"This meeting having first been proposed in a circular of Mr. Seward, of the 20th of December 1867 (1866), was accepted conditionally by Spain and Chile; but the conditions proposed by each not having been accepted by the other, the conference did not take place.

"Mr. Seward, accordingly, in another circular of the 27th of March 1868, again suggested a congress of plenipotentiaries at Washington for the purpose of bringing about a definitive peace.

"This suggestion not having been complied with, Mr. Fish, in another circular of the 22d of October 1869, proposed a conference here on the 15th of January last, with a view to a formal armistice, if not a definitive peace.

"The conference, however, did not take place at the time suggested, the representatives of some of the parties not having then reached the United States.

"The conference being now in session, the points for its consideration seem to be

"1st. Is an armistice or truce, with its terms reduced to writing, desirable for the parties? Shall that armistice or truce be indefinite in point of time or shall its duration be limited?

Supposing that the parties should or should not determine upon the expediency of an armistice, would they then be prepared to enter upon the discussion of the terms of a permanent peace?

"The President of the United States, in appointing me to preside at this conference, did not intend to confer upon me any power to vote therein or to assume any obligation on the part of this government. His purpose has been, as the common friend of the parties, to bring their representatives together, in order that differences may be reconciled.

"May your deliberations result in obtaining an ample guaranty against future hostilities.

"Mutual stipulations to that effect will be approved by all the common friends of the belligerents, and especially by those whose intercourse with either of them might be interrupted or lessened by that sudden renewal of active war which, technically, at least, might not be unlawful so long as the existing state of affairs shall continue. "DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

"Washington, October 29, 1870."

Having read the address, Mr. Fish inquired whether each of the gentlemen present was duly authorized to take part in the conference. This inquiry was satisfactorily answered by the production and mutual examination of their full powers.

Owing to the absence of the representative of Bolivia, without whom the representatives of the other allies were not by their instructions authorized to proceed, the conference was adjourned till it should again be convoked by the Secretary of State.

A protocol of the first meeting, containing substantially what has been above stated, was signed by all the members of the conference present. April 11, 1871, the conference reconvened, the plenipotentiary of Peru appearing also as plenipotentiary ad hoc of Bolivia; but, as he had not received authority from his own government so to appear, he announced that he would act in the name of Bolivia ad referendum. This declaration

having been accepted, the powers conferred by Bolivia were exhibited, and were found to be in due form. The conference then proceeded to discuss the articles of an armistice, which were agreed upon and signed.

By these articles "the suspension of hostilities existing de facto" be tween Spain and the allied republics was "converted into a general armistice or truce," which was to "continue indefinitely" and could not be broken by any of the belligerents "save in three years after having expressly and explicitly notified the other," through the Government of the United States, "of its intention to renew hostilities;" and it was provided that during the continuance of the armistice all restrictions on neutral commerce which were incident to a state of war should cease. The ratifications of the agreement were to be exchanged at the Department of State within four months, though a delay might be granted to a government unable to make the exchange within that term. But the proceedings for the exchange of ratifications were not to interfere with "the continuation of the conferences designed for the negotiation of a peace.” It was declared that the Secretary of State signed the articles "in the character of mediator."

October 10, 1871, Messrs. Godoy and Freyre, respectively representing Chile and Bolivia, made a written request for a three months' extension of the time for the exchange of the ratifications for those governments, and Mr. Freyre asked for a fifteen months' extension for Peru. Ecuador's ratifications bear date June 17, 1871.

December 20, 1871, Messrs. Freyre, Godoy, Flores, and Lopez Roberts met with Mr. Fish, at the latter's invitation, in the Department of State, with a view to negotiate for a definitive peace. Mr. Godoy requested the adjournment of the conference till some day subsequent to the arrival of the next mail from South America, on account of his having recently received information from his government of the sending of its ratification of the armistice, together with certain instructions. All present having agreed to such an adjournment, the Secretary of State proposed that the next meeting should take place January 10, 1872, and this proposal was accepted.

The conference reassembled January 24, 1872, but adjourned on the same day, having failed to conclude a peace, owing to the question as to the bombardment of Valparaiso. The following protocol was drawn up and signed:

"Protocol of a conference held at the Department of State at Washington, on the 24th of January, 1872, between the Secretary of State, the Spanish minister, and the ministers of the allied republics of South America. "Present: Mr. Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State of the United States; Don Joaquin Godoy, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Chili; Don Manuel Freyre, plenipotentiary of Bolivia; Don Antonio Flores, plenipotentiary of Ecuador; Don Manuel Freyre, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Peru; Don Mauricio Lopez Roberts, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Spain.

The conference having been opened by the Secretary of State, and before the business for which the conference had been convoked had come

1 For. Rel. 1871, 775.

under consideration, the minister of Chile asked permission to request that it should be stated in the protocol of the conference that the indefinite armistice or truce concluded on the 11th of April 1871, between the plenipotentiaries of the allied republics of the Pacific and the plenipotentiary of Spain, in no wise implied the reestablishment of commercial relations between Spain and the aforesaid republics. All the undersigned concurring, it was agreed that, in testimony thereof, this incident should be mentioned in the present protocol.

"The Secretary of State then expressed the hope of his Government that, now that the armistice had been signed by all the powers, and the ratifications thereof been duly exchanged between Spain and three of the republics, that the representatives of the several powers would find themselves prepared to proceed to the reduction into form and the signing of a definitive treaty of permanent peace.

"The plenipotentiaries then proceeded, at the suggestion of the Secretary of State, to discuss the means of concluding a definitive peace between Spain and the allied republics, which was the special object of this meeting.

"The minister of Spain said:

A

"My government is animated by an ardent desire to put an end to the interruption of its relations with the allied republics of the Pacific. definitively concluded peace, such as completely to obliterate our differences, and tending not only to draw closer the bonds of friendship and good understanding, but to consolidate them by means of treaties promoting our intellectual and commercial interests, is the great desire of my government, for which reason it accepted, with the greatest pleasure and with the most sincere purpose, the good offices of the Washington cabinet.' "The minister of Chile replied as follows:

"The statement of the desires which animate the Government of Spain, as regards the restoration of peace with the allied republics of the Pacific, just made by the minister of that monarchy, affords me much pleasure. Chile, whose foreign and domestic policy is, and ever has been, characterized by a sincere adhesion to peace and conciliation, also desires that, .without prejudice to just claims, the state of war between the republics of the Pacific and Spain may cease. A definitive peace would therefore be the termination of this negotiation opened by the friendly solicitude of the Washington cabinet, if the government of His Catholic Majesty should be disposed to remove the obstacle which exists by making reparation to that of Chile for the bombardment of Valparaiso. I scarcely need say, because it is notorious, that that act, committed by the naval forces of Spain against an exclusively commercial place, without any defenses, offended the dignity and injured the interests of Chile in such a manner that to forget it unconditionally would be inconsistent with the just rights of the offended nation. The nature of the acts of reparation required is sufficiently well determined by that of the injuries committed, and I will therefore specify them, if the minister of Spain can inform me that his government is willing to make the just settlement which that of Chile requires as a condition for the conclusion of a peace.'

"The minister of Spain replied:

"I regret that, notwithstanding the earnest wishes of the Government 5627-VOL. 5—42

of Spain for the conclusion of a definitive peace, and one which may conduce not only to the renewal, but also to the consolidation, of the friendly relations which before the war united it to the allied republics of the Pacific, it is impossible for it to accept, on a basis proposed by the minister of Chile, a discussion which at the present time could lead to no beneficial result. I hope that, nevertheless, nothing will prevent the conclusion of a definitive peace, which will obliterate the last differences and satisfy the generous hopes of the nations interested in the conclusion of such a peace.'

"The minister of Chile rejoined:

666

'Since Spain, as has just been stated by her plenipotentiary, is not disposed to make reparation to Chile for the injury done her by the bombardment of Valparaiso, which Chile considers a necessary condition of durable peace, I must say that my cooperation is impossible, and that, notwithstanding the generous efforts of the mediator and the readiness with which Chile has sought to respond thereto, the existing status of Chile toward Spain will continue.

"This being the situation, I do not, for my part, consider the continuance of this negotiation as likely to lead to any satisfactory result. Before the suspension of the conferences, however, I must here give expression in the name of the Government and people of Chile to their gratitude toward the Government of the United States and its honorable representatives in these conferences for their earnest efforts in behalf of a common agreement.'

"The minister of Peru said:

"The Peruvian nation, actuated by the most friendly sentiments, and thinking that the time had arrived for the termination, by means of a frank and sincere reconciliation, of the differences which recently arose between the allied republics of the Pacific and Spain, hastened to accept the friendly mediation of the United States, and to enter into arrangements with its allies, not only for the negotiation of an unlimited armistice, but to the end that a peace might be made in common, as solid and durable as should be maintained by countries having the same language, origin, and customs.

"The Government of Peru did not for a moment doubt that the obstacles which had prevented the realization of peace would be easily removed after the time which had elapsed, and when a means of reparation could be devised which would be satisfactory to the dignity and the interests of the belligerents. In the course of the conferences which were confidentially held after the signing of the truce the effort was made to settle the question of the bombardment of Valparaiso by all possible means; but, all efforts having been thus far unavailing, we are obliged to enter the official path of negotiation, where, as was to be expected, we meet with the same obstacle, as is seen by the remarks which have just been made by the plenipotentiary of Chile and the minister of Spain. For this reason I must accept the opinion of the minister of Chile with regard to the termination of this negotiation, and admit that, for the present at least, we must renounce the hope of concluding a collective peace with the Spanish nation, the Republic of Peru meanwhile remaining in the state of indefinite truce negotiated on the 11th of April 1871, through the esteemed

mediation of the Government of the United States, and with the justified and solicitous intervention of its representative in those conferences.'

"Mr. Freyre concluded by saying that, as the representative of Bolivia, he did not hesitate to make the same assertions.

"The minister of Ecuador said:

"My government, like that of Peru, entertained, and still entertains, the hope of a definitive peace. Thus it was that on accepting the mediation of the United States in the Lima protocol of September 1, 1868, the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Ecuador (the speaker) based his preference for that mediation on the ground that it opened the door to the restoration of peace, while the good offices tendered by France and England were limited to the conclusion of an armistice. Thus, the Government of Ecuador would have been glad to concur in a collective peace which should draw the veil of oblivion over the past disagreements and seal the reconciliation of nations bound to each other by the ties of blood. Be this as it may, a sister nation, to which Ecuador is united by the closest and most indestructible bonds, not having obtained the reparation without which its government has thought, with the rectitude and sincerity which are characteristic of it, that peace would not be acceptable to the nation and would offer no guarantee for the future, I must necessarily confine myself, like the other representatives of the alliance of the Pacific, to the truce concluded in common. I feel confident, however, that the conciliatory desires manifested by the governments interested will not be unproductive of good hereafter, and that, always favored by the good offices of the Washington Cabinet, the lofty design which dictated them, and on the accomplishment of which so many hopes depended, will at length be realized. Meanwhile I gladly perform the duty of expressing, in the name of my government, its warmest thanks to the Government of the United States for the noble initiative taken by it, as likewise to the honorable Secretary of State for his generous efforts and for his unvarying kindness and courtesy throughout the course of these prolonged negotiations.'

"The Secretary of State said that he was not only disappointed, but deplored that the difference between Spain and Chile seemed to be so difficult of reconciliation. The United States hoped that, in view of the great changes which have taken place in the executive government of Spain since the act of which Chile complains, His Majesty the present sovereign of Spain might not be held morally accountable for the severe act of his predecessor in the assault on Valparaiso, but might satisfy the natural sensitiveness of Chile by expressing regret that the government of Isabel II. had omitted to offer to Chile satisfactory explanations on that subject.

"It is presumed, also, that under existing circumstances the allied republics of the Pacific, having unconditionally accepted the mediation of the United States subsequently to the conferences at Lima, the protocol of which bears date the 1st of September 1868, and having, pursuant to that mediation, entered into an armistice with their adversary and made an earnest, but thus far unfortunately unsuccessful, effort toward jointly concluding a definitive peace, may now at least take into serious consideration the expediency of framing separate treaties with Spain. If a