The pretence 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 jack-knives of the men were taken from them before leaving the ship....
No amount of evasion or subterfuge is able to cloud our clear vision of this brutal work....
It is quite remarkable and quite characteristic of the management of this affair by the Chilian police authorities that we should now be advised that Seaman Davidson, of the Baltimore, has been included in the indictment, his offence 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....
The evidence of our sailors clearly shows that the attack was expected by the Chilian 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....
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 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 Chilian sentries drive back a seaman, seeking shelter, upon a mob that was pursuing him. The officers and men of Captain Jenkins' ship furnish the most conclusive testimony as to the indignities which were practised 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 Chilian 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 communications of the Chilian 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 Chilian 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 offence 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 Chili of this assault would have been more creditable to the Chilian authorities; and much less can hardly be satisfactory to a government that values its dignity and honor.
· · · · ·