, who was dean of
the diplomatic corps, having observed it, felt called upon to protest
against it to the Chilean minister of foreign affairs. The Chilean
authorities have, as will be observed from the correspondence, charged
the refugees and the inmates of the legation with insulting the police;
but it seems to me incredible that men whose lives were in jeopardy and
whose safety could only be secured by retirement and quietness should
have sought to provoke a collision, which could only end in their
destruction, or to aggravate their condition by intensifying a popular
feeling that at one time so threatened the legation as to require Mr.
Egan to appeal to the minister of foreign affairs.
But the most serious incident disclosed by the correspondence is that
of the attack upon the sailors of the _Baltimore_ in the streets of
Valparaiso on the 16th of October last. In my annual message, speaking
upon the information then in my possession, I said:
So far as I have yet been able to learn, no other explanation of this
bloody work has been suggested than that it had its origin in hostility
to those men as sailors of the United States, wearing the uniform of
their Government, and not in any individual act or personal animosity.
We have now received from the Chilean Government an abstract of the
conclusions of the fiscal general upon the testimony taken by the judge
of crimes in an investigation which was made to extend over nearly three
months. I very much regret to be compelled to say that this report does
not enable me to modify the conclusion announced in my annual message.
I am still of the opinion that our sailors were assaulted, beaten,
stabbed, and killed not for anything they or any one of them had done,
but for what the Government of the United States had done or was charged
with having done by its civil officers and naval commanders. If that be
the true aspect of the case, the injury was to the Government of the
United States, not to these poor sailors who were assaulted in a manner
so brutal and so cowardly.
Before attempting to give an outline of the facts upon which this
conclusion rests I think it right to say a word or two upon the legal
aspect of the case. The _Baltimore_ was in the harbor of Valparaiso by
virtue of that general invitation which nations are held to extend to
the war vessels of other powers with which they have friendly relations.
This invitation, I think, must be held ordinarily to embrace the
privilege of such communication with the shore as is reasonable,
necessary, and proper for the comfort and convenience of the officers
and men of such vessels. Captain Schley testifies that when his vessel
returned to Valparaiso on September 14 the city officers, as is
customary, extended the hospitalities of the city to his officers and
crew. It is not claimed that every personal collision or injury in which
a sailor or officer of such naval vessel visiting the shore may be
involved raises an international question, but I am clearly of the
opinion that where such sailors or officers are assaulted by a resident
populace, animated by hostility to the government whose uniform these
sailors and officers wear and in resentment of acts done by their
government, not by them, their nation must take notice of the event
as one involving an infraction of its rights and dignity, not in a
secondary way, as where a citizen is injured and presents his claim
through his own government, but in a primary way, precisely as if its
minister or consul or the flag itself had been the object of the same
character of assault.
The officers and sailors of the _Baltimore_ were in the harbor of
Valparaiso under the orders of their Government, not by their own
choice. They were upon the shore by the implied invitation of the
Government of Chile and with the approval of their commanding officer;
and it does not distinguish their case from that of a consul that his
stay is more permanent or that he holds the express invitation of the
local government to justify his longer residence. Nor does it affect
the question that the injury was the act of a mob. If there had been
no participation by the police or military in this cruel work and no
neglect on their part to extend protection, the case would still be one,
in my opinion, when its extent and character are considered, involving
international rights. The incidents of the affair are briefly as
follows:
On the 16th of October last Captain Schley, commanding the United States
steamship _Baltimore_, gave shore leave to 117 petty officers and
sailors of his ship. These men left the ship about 1.30 p.m. No incident
of violence occurred, none of our men were arrested, no complaint was
lodged against them, nor did any collision or outbreak occur until about
6 o'clock p.m. Captain Schley states that he was himself on shore and
about the streets of the city until 5.30 p.m.; that he met very many of
his men who were upon leave; that they were sober and were conducting
themselves with propriety, saluting Chilean and other officers as they
met them. Other officers of the ship and Captain Jenkins, of the
merchant ship _Keweenaw_, corroborate Captain Schley as to the general
sobriety and good behavior of our men. The Sisters of Charity at the
hospital to which our wounded men were taken when inquired of stated
that they were sober when received. If the situation had been otherwise,
we must believe that the Chilean police authorities would have made
arrests. About 6 p.m. the assault began, and it is remarkable that the
investigation by the judge of crimes, though so protracted, does not
enable him to give any more satisfactory account of its origin than is
found in the statement that it began between drunken sailors. Repeatedly
in the correspondence it is asserted that it was impossible to learn
the precise cause of the riot. The minister of foreign affairs, Matta,
in his telegram to Mr. Montt under date December 31, states that the
quarrel began between two sailors in a tavern and was continued in the
street, persons who were passing joining in it.
The testimony of Talbot, an apprentice, who was with Riggin, is that
the outbreak in which they were involved began by a Chilean sailor's
spitting in the face of Talbot, which was resented by a knockdown. It
appears that Riggin and Talbot were at the time unaccompanied by others
of their shipmates. These two men were immediately beset by a crowd of
Chilean citizens and sailors, through which they broke their way to a
street car, and entered it for safety. They were pursued, driven from
the car, and Riggin was so seriously beaten that he fell in the street
apparently dead. There is nothing in the report of the Chilean
investigation made to us that seriously impeaches this testimony. It
appears from Chilean sources that almost instantly, with a suddenness
that strongly implies meditation and preparation, a mob, stated by the
police authorities at one time to number 2,000 and at another 1,000,
was engaged in the assault upon our sailors, who are represented as
resisting "with stones, clubs, and bright arms." The report of the
_intendente_ of October 30 states that the fight began at 6 p.m. in
three streets, which are named; that information was received at the
_intendencia_ at 6.15, and that the police arrived on the scene at 6.30,
a full half hour after the assault began. At that time he says that a
mob of 2,000 men had collected, and that for several squares there was
the appearance of a "real battlefield."
The scene at this point is very graphically set before us by the Chilean
testimony. The American sailors, who after so long an examination have
not been found guilty of any breach of the peace so far as the Chilean
authorities are able to discover, unarmed and defenseless, are fleeing
for their lives, pursued by overwhelming numbers, and fighting only to
aid their own escape from death or to succor some mate whose life is in
greater peril. Eighteen of them are brutally stabbed and beaten, while
one Chilean seems from the report to have suffered some injury, but how
serious or with what character of weapon, or whether by a missile thrown
by our men or by some of his fellow-rioters, is unascertained.
The pretense that our men were fighting "with stones, clubs, and bright
arms" is in view of these facts incredible. It is further refuted by the
fact that our prisoners when searched were absolutely without arms, only
seven penknives being found in the possession of the men arrested, while
there were received by our men more than thirty stab wounds, every one
of which was inflicted in the back, and almost every contused wound was
in the back or back of the head; The evidence of the ship's officer of
the day is that even the jackknives of the men were taken from them
before leaving the ship.
As to the brutal nature of the treatment received by our men, the
following extract from the account given of the affair by the La Patria
newspaper, of Valparaiso, of October 17, can not be regarded as too
friendly:
The Yankees, as soon as their pursuers gave chase, went by way of the
Calle del Arsenal toward the city car station. In the presence of an
ordinary number of citizens, among whom were some sailors, the North
Americans took seats in the street car to escape from the stones which
the Chileans threw at them. It was believed for an instant that the
North Americans had saved themselves from popular fury, but such was
not the case. Scarcely had the car begun to move when a crowd gathered
around and stopped its progress. Under these circumstances and without
any cessation of the howling and throwing of stones at the North
Americans, the conductor entered the car, and, seeing the risk of the
situation to the vehicle, ordered them to get out. At the instant the
sailors left the car, in the midst of a hail of stones, the said
conductor received a stone blow on the head. One of the Yankee sailors
managed to escape in the direction of the Plaza Wheelright, but the
other was felled to the ground by a stone. Managing to raise himself
from the ground where he lay, he staggered in an opposite direction
from the station. In front of the house of Señor Mazzini he was again
wounded, falling then senseless and breathless.
No amount of evasion or subterfuge is able to cloud our clear vision
of this brutal work. It should be noticed in this connection that the
American sailors arrested, after an examination, were during the four
days following the arrest every one discharged, no charge of any breach
of the peace or other criminal conduct having been sustained against
a single one of them. The judge of crimes, Foster, in a note to the
_intendente_ under date of October 22, before the dispatch from this
Government of the following day, which aroused the authorities of Chile
to a better sense of the gravity of the affair, says:
Having presided temporarily over this court in regard to the seamen of
the United States cruiser _Baltimore_, who have been tried on account
of the deplorable conduct which took place, etc.
The noticeable point here is that our sailors had been tried before
the 22d of October, and that the trial resulted in their acquittal and
return to their vessel. It is quite remarkable and quite characteristic
of the management of this affair by the Chilean police authorities that
we should now be advised that Seaman Davidson, of the _Baltimore_, has
been included in the indictment, his offense being, so far as I have
been able to ascertain, that he attempted to defend a shipmate against
an assailant who was striking at him with a knife. The perfect
vindication of our men is furnished by this report. One only is found
to have been guilty of criminal fault, and that for an act clearly
justifiable.
As to the part taken by the police in the affair, the case made by Chile
is also far from satisfactory. The point where Riggin was killed is only
three minutes' walk from the police station, and not more than twice
that distance from the _intendencia_; and yet according to their
official report a full half hour elapsed after the assault began before
the police were upon the ground. It has been stated that all but two of
our men have said that the police did their duty. The evidence taken at
Mare Island shows that if such a statement was procured from our men it
was accomplished by requiring them to sign a writing in a language they
did not understand and by the representation that it was a mere
declaration that they had taken no part in the disturbance. Lieutenant
McCrea, who acted as interpreter, says in his evidence that when our
sailors were examined before the court the subject of the conduct of the
police was so carefully avoided that he reported the fact to Captain
Schley on his return, to the vessel.
The evidences of the existence of animosity toward our sailors in
the minds of the sailors of the Chilean navy and of the populace of
Valparaiso are so abundant and various as to leave no doubt in the mind
of anyone who will examine the papers submitted. It manifested itself
in threatening and insulting gestures toward our men as they passed
the Chilean men-of-war in their boats and in the derisive and abusive
epithets with which they greeted every appearance of an American sailor
on the evening of the riot. Captain Schley reports that boats from the
Chilean war ships several times went out of their course to cross the
bows of his boats, compelling them to back water. He complained of the
discourtesy, and it was corrected. That this feeling was shared by men
of higher rank is shown by an incident related by Surgeon Stitt, of
the _Baltimore_. After the battle of Placilla he, with other medical
officers of the war vessels in the harbor, was giving voluntary
assistance to the wounded in the hospitals. The son of a Chilean army
officer of high rank was under his care, and when the father discovered
it he flew into a passion and said he would rather have his son die than
have Americans touch him, and at once had him removed from the ward.
This feeling is not well concealed in the dispatches of the foreign
office, and had quite open expression in the disrespectful treatment of
the American legation. The Chilean boatmen in the bay refused, even for
large offers of money, to return our sailors, who crowded the Mole,
to their ship when they were endeavoring to escape from the city on
the night of the assault. The market boats of the _Baltimore_ were
threatened, and even quite recently the gig of Commander Evans, of
the _Yorktown_, was stoned while waiting for him at the Mole.
The evidence of our sailors clearly shows that the attack was expected
by the Chilean people, that threats had been made against our men, and
that in one case, somewhat early in the afternoon, the keeper of one
house into which some of our men had gone closed his establishment in
anticipation of the attack, which he advised them would be made upon
them as darkness came on.
In a report of Captain Schley to the Navy Department he says:
In the only interview that I had with Judge Foster, who is
investigating the case relative to the disturbance, before he was aware
of the entire gravity of the matter, he informed me that the assault
upon my men was the outcome of hatred for our people among the lower
classes because they thought we had sympathized with the Balmaceda
Government on account of the _Itata_ matter, whether with reason or
without he could of course not admit; but such he thought was the
explanation of the assault at that time.
Several of our men sought security from the mob by such complete or
partial changes in their dress as would conceal the fact of their being
seamen of the _Baltimore_, and found it then possible to walk the
streets without molestation. These incidents conclusively establish that
the attack was upon the uniform--the nationality--and not upon the men.
The origin of this feeling is probably found in the refusal of this
Government to give recognition to the Congressional party before it
had established itself, in the seizure of the _Itata_ for an alleged
violation of the neutrality law, in the cable incident, and in the
charge that Admiral Brown conveyed information to Valparaiso of the
landing at Quinteros. It is not my purpose to enter here any defense of
the action of this Government in these matters. It is enough for the
present purpose to say that if there was any breach of international
comity or duty on our part it should have been made the subject of
official complaint through diplomatic channels or for reprisals for
which a full responsibility was assumed. We can not consent that these
incidents and these perversions of the truth shall be used to excite
a murderous attack upon our unoffending sailors and the Government
of Chile go aquit of responsibility. In fact, the conduct of this
Government during the war in Chile pursued those lines of international
duty which we had so strongly insisted upon on the part of other nations
when this country was in the throes of a civil conflict. We continued
the established diplomatic relations with the government in power until
it was overthrown, and promptly and cordially recognized the new
government when it was established. The good offices of this Government
were offered to bring about a peaceful adjustment, and the interposition
of Mr. Egan to mitigate severities and to shelter adherents of the
Congressional party was effective and frequent. The charge against
Admiral Brown is too base to gain credence with anyone who knows his
high personal and professional character.
Recurring to the evidence of our sailors, I think it is shown that there
were several distinct assaults, and so nearly simultaneous as to show
that they did not spread from one point. A press summary of the report
of the fiscal shows that the evidence of the Chilean officials and
others was in conflict as to the place of origin, several places being
named by different witnesses as the locality where the first outbreak
occurred. This if correctly reported shows that there were several
distinct outbreaks, and so nearly at the same time as to cause this
confusion. The La Patria, in the same issue from which I have already
quoted, after describing the killing of Riggin and the fight which from
that point extended to the Mole, says:
At the same time in other streets of the port the Yankee sailors fought
fiercely with the people of the town, who believed to see in them
incarnate enemies of the Chilean navy.
The testimony of Captain Jenkins, of the American merchant ship
_Keweenaw_, which had gone to Valparaiso for repairs, and who was a
witness of some part of the assault upon the crew of the _Baltimore_, is
strongly corroborative of the testimony of our own sailors when he says
that he saw Chilean sentries drive back a seaman seeking shelter upon
a mob that was pursuing him. The officers and men of Captain Jenkins's
ship furnish the most conclusive testimony as to the indignities which
were practiced toward Americans in Valparaiso. When American sailors,
even of merchant ships, can only secure their safety by denying their
nationality, it must be time to readjust our relations with a government
that permits such demonstrations.
As to the participation of the police, the evidence of our sailors shows
that our men were struck and beaten by police officers before and after
arrest, and that one at least was dragged with a lasso about his neck by
a mounted policeman. That the death of Riggin was the result of a rifle
shot fired by a policeman or soldier on duty is shown directly by the
testimony of Johnson, in whose arms he was at the time, and by the
evidence of Charles Langen, an American sailor, not then a member of
the _Baltimore's_ crew, who stood close by and saw the transaction. The
Chilean authorities do not pretend to fix the responsibility of this
shot upon any particular person, but avow their inability to ascertain
who fired it further than that it was fired from a crowd. The character
of the wound as described by one of the surgeons of the _Baltimore_
clearly supports his opinion that it was made by a rifle ball, the
orifice of exit being as much as an inch or an inch and a quarter in
width. When shot the poor fellow was unconscious and in the arms of a
comrade, who was endeavoring to carry him to a neighboring drug store
for treatment. The story of the police that in coming up the street they
passed these men and left them behind them is inconsistent with their
own statement as to the direction of their approach and with their duty
to protect them, and is clearly disproved. In fact Riggin was not behind
but in front of the advancing force, and was not standing in the crowd,
but was unconscious and supported in the arms of Johnson when he was
shot.
The communications of the Chilean Government in relation to this
cruel and disastrous attack upon our men, as will appear from the
correspondence, have not in any degree taken the form of a manly and
satisfactory expression of regret, much less of apology. The event was
of so serious a character that if the injuries suffered by our men had
been wholly the result of an accident in a Chilean port the incident was
grave enough to have called for some public expression of sympathy and
regret from the local authorities. It is not enough to say that the
affair was lamentable, for humanity would require that expression even
if the beating and killing of our men had been justifiable. It is not
enough to say that the incident is regretted, coupled with the statement
that the affair was not of an unusual character in ports where foreign
sailors are accustomed to meet. It is not for a generous and sincere
government to seek for words of small or equivocal meaning in which
to convey to a friendly power an apology for an offense so atrocious
as this. In the case of the assault by a mob in New Orleans upon the
Spanish consulate in 1851, Mr. Webster wrote to the Spanish minister,
Mr. Calderon, that the acts complained of were "a disgraceful and
flagrant breach of duty and propriety," and that his Government "regrets
them as deeply as Minister Calderon or his Government could possibly
do;" that "these acts have caused the President great pain, and he
thinks a proper acknowledgment is due to Her Majesty's Government."
He invited the Spanish consul to return to his post, guaranteeing
protection, and offered to salute the Spanish flag if the consul should
come in a Spanish vessel. Such a treatment by the Government of Chile of
this assault would have been more creditable to the Chilean authorities,
and much less can hardly be satisfactory to a government that values its
dignity and honor.
In our note of October 23 last, which appears in the correspondence,
after receiving the report of the board of officers appointed by Captain
Schley to investigate the affair, the Chilean Government was advised of
the aspect which it then assumed and called upon for any facts in its
possession that might tend to modify the unfavorable impressions which
our report had created. It is very clear from the correspondence that
before the receipt of this note the examination was regarded by the
police authorities as practically closed. It was, however, reopened and
protracted through a period of nearly three months. We might justly have
complained of this unreasonable delay; but in view of the fact that the
Government of Chile was still provisional, and with a disposition to be
forbearing and hopeful of a friendly termination, I have awaited the
report, which has but recently been made.
On the 21st instant I caused to be communicated to the Government of
Chile by the American minister at Santiago the conclusions of this
Government after a full consideration of all the evidence and of every
suggestion affecting this matter, and to these conclusions I adhere.
They were stated as follows:
First. That the assault is not relieved of the aspect which the early
information of the event gave to it, viz, that of an attack upon the
uniform of the United States Navy having its origin and motive in a
feeling of hostility to this Government, and not in any act of the
sailors or of any of them.
Second. That the public authorities of Valparaiso flagrantly failed in
their duty to protect our men, and that some of the police and of the
Chilean soldiers and sailors were themselves guilty of unprovoked
assaults upon our sailors before and after arrest. He [the President]
thinks the preponderance of the evidence and the inherent probabilities
lead to the conclusion that Riggin was killed by the police or soldiers.
Third. That he [the President] is therefore compelled to bring the case
back to the position taken by this Government in the note of Mr. Wharton
of October 23 last * * * and to ask for a suitable apology and for some
adequate reparation for the injury done to this Government.
In the same note the attention of the Chilean Government was called to
the offensive character of a note addressed by Mr. Matta, its minister
of foreign affairs, to Mr. Montt, its minister at this capital, on the
11th ultimo. This dispatch was not officially communicated to this
Government, but as Mr. Montt was directed to translate it and to give
it to the press of the country it seemed to me that it could not pass
without official notice. It was not only undiplomatic, but grossly
insulting to our naval officers and to the executive department, as it
directly imputed untruth and insincerity to the reports of the naval
officers and to the official communications made by the executive
department to Congress. It will be observed that I have notified the
Chilean Government that unless this note is at once withdrawn and an
apology as public as the offense made I will terminate diplomatic
relations.
The request for the recall of Mr. Egan upon the ground that he was not
_persona grata_ was unaccompanied by any suggestion that could properly
be used in support of it, and I infer that the request is based upon
official acts of Mr. Egan which have received the approval of this
Government. But however that may be, I could not consent to consider
such a question until it had first been settled whether our
correspondence with Chile could be conducted upon a basis of mutual
respect.
In submitting these papers to Congress for that grave and patriotic
consideration which the questions involved demand I desire to say that
I am of the opinion that the demands made of Chile by this Government
should be adhered to and enforced. If the dignity as well as the
prestige and influence of the United States are not to be wholly
sacrificed, we must protect those who in foreign ports display the flag
or wear the colors of this Government against insult, brutality, and
death inflicted in resentment of the acts of their Government and not
for any fault of their own. It has been my desire in every way to
cultivate friendly and intimate relations with all the Governments of
this hemisphere. We do not covet their territory. We desire their peace
and prosperity. We look for no advantage in our relations with them
except the increased exchanges of commerce upon a basis of mutual
benefit. We regret every civil contest that disturbs their peace and
paralyzes their development, and are always ready to give our good
offices for the restoration of peace. It must, however, be understood
that this Government, while exercising the utmost forbearance toward
weaker powers, will extend its strong and adequate projection to its
citizens, to its officers, and to its humblest sailor when made the
victims of wantonness and cruelty in resentment not of their personal
misconduct, but of the official acts of their Government.
Upon information received that Patrick Shields, an Irishman and probably
a British subject, but at the time a fireman of the American steamer
_Keweenaw_, in the harbor of Valparaiso for repairs, had been subjected
to personal injuries in that city, largely by the police, I directed the
Attorney-General to cause the evidence of the officers and crew of that
vessel to be taken upon its arrival in San Francisco, and that testimony
is also herewith transmitted. The brutality and even savagery of the
treatment of this poor man by the Chilean police would be incredible if
the evidence of Shields was not supported by other direct testimony and
by the distressing condition of the man himself when he was finally able
to reach his vessel. The captain of the vessel says:
He came back a wreck, black from his neck to his hips from beating,
weak and stupid, and is still in a kind of paralyzed condition, and has
never been able to do duty since.
A claim for reparation has been made in behalf of this man, for while he
was not a citizen of the United States, the doctrine long held by us, as
expressed in the consular regulations, is:
The principles which are maintained by this Government in regard to
the protection, as distinguished from the relief, of seamen are well
settled. It is held that the circumstance that the vessel is American
is evidence that the seamen on board are such, and in every regularly
documented merchant vessel the crew will find their protection in the
flag that covers them.
I have as yet received no reply to our note of the 21st instant, but in
my opinion I ought not to delay longer to bring these matters to the
attention of Congress for such action as may be deemed appropriate.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 25, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, a communication
of the 23d instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting an
extract from the report of the commission appointed under the act of
January 12, 1891, entitled "An act for the relief of the Mission Indians
in the State of California," and other papers relating to the exchange
of lands with private individuals and the purchase of certain lands and
improvements for the use and benefit of the Mission Indians, with draft
of a bill to carry into effect the recommendations of said Mission
Commission.
I have approved the report of the Mission Commission, except as much as
relates to the purchase of lands from and exchange of lands with private
individuals, which is also approved subject to the condition that
Congress shall authorize the same.
The matter is presented with the recommendation for the early and
favorable action of Congress.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, January 25, 1892_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
Referring to a communication of June 11, 1890, concerning the adoption
by the Committee on Foreign Relations of a resolution respecting the
claim of William Webster against the Government of Great Britain, I
herewith transmit a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying
documents, showing the action taken under that resolution.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, January 25, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, with
accompaniments, in relation to the claim of the representatives of the
late Hon. James Crooks, a British subject, against the Government of the
United States for the seizure of the steamer _Lord Nelson_ in 1812.
The favorable action of the Fiftieth and Fifty-first Congresses upon the
bills heretofore introduced for the relief of the claimants makes it
proper that I should recommend it anew for the consideration and final
disposition of the present Congress.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 28, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith additional correspondence between this Government
and the Government of Chile, consisting of a note of M. Montt, the
Chilean minister at this capital, to Mr. Blaine, dated January 23; a
reply of Mr. Blaine thereto of date January 27, and a dispatch from
Mr. Egan, our minister at Santiago, transmitting the response of
Mr. Pereira, the Chilean minister of foreign affairs, to the note of
Mr. Blaine of January 21, which was received by me on the 26th instant.
The note of Mr. Montt to Mr. Blaine, though dated January 23, was not
delivered at the State Department until after 12 o'clock m. of the 25th,
and was not translated and its receipt notified to me until late in the
afternoon of that day.
The response of Mr. Pereira to our note of the 21st withdraws, with
acceptable expressions of regret, the offensive note of Mr. Matta of
the 11th ultimo, and also the request for the recall of Mr. Egan.
The treatment of the incident of the assault upon the sailors of the
_Baltimore_ is so conciliatory and friendly that I am of the opinion
that there is a good prospect that the differences growing out of
that serious affair can now be adjusted upon terms satisfactory to
this Government by the usual methods and without special powers from
Congress. This turn in the affair is very gratifying to me, as I am sure
it will be to the Congress and to our people. The general support of the
efforts of the Executive to enforce the just rights of the nation in
this matter has given an instructive and useful illustration of the
unity and patriotism of our people.
Should it be necessary I will again communicate with Congress upon the
subject.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 2, 1892_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In reply to a resolution of the Senate of the 27th ultimo, requesting
the President "to advise the Senate as to what action, if any, has been
taken ... to cause careful soundings to be made between San Francisco,
Cal., and Honolulu ... for the purpose of determining the practicability
of laying a telegraphic cable between those two points, or between any
point on the Pacific coast and the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands,"
I inclose herewith a communication from the Secretary of the Navy, dated
January 30, 1892.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 9, 1892_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, in answer to the resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 13th of January last, a report from the Secretary
of State and accompanying papers.[24]
BENJ. HARRISON.
[Footnote 24: Correspondence with Spain, Brazil, Salvador, and the
Dominican Republic relative to reciprocal trade relations; copies of
commercial arrangements entered into with those countries; list of
import and export duties imposed by Brazil, Salvador, and the Dominican
Republic, and by Spain with respect to Cuba and Puerto Rico.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 10, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, as required by law, a communication of the 6th
instant from the Secretary of the Interior, with the report of the
Puyallup Indian Commission and accompanying papers.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 16, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
There was passed by the last Congress "An act for the protection of the
lives of the miners in the Territories," which was approved by me on the
3d day of March, 1891. That no appropriation was made to enable me to
carry the act into effect resulted, I suppose, from the fact that it was
passed so late in the session. This law recognizes the necessity of a
responsible public inspection and supervision of the business of mining
in the interest of the miners, and is in line with the legislation of
most of the States.
The work of the miner has its unavoidable incidents of discomfort and
danger, and these should not be increased by the neglect of the owners
to provide every practicable safety appliance. Economies which involve
a sacrifice of human life are intolerable.
I transmit herewith memorials from several hundred miners working in the
coal mines in the Indian Territory, asking for the appointment of an
inspector under the act referred to. The recent frightful disaster at
Krebs, in that Territory, in which sixty-seven miners met a horrible
death, gives urgency to their appeal, and I recommend that a special
appropriation be at once made for the salaries and the necessary
expenses of the inspectors provided for in the law.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 17, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
The Indian appropriation bill which was approved March 3, 1891, contains
the following provision:
And the sum of $2,991,450 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated,
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay
the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations of Indians for all the right, title,
interest, and claim which said nations of Indians may have in and to
certain lands now occupied by the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians under
Executive order, said lands lying south of the Canadian River, and now
occupied by the said Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians; said lands have
been ceded in trust by article 3 of the treaty between the United
States and said Choctaw and Chickasaw nations of Indians which was
concluded April 28, 1866, and proclaimed on the 10th day of August of
the same year, and whereof there remains, after deducting allotments as
provided by said agreement, a residue ascertained by survey to contain
2,393,160 acres; three-fourths of this appropriation to be paid to such
person or persons as are or shall be duly authorized by the laws of
said Choctaw Nation to receive the same, at such time and in such sums
as directed and required by the legislative authority of said Choctaw
Nation, and one-fourth of this appropriation to be paid to such person
or persons as are or shall be duly authorized by the laws of said
Chickasaw Nation to receive the same, at such times and in such sums as
directed and required by the legislative authority of said Chickasaw
Nation; this appropriation to be immediately available and to become
operative upon the execution by the duly appointed delegates of said
respective nations specially authorized thereto by law of releases and
conveyances to the United States of all the right, title, interest, and
claim of said respective nations of Indians in and to said land (not
including Greer County, which is now in dispute), in manner and form
satisfactory to the President of the United States; and said releases
and conveyances, when fully executed and delivered, shall operate to
extinguish all claim of every kind and character of said Choctaw and
Chickasaw nations of Indians in and to the tract of country to which
said releases and conveyances shall apply.
If this section had been submitted to me as a separate measure,
especially during the closing hours of the session, I should have
disapproved it; but as the Congress was then in its last hours a
disapproval of the general Indian appropriation bill, of which it was a
part, would have resulted in consequences so far-reaching and disastrous
that I felt it my duty to approve the bill. But as a duty was devolved
upon me by the section quoted, viz, the acceptance and approval of the
conveyances provided for, I have felt bound to look into the whole
matter, and in view of the facts which I shall presently mention to
postpone any Executive action until these facts could be submitted to
Congress. Very soon after the passage of the law it came to my knowledge
that the Choctaw Legislature had entered into an agreement with three
citizens of that tribe to pay to them as compensation for procuring this
legislation 25 per cent of any appropriation that might be made by
Congress. The amount to be secured by these three agents under this
agreement out of the three-fourths interest in the appropriation of the
Choctaw Nation is $560,896. I have information that a contract was made
by the Chickasaws to pay about 10 per cent of their one-fourth interest
to the agents and attorneys who represented them.
Within a month after the passage of the law R.J. Ward, one of the
agents, who was to divide with his associates the enormous sum to be
paid by the Choctaws, presented to me an affidavit dated April 4, 1891,
which is herewith submitted. It appears from his statement that the
action of the Choctaw Council in this matter was corruptly influenced
by the execution of certain notes signed by Ward for himself and his
associates in sums varying from $2,500 to $15,000. His associates deny
any knowledge of this, but the giving and existence of these notes is
not refuted. The statement of the two associates of Ward denying any
knowledge or participation in this fraud is also submitted, together
with other papers relating to the matter. Whatever may be the fact as to
the use or nonuse of corrupt methods to secure this legislation from the
Choctaw Council, I do not think the Congress of the United States should
so legislate upon this matter as to give effect to such a contract,
which I am sure must have been unnoticed when the measure was pending.
If the relations of these Indians to the United States are those of a
ward, Congress should protect them from such extortionate exactions.
We can not assume that the expenses and services of a committee of three
persons to represent this claim before Congress should justly assume
such proportions. The making of such a contract seems to convey
implications which I am sure are wholly unjust.
After the passage of the appropriation bill legislation was had by the
Choctaw Nation looking to the completion of the contract made with their
delegates as to the payment of this money; but subsequently, when it
was supposed that this extraordinary arrangement might require me to
bring the matter to the attention of Congress, an act was passed by
the Choctaw General Council, approved October 19, 1891, declaring all
contracts made by the Choctaw delegates with any attorneys in connection
with this appropriation void and of no effect. A copy of this law will
be found with the papers submitted. There has also been submitted to me
an unofficial copy of the opinion of the attorney-general of the Choctaw
Nation holding that this last legislation is unconstitutional and void.
I am of the opinion that if this appropriation is to stand provision
should be made for protecting these tribes against extortionate claims
for compensation in procuring action by Congress. Copies of the several
laws passed by the Choctaw Nation with reference to this matter will
be found in the accompanying papers. It will be noticed that the
distribution proposed is limited to Choctaws by blood, excluding the
freedmen and the white men who have been given full citizenship from any
participation. A protest against this method of distribution has been
filed by a white citizen of the tribe, and also a representation by Hon.
Thomas C. Fletcher, their attorney, on behalf of the freedmen. In view
of the fact that the stipulations of the treaty of 1866 in behalf of
the freedmen of these tribes have not, especially in the case of the
Chickasaws, been complied with, it would seem that the United States
should in a distribution of this money have made suitable provision
in their behalf. The Chickasaws have steadfastly refused to admit the
freedmen to citizenship, as they stipulated to do in the treaty referred
to, and their condition in that tribe and in a lesser degree in the
other strongly calls for the protective intervention of Congress.
After a somewhat careful examination of the question I do not believe
that the lands for which this money is to be paid were, to quote the
language of section 15 of the Indian appropriation bill, already set
out, "ceded in trust by article 3 of the treaty between the United
States and said Choctaw and Chickasaw nations of Indians which was
concluded April 28, 1866," etc. It is agreed that that treaty contained
no express limitation upon the uses to which the United States might put
the territory known as the leased district. The lands were ceded by
terms sufficiently comprehensive to have passed the full title of the
Indians. The limitation upon the use to which the Government might put
them is sought to be found in a provision of the treaty by which the
United States undertook to exclude white settlers and in the expressions
found in the treaties made at the same time with the Creeks and other
tribes of the purpose of the United States to use the lands ceded by
those tribes for the settlement of friendly Indians.
The stipulation as to the exclusion of white settlers might well have
reference solely to the national lands retained by the Choctaw and
Chickasaw tribes, and the reason for the nonincorporation in the treaty
with them of a statement of the purpose of the Government in connection
with the use of the lands is well accounted for by the fact that as
to these lands the Government had already, under the treaty of 1855,
secured the right to use them perpetually for the settlement of friendly
Indians. This was not true as to the lands of the other tribes referred
to. The United States paid to the Choctaws and Chickasaws $300,000, and
the failure to insert the words that are called words of limitation
in this treaty points, I think, clearly to the conclusion that the
commissioners on the part of the Government and the Indians themselves
must have understood that this Government was acquiring something
more than a mere right to settle friendly Indians, which it already
possessed, and something more than the mere release of the right which
the Choctaws and Chickasaws had under the treaty of 1855 to select
locations on these lands if they chose.
Undoubtedly it was the policy of this Government for the time to
hold these and the adjacent lands as Indian country, and many of the
expressions in the proclamations of my predecessors and in the reports
of the Indian Bureau and of the Secretary of the Interior mean this and
nothing more. This is quite different from a conditional title, which
limits the grant to a particular use and works a reinvestment of full
title in the Indian grantors when that use ceases. But those who hold
most strictly that a use for Indian purposes, where it is expressed,
is a limitation of title seem to agree that the United States might
pass a fee absolute to other Indian tribes in the lands ceded for their
occupancy. Certainly it was not intended that in settling friendly
Indians upon these lands the Government was to be restrained in its
policy of allotment and individual ownership. If for an adequate
consideration, by treaty, the United States placed upon these lands
other Indian tribes, it was competent to give them patents in fee for
a certain and agreed reservation. This being so, when the policy of
allotment is put into force the compensation for the unused lands should
certainly go to the occupying tribe, which in the case supposed had paid
a full consideration for the whole reservation.
It will hardly be contended that in such case this Government should
pay twice for the lands. In the appropriation under discussion this
principle is in part recognized, for no claim is made by the Choctaws
and Chickasaws for the lands allotted to the Cheyennes and Arapahoes.
The claim is for unallotted or surplus lands. The case of the Cheyennes
and Arapahoes is this: In consideration of other lands the Government
gave them a treaty reservation in the Cherokee Outlet, but never
perfected it by paying the Cherokees the stipulated price and placing
these Indians upon it. The Cheyennes and Arapahoes declined to go upon
the strip and located themselves farther south, where they now are. The
Government subsequently recognized their right to remain there, and set
apart the lands now being allotted to members of that tribe and the
lands for which payment is now claimed by the Choctaws and Chickasaws as
the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Reservation. I think the United States must be
held to have assented to the substitution of these lands for the treaty
lands in the Cherokee Strip, and that being true, when the reservation
is broken up, as now, by allotments, it would seem that the Cheyennes
and Arapahoes were entitled to be compensated for these surplus lands.
In fact, a commission which has been dealing with the tribes in the
Indian Territory has concluded an arrangement with them by which the
Government pays $1,500,000 for these surplus lands and for the release
of any claim to the Cherokee Strip, so that in fact in this agreement
with the Cheyennes and Arapahoes the Government has paid for the lands
for which payment is now claimed by the Choctaws and Chickasaws.
It should not be forgotten also that the allotment to the Cheyennes and
Arapahoes is still incomplete. The method of calculation which resulted
in stating the claim of the Choctaws and Chickasaws at $2,991,450 is
explained by a letter of Mr. J.S. Standley, one of the Choctaw
delegates, dated April 6, 1891. The agent for the Cheyennes and
Arapahoes wrote Mr. Standley that there were 600 Indians residing upon
the lands south of the Canadian River, and who it was supposed would
take allotments there, and upon this statement the legislation was
based. Now it must be borne in mind that the Cheyennes and Arapahoes
have the right to locate anywhere within their reservation, and that
instead of 600 double that number might have taken their allotments
south of the Canadian River upon these lands. This is not probable, but
a later report indicates that the number will certainly be in excess of
600. If the sum to be paid to the Choctaws and Chickasaws depended
upon a knowledge of the number of acres of unallotted land south of
the Canadian River, it would seem to have been reasonable that the
appropriation should have been delayed until the exact number of acres
taken for allotment had been officially ascertained. This has not yet
been done.
It is right also, I think, that Congress in dealing with this matter
should have the whole question before it, for the declaration of Indian
title contained in this item of appropriation extends to a very large
body of land and will involve very large future appropriations. The
Choctaw and Chickasaw leased district, embracing the lands in the Indian
Territory between the ninety-eighth and one hundredth degrees of west
longitude and extending north and south from the main Canadian River to
the Red River, including Greer County, contains, according to the public
surveys, 7,713,239 acres, or, excluding Greer County, 6,201,663 acres.
This leased district is occupied as follows:
Greer County, by white citizens of Texas, 1,511,576 acres. The United
States is now prosecuting a case in the courts to obtain a judicial
declaration that this county is part of the Indian country. If a
decision should be rendered in its favor, the claim of the Choctaws
and Chickasaws to be paid for these lands at the rate named in this
appropriation would at once be presented.
The Wichita Reservation is also upon the leased lands and is occupied
by the Wichitas, Caddoes, Delawares, and remnants of other tribes by
Department orders, made to depend upon the treaty with the Delawares in
1866 and some other unratified agreements with tribes or fragments of
tribes in 1872. This reservation contains 743,610 acres.
The Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Reservation is occupied by those Indians
under a treaty proclaimed August 25, 1868, which provides that said
district of country "shall be, and the same is hereby, set apart for the
absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the tribes herein named,
and for such friendly tribes or individual Indians as from time to time
they may be willing (with the consent of the United States) to admit
among them." This reservation contains 2,968,893 acres.
The Cheyennes and Arapahoes, whose surplus lands are to be paid for by
this appropriation, have occupied the country between the Washita and
Canadian rivers, extending west to the one hundredth degree of
longitude. This reservation contains 2,489,160 acres.
I have stated these facts in order that it may be seen what further
appropriations are involved in a settlement for all these lands upon the
basis which Congress has adopted. It does not seem to me to be a wise
policy to deal with this question piecemeal. It would have been better,
if a remnant of title remains in the Choctaws and Chickasaws to the
lands in the leased district, to have settled the whole matter at once.
Under the treaty of 1855 the Choctaws and Chickasaws quitclaimed any
supposed interest of theirs in the lands west of the one hundredth
degree. The boundary between the Louisiana purchase and the Spanish
possessions by our treaty of 1819 with Spain was as to these lands fixed
upon the one hundredth degree of west longitude.
Our treaty with the Choctaws and Chickasaws made in 1820 extended their
grant to the limit of our possessions. It followed, of course, that
these lands were included within the boundaries of the State of Texas
when that State was admitted to the Union, and the release of the
Choctaws and Chickasaws, whatever it was worth, operated for the benefit
of the State of Texas and not of the United States. The lands became
public lands of that State. For the release of this claim and for the
lease of the lands west of the ninety-eighth degree the Government of
the United States paid the sum of $800,000. In the calculations which
have been made to arrive at the basis of the appropriation under
discussion no part of this sum is treated as having been paid for the
lease. I do not think that is just to the United States. It seems
probable that a very considerable part of this consideration must have
related to the leased lands, because these were the lands in which the
Indian title was recognized, and the treaty gave to the United States a
permanent right of occupation by friendly Indians. The sum of $300,000,
paid under the treaty of 1866, is deducted, as I understand, in arriving
at the sum appropriated. It seems to me that a considerable proportion
of the sum of $800,000 previously paid should have been deducted in the
same manner.
I have felt it to be my duty to bring these matters to the attention of
Congress for such action as may be thought advisable.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 24, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, for the information of Congress, the annual report
of the World's Columbian Commission; a supplementary report of the
same commission, submitted February 16, 1892; the report of the board
appointed by me under section 16 of the act of April 25, 1890, to have
charge of the exhibit to be made by the Executive Departments, the
Smithsonian Institution, the Fish Commission, and the National Museum;
and the report of the board of lady managers, provided for by section
6 of the act referred to.
The information furnished by these reports as to the progress of the
work is not only satisfactory, but highly gratifying. The plan and scope
adopted and the site and buildings selected and now being erected are
fully commensurate with the national and international character of the
enterprise contemplated by the legislation of Congress. The Illinois
corporation has fully complied with the condition of the law that
$10,000,000 should be provided, and the Government commission reports
that "the grounds and buildings will be the most extensive, adequate,
and ornate ever devoted to such purposes." It seems, however, that from
five to eight millions of dollars more will, in the opinion of the
local board and the national commission, be necessary to prepare the
exposition for a complete and successful inauguration. It will be
noticed from the reports that it was first proposed by the local
commission to ask of Congress a loan of $5,000,000, to be repaid from
receipts, and that the national commission approved this suggestion.
Subsequently the Illinois exposition corporation reconsidered its action
and determined to ask a subscription of $5,000,000.
The supplementary report of the national commission seems to approve
this amended proposition. I have not myself that detailed information as
to the financial necessities of the enterprise which would enable me to
form an independent judgment of the additional amount necessary, and am
not, therefore, prepared to make any specific recommendation to Congress
upon the subject. The committees of Congress having this matter in
charge will undoubtedly obtain full and accurate information before
final action. The exposition, notwithstanding the limitations which
the act contains, is an enterprise to which the United States is so
far committed that Congress ought not, I think, to withhold just and
reasonable further support if the local corporation consents to proper
conditions.
Liberality on the part of the United States is due to the foreign
nations that have responded in a friendly way to the invitation of this
Government to participate in the exposition, and will, I am sure, meet
the approval of our people. The exposition will be one of the most
illustrious incidents in our civic history.
I transmit also certain resolutions adopted by representatives of the
National Guard of the various States appointed by the governors to
attend a convention which was held in Chicago on the 27th of October,
1891, with a view to consider the subject of holding a military
encampment at Chicago during the exposition.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 25, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith copy of a memorial of the Wichitas, Caddoes, and
affiliated tribes of Indians in Oklahoma Territory in the matter of
their claim to the lands they occupy, for consideration in connection
with the agreement concluded by and between the Cherokee Commission and
said Indians, and also with my communication of the 17th instant,[25]
relative to the act to pay the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians for certain
lands now occupied by the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians.
BENJ. HARRISON.
[Footnote 25: See pp. 229-234.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, March 8, 1892_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith transmit, with a view to its ratification, a convention
signed at Washington the 29th of February, 1892, between the Governments
of the United States and Her Britannic Majesty, submitting to
arbitration the questions which have arisen between those Governments
concerning the jurisdictional rights of the United States in the waters
of the Bering Sea, and concerning also the preservation of the fur seal
in and habitually resorting to the said sea and the rights of the
citizens and subjects of either country as regards the taking of fur
seal in or habitually resorting to the said waters.
The correspondence not heretofore submitted to Congress in relation to
the Bering Sea matter is in course of preparation and will be
transmitted without delay.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _March 9, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, a communication
of the 5th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting the
agreement concluded by and between the commissioners for the United
States and the Cherokee Nation of Indians of the Indian Territory, for
the cession of certain lands and for other purposes.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, March 18, 1892_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith transmit, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 3d
ultimo, a report from the Acting Secretary of State of the 17th instant,
transmitting information relative to and his opinion as to the purchase
of the unpublished correspondence and manuscripts of President James
Monroe.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _March 24, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith a communication from the Board of Commissioners of
the District of Columbia, accompanied by a letter from the chairman of
the executive committee organized by the citizens of Washington for the
reception and entertainment of the Twenty-sixth Annual Encampment of the
Grand Army of the Republic, which is to be held in Washington during
September next. An appeal is made for an appropriation by Congress of
$100,000, one-half to be paid out of the District revenues, to aid in
defraying the expenses attending this reception.
The event is one of very high and, as I believe, of national interest,
and the attendance of the surviving Union soldiers will, I do not doubt,
be larger than at any annual encampment that has ever been held.
The public authorities of the cities or States, or both, in which
the encampments have been held have, I believe, usually appropriated
liberally to make the occasions worthy and the entertainment hospitable.
The parade of the survivors of our great armies upon Pennsylvania avenue
will bring vividly back to us those joyful and momentous days when the
great victorious armies of the East and of the West marched through the
streets of Washington in high parade and were received by our citizens
with joyful acclaim. It seems to me that it will be highly appropriate
for Congress suitably to aid in making this demonstration impressive and
in extending to those soldiers whose lives a beneficent Providence has
prolonged an opportunity to see in the security and peace, development
and prosperity, which now so happily pervade the national capital the
fruits of their sacrifice and valor.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 1, 1892_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In compliance with a resolution of the 30th ultimo, the House of
Representatives concurring, I return herewith the bill (S. 1057)
entitled "An act to punish the unlawful appropriation of the use of
the property of another in the District of Columbia."
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, April 1, 1892_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith transmit, in answer to the resolutions of the Senate of the
16th and 21st ultimo, a report from the Acting Secretary of State, with
accompanying statistics, showing the duties imposed by the Governments
of Venezuela and Colombia upon products of the United States imported
into these countries.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, April 4, 1892_.
_To the Senate_:
I transmit, in reply to the resolution of the Senate passed in executive
session on March 14, 1892, a report from the Secretary of State, with
accompanying documents, in relation to the correspondence relating to
the nonacceptance of Hon. Henry W. Blair as minister of the United
States to the Government of China.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 12, 1892_.
_To the Senate_:
I transmit, in reply to the resolution of the Senate under date
of December 15, 1891, a report from the Secretary of State, with
accompanying documents, in relation to the correspondence had with
regard to the impressment into its service and punishment by the
Government of Italy of Nicolino Mileo, a naturalized citizen of the
United States.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 14, 1892_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith transmit, in response to the resolution passed in the Senate
on the 10th of March, 1892, a report of the Secretary of State and the
accompanying correspondence, had in relation to the claim of the
Venezuela Steam Transportation Company for the said company's relief.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 26, 1892_.
_To the Senate_:
I have received the resolution of the Senate of April 23, requesting
that, if not incompatible with the public interest, I inform the Senate
what steps have been taken toward the securing of an international
conference to consider the question of the free coinage of silver at
the mints of the nations participating in such conference, or as to the
enlarged use of silver in the currency system of said countries, and
that I transmit to the Senate any correspondence between the United
States and other governments upon the subject, and in response thereto
beg respectfully to inform the Senate that in my opinion it would not
be compatible with the public interest to lay before the Senate at this
time the information requested, but that at the earliest moment after
definite information can properly be given all the facts and any
correspondence that may take place will be submitted to Congress.
It may not be inappropriate, however, to say here that, believing that
the full use of silver as a coined metal upon an agreed ratio by the
great commercial nations of the world would very highly promote the
prosperity of all their people, I have not and will not let any
favorable opportunity pass for the promotion of that most desirable
result, or, if free international silver coinage is not presently
attainable, then to secure the largest practicable use of that metal.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 11, 1892_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives, the
Senate concurring, I return herewith the bill (H.R. 3927) entitled
"An act to amend 'An act to provide for the performance of the duties
of the office of President in case of the removal, death, resignation,
or inability both of the President and Vice-President,' approved
January 19, 1886."
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 11, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith the seventh annual report of the Commissioner of
Labor, which report relates to the cost of producing textiles and glass
in the United States and in Europe. It also comprehends the wages and
the cost of living of persons employed in the textile and glass
industries.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 25, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith a communication of the Secretary of War, dated May
24, from which and from the accompanying papers it appears that the late
General George W. Cullum, of the United States Army, has by will devised
$250,000 to the Government of the United States for the erection of a
memorial hall upon the grounds of the Military Academy at West Point, to
be used as a "receptacle of statues, busts, mural tablets, and portraits
of distinguished deceased officers and graduates of the Military
Academy, of paintings of battle scenes, trophies of war, and such other
objects as may tend to give elevation to the military profession."
This ample and patriotic gift is hampered by no conditions and involves
no appropriation beyond the sum so generously donated.
The executors in order to facilitate action have prepared, and the same
is herewith submitted, the outline of a bill to carry into effect the
provisions of General Cullum's will.
There can be no occasion to urge upon Congress the immediate enactment
of a suitable law to carry into effect the patriotic purpose expressed
in the will.
I suggest that in the bill itself, or by a separate joint resolution,
suitable expression be given of the public appreciation of this crowning
service to the military profession and to his country rendered by
General Cullum.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 25, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
In accordance with the provisions of section 4119 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States, I lay before you for revision a copy of
the regulations for the consular courts of the United States in Korea,
as decreed by the minister of this Government at Seoul March 31, 1892. I
also transmit an accompanying report by the Acting Secretary of State.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 20, 1892_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
The following resolution was passed by the Senate on the 24th day of
February last:
_Resolved_, That the President be requested, if in his opinion not
incompatible with the public interests, to inform the Senate of the
proceedings recently had with the representatives of the Dominion of
Canada and of the British Government as to arrangements for reciprocal
trade between Canada and the United States.
In response thereto I now submit the following information:
On the 15th day of April last the Secretary of State submitted to me a
report, which is herewith transmitted. Shortly after the report came
into my possession I was advised by the Secretary that the British
minister at this capital had informed him that the Canadian government
desired a further conference on the subject of the discriminating canal
tolls of which this country had complained. This information was
accompanied by the suggestion that a response to the resolution of the
Senate might properly be delayed until this further conference was held.
On the 3d instant the British minister, in connection with Hon.
MacKenzie Bowell and Hon. George E. Foster, members of the Canadian
ministry, were received by the Secretary of State and a further
conference took place. In both of the conferences referred to Hon. John
W. Foster, at the request of the Secretary of State, appeared with him
on behalf of this Government; and the report of the latter conference
was submitted to me on the 6th instant by Mr. Foster, and is herewith
transmitted. The result of the conference as to the practicability of
arranging a reciprocity treaty with the Dominion of Canada is clearly
stated in the letter of Mr. Blaine, and was anticipated, I think, by him
and by every other thoughtful American who had considered the subject.
A reciprocity treaty limited to the exchange of natural products would
have been such only in form. The benefits of such a treaty would have
inured almost wholly to Canada. Previous experiments on this line had
been unsatisfactory to this Government. A treaty that should be
reciprocal in fact and of mutual advantages must necessarily have
embraced an important list of manufactured articles and have secured to
the United States a free or favored introduction of these articles into
Canada as against the world; but it was not believed that the Canadian
ministry was ready to propose or assent to such an arrangement. The
conclusion of the Canadian commissioners is stated in the report of
Mr. Blaine as follows:
In the second place, it seemed to be impossible for the Canadian
government, in view of its present political relations and obligations,
to extend to American goods a preferential treatment over those of
other countries. As Canada was a part of the British Empire, they did
not consider it competent for the Dominion government to enter into
any commercial arrangement with the United States from the benefits of
which Great Britain and its colonies should be excluded.
It is not for this Government to argue against this announcement of
Canadian official opinion. It must be accepted, however, I think, as
the statement of a condition which places an insuperable barrier in
the way of the attainment of that large and beneficial intercourse and
reciprocal trade which might otherwise be developed between the United
States and the Dominion.
It will be noticed that Mr. Blaine reports as one of the results of the
conference "an informal engagement to repeal and abandon the drawback
of 18 cents a ton given to wheat (grain) that is carried through to
Montreal and shipped therefrom to Europe. By the American railways
running from Ogdensburg and Oswego and other American ports the shippers
paid the full 20 cents a ton, while in effect those by the way of
Montreal pay only 2 cents. It was understood that the Canadian
commissioners, who were all three members of the cabinet, would see to
the withdrawal of this discrimination."
From the report of the recent conference by Mr. Foster it will be
seen that the Canadian commissioners declare that this statement does
not conform to their understanding, and that the only assurance they
had intended to give was that the complaint of the Government of the
United States should be taken into consideration by the Canadian
ministry on their return to Ottawa. Mr. Foster, who was present at the
first conference, confirms the statements of Mr. Blaine. While this
misunderstanding is unfortunate, the more serious phase of the situation
is that instead of rescinding the discriminating canal tolls of which
this Government complains the Canadian ministry, after the return of
the commissioners from their visit to Washington, on April 4, reissued,
without any communication with this Government, the order continuing
the discrimination, by which a rebate of 18 cents a ton is allowed upon
grain going to Montreal, but not to American ports, and refusing this
rebate even to grain going to Montreal if transshipped at an American
port.
The report of Mr. Partridge, the Solicitor of the Department of State,
which accompanies the letter of the Secretary of State, states these
discriminations very clearly. That these orders as to canal tolls and
rebates are in direct violation of Article XXVII of the treaty of
1871 seems to be clear. It is wholly evasive to say that there is no
discrimination between Canadian and American vessels; that the rebate
is allowed to both without favor upon grain carried through to Montreal
or transshipped at a Canadian port to Montreal. The treaty runs:
To secure to the citizens of the United States the use of the Welland,
St. Lawrence, and other canals in the Dominion on terms of equality
with the inhabitants of the Dominion.
It was intended to give to consumers in the United States, to our people
engaged in railroad transportation, and to those exporting from our
ports equal terms in passing their merchandise through these canals.
This absolute equality of treatment was the consideration for
concessions on the part of this Government made in the same article of
the treaty, and which have been faithfully kept.
It is a matter of regret that the Canadian government has not responded
promptly to our request for the removal of these discriminating tolls.
The papers submitted show how serious the loss inflicted is upon our
lake vessels and upon some of our lake ports. In view of the fact that
the Canadian commissioners still contest with us the claim that these
tolls are discriminating and insist that they constitute no violation
of the letter or spirit of Article XXVII of the treaty, it would seem
appropriate that Congress, if the view held by the Executive is
approved, should with deliberation and yet with promptness take such
steps as may be necessary to secure the just rights of our citizens.
In view of the delays which have already taken place in transmitting
this correspondence to Congress, I have not felt justified in awaiting
the further communication from the government of Canada which was
suggested in the recent conference.
Should any proposition relating to this matter be received it will
be immediately submitted for the consideration of the Senate, and if
forwarded within the time suggested will undoubtedly anticipate any
final action by Congress.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 20, 1802_.
_To the Senate_:
In response to the resolution of the Senate dated March 14, 1892,
requesting that certain specified correspondence in regard to the claim
of Antonio Maximo Mora against the Government of Spain be communicated
to it; if not incompatible with the public interests, I transmit
herewith the report of the Acting Secretary of State on the matter.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 27, 1892_.
_To the Senate_:
In response to the resolution of the Senate dated April 6, 1892,
directing the Secretary of State to send to the Senate, if not
incompatible with the public interests, copies of all commercial
agreements made with other countries, and also to report what steps have
been taken to negotiate a reciprocal commercial treaty with Mexico,
I submit herewith the reply of the Acting Secretary of State to that
resolution.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 1, 1892_.
_To the Senate_:
For the information of the Senate and in further response to the
resolution of the Senate of February 24 last, I transmit herewith
a communication of the 24th ultimo from Mr. Herbert, the acting
representative of the British Government at this capital, addressed to
Mr. Wharton, Acting Secretary of State, upon the subject of Canadian
canal tolls; also a memorandum prepared and submitted to me by Mr. Adee,
Second Assistant Secretary of State, reviewing the communication of Mr.
Herbert, and a letter of the 28th ultimo from Mr. John W. Foster, who,
as I have previously stated, with Mr. Blaine represented this Government
in the conferences with the Canadian commissioners.
The position taken by this Government, as expressed in my previous
communication to the Senate, that the canal tolls and regulations of
which complaint has been made are in violation of our treaty with Great
Britain, is not shaken, but rather confirmed.
There can be no doubt that a serious discrimination against our
citizens and our commerce exists, and quite as little doubt that this
discrimination is not the incident but the purpose of the Canadian
regulation.
It has not seemed to me that this was a case in which we could yield to
the suggestion of further concessions on the part of the United States
with a view to securing treaty rights for which a consideration has
already been given.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 21, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I herewith transmit, for the information of Congress, a communication
from the Secretary of State, forwarding certain bulletins of the
American Republics.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, July 23, 1892_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I transmit, in reply to the resolution of the Senate passed in
executive session on the 21st instant and addressed to the Secretary of
State, a report of that officer, with accompanying documents, in further
relation to the nonacceptance of the Hon. Henry W. Blair as minister of
the United States to the Government of China, which question was the
occasion of my recent message to the Senate of the 4th of April
last.[26]
BENJ. HARRISON.
[Footnote 26: See p. 238.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 25, 1892_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith transmit, in reply to the resolution of the Senate of June 6,
1892, a report from the Secretary of State, with its accompanying
papers, in relation to guano deposits on Areas Cays or Islands.
BENJ. HARRISON.
WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 27, 1892_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, with its accompaniments, a report from the
Secretary of the Navy of the Results of the survey made pursuant to
the act of March 2, 1891, "to enable the President to cause careful
soundings to be made between San Francisco, Cal., and Honolulu, in the
Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands, for the purpose of determining the
practicability of the laying of a telegraphic cable between those
points."
BENJ. HARRISON.
VETO MESSAGES.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 19, 1892_.
_To the Senate_:
I return herewith without my approval the bill (S. 2729) entitled
"An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to establish circuit courts of
appeals, and to define and regulate in certain cases the jurisdiction
of the courts of the United States, and for other purposes.'"
The original act to which this amendment is proposed, constituting an
intermediate court of appeals, had for its object the relief of the
Supreme Court by limiting the cases which might be brought up for
hearing in that court. The first section of the bill under consideration
allows appeals in criminal cases where the sentence imposes no
imprisonment and the fine is as much as $1,000. The effect of this
provision will be to bring to the Supreme Court many cases that in my
opinion should be finally determined in the intermediate appellate
court, and so in part to defeat the general purpose of Congress in
constituting the intermediate court. But this objection would not alone
have sufficient weight in my mind to induce me to return the bill.