A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Volume 9, part 1: Benjamin Harrison

by Benjamin Harrison

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.

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.

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.

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.