was incarcerated for many years in the prison at Olmertz. That was a case much stronger than this, as La Fayette had fought our battles for freedom, had been naturalized in some of the States, and was imprisoned by a power to whom he owed no allegiance. It is hardly possible to conceive of a case appealing more strongly to our sympathies than this; the struggle between affection and duty must have been great; but Washington doubtless pursued the true policy and set an example which has never been departed from by his successors. Though impelled by the strongest sympathy for the oppressed, the President does not feel justified in departing from this salutary rule." Mr. Crittenden, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Jno. V. L. Pruyn, Oct. 8, 1851, 39 MS. Dom. Let. 277. "A minister is not only at liberty, but he is morally bound, to render all the good offices he can to other powers and their subjects consistently with the discharge of those principal responsibilities I have described. But it belongs to the state where the minister resides to decide in every case in what manner and in what degree such good offices shall be rendered, and, indeed, whether they shall be tolerated at all." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Corwin, Apr. 18, 1863, MS. Inst. Mex. "On the 21st of June last, by direction of the President of the United States, I communicated to President Juarez of Mexico, by telegraph, the proposition of His Imperial Majesty of Austria, that he would reinstate the Prince Maximilian in all his rights of possession as Archduke of Austria, as soon as the prince should be set at liberty and should renounce forever all his projects in Mexico. At an earlier date, namely, on the 15th, I had in like manner used the telegraph to make known to President Juarez the request of Her Majesty the Queen of England and of the Emperor of the French for the good offices of this government in behalf of the Prince Maximilian." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Count Wydenbruck, July 1, 1867, MS. See, also, same to same, tel., July 3, 1867, id. 241. In relation to the capture and execution of Maximilian, see Dip. Cor. 1867, II. 408-420, 431, 434. Also, Maximilian in Mexico, by Sara Yorke Stevenson, 288–306. "The long deferred peace conference between Spain and the allied. South American republics has been inaugurated in Washington under the auspices of the United States. Pursuant to the recom H. Doc. 551-vol 6-16 mendation contained in the resolution of the House of Representatives, of the 17th of December, 1866, the executive department of the government offered its friendly offices for the promotion of peace and harmony between Spain and the allied republics. Hesitations and obstacles occurred to the acceptance of this offer. Ultimately, however, a conference was arranged, and was opened in this city on the 29th of October last, at which I authorized the Secretary of State to preside. It was attended by the ministers of Spain, Peru, Chili, and Ecuador. In consequence of the absence of a representative from Bolivia the conference was adjourned until the attendance of a plenipotentiary from that republic could be secured, or other measures could be adopted toward compassing its objects. "The allied and other republics of Spanish origin, on this continent, may see in this fact a new proof of our sincere interest in their welfare of our desire to see them blessed with good governments, capable of maintaining order and preserving their respective territorial integrity; and of our sincere wish to extend our own commercial and social relations with them. The time is not probably far distant when, in the natural course of events, the European political connection with this continent will cease. Our policy should be shaped, in view of this probability, so as to ally the commercial interest of the Spanish-American States more closely to our own, and thus give the United States all the preeminence and all the advantage which Mr. Monroe, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Clay contemplated when they proposed to join in the congress of Panama.” President Grant, annual message, Dec. 5, 1870, For. Rel. 1870, 5. Good offices, being in the nature of unofficial personal recommendation, are in this respect distinguishable from official intervention. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Curtin, min. to Russia, No. 60, Oct. 5, 1870, On June 15, 1881, Señor Ubico, Guatemalan minister at Washington, addressed a note to Mr. Blaine, who was then Secretary of State, complaining of alleged encroachments of Mexico on Guatemalan territory and declaring that, all peaceful means of conciliation appearing to be exhausted, Guatemala could but appeal to the United States as the natural protector of the integrity of the Central American territory." 66 On the following day Mr. Blaine addressed an instruction to Mr. Morgan, American minister at Mexico, calling attention to the statements of the Guatemalan minister, and saying that, while the United States was not "a self-constituted arbitrator of the destinies" of either Guatemala or Mexico, it was, as "the impartial friend of both, ready to tender frank and earnest counsel touching anything which may menace the peace and prosperity of its neighbors. It is, above all," continued Mr. Blaine, " anxious to do any and everything which will tend to make stronger the natural union of the republics of the continent, in the face of the tendencies of other and distant forms of government to influence the internal affairs of Spanish America. It is especially anxious, in pursuance of this great policy, to see the Central American republics more securely united than they have been in the past in protection of their common interests, which interests are, in their outward relations, identical in principle with those of Mexico and the United States." Mr. Blaine added that the President, without prejudice to the merits of the controversy, deemed it his duty, as the unbiased counselor of both Mexico and Guatemala, "to set before the government of Mexico his conviction of the danger to the principles which Mexico has so signally and successfully defended in the past, which would ensue should disrespect be shown to the boundaries which separate her from her weaker neighbors, or should the authority of force be resorted to in establishment of rights over territory which they claim, without the conceded justification of her just title thereto, and especially would the President regard as an unfriendly act toward the cherished plan of upbuilding strong republican governments in Spanish America, if Mexico, whose power and generosity should be alike signal in such a case, shall seek or permit any misunderstanding with Guatemala, when the path toward a pacific avoidance of trouble is at once so easy and so imperative an international duty." Mr. Morgan was directed to seek an interview with Señer Mariscal, Mexican minister of foreign affairs, and to acquaint him with the purport of these instructions, and even to read them to him if he should so desire. On June 21, 1881, Mr. Blaine addressed a further instruction to Mr. Morgan, on the strength of information received from the American minister at Guatemala City, which was said to indicate that Mexico intended not merely to obtain possession of the disputed territory, but to precipitate hostilities with Guatemala with the ultimate view of extending her borders by actual conquest. Mr. Blaine said that he could not believe it possible that these designs could seriously enter into the policy of the Mexican government. Of late years, said Mr. Blaine, the American movement toward fixity of boundaries and abstention from territorial enlargement had been so marked and so necessary a part of the continental policy of the American republics. that any departure therefrom became "necessarily a menace to the interests of all." The "now established policy" of the United States to refrain from territorial acquisition gave that government the right, declared Mr. Blaine, to use its friendly offices in discouragement of any movement on the part of neighboring states which might "tend to disturb the balance of power between them," and rendered it morally obligatory on the United States, as the strong but disinterested friend of all its sister states, to exert its influence" for the preservation of the national life and integrity of any one of them against aggression, whether this may come from abroad or from another American republic." The "peaceful maintenance of the status quo of the American commonwealths" was, said Mr. Blaine, "of the very essence of their policy of harmonious alliance for self-preservation, and is of even more importance to Mexico than to the United States." It was the desire and intention of the United States, by moral influence and the interposition of good offices," " to hold up the republics of Central America in their old strength and to do all that may be done toward insuring the tranquillity of their relations among themselves and their collective security as an association of allied interests, possessing in their common relationship to the outer world all of the elements of national existence." In this "enlarged policy," said Mr. Blaine, the United States confidently asked the cooperation of Mexico, while any contrary movement on her part directly leading to the absorption in whole or in part of her weaker neighbors would be deemed “an act unfriendly to the best interests of America." Mr. Morgan was instructed to bring these views to the attention of Mr. Mariscal, and to intimate that the good feeling between Mexico and the United States would be fortified by a frank avowal that the Mexican policy towards the neighboring states was not one of conquest or aggrandizement, but of conciliation, peace, and friendship. Mr. Morgan had an interview with Mr. Mariscal on July 9, 1881, and acquainted the latter with the purport of his instructions. Mr. Mariscal insisted that it was Mexico that had cause to complain against Guatemala and not Guatemala against Mexico. Further interviews were held, with the result that Mr. Morgan, in a dispatch of September 22, 1881, suggested that unless the United States was prepared to announce to Mexico that it would, if necessary, actively preserve the peace, it would be the part of wisdom to let the matter remain where it was. "Negotiations on the subject," said Mr. Morgan, "will not benefit Guatemala, and you may depend upon it that what we have already done in this direction has not tended to the increasing of the cordial relations which I know it is so much your desire to cultivate with this nation.” In an instruction to Mr. Morgan of November 28, 1881, Mr. Blaine declared that to leave the matter where it was was simply impossible, since it would not remain there. The United States had sought to compose the differences between the two countries, which differences would become more aggravated if they were not ended. Information, said Mr. Blaine, has been received that Mexican troops had been ordered to the disputed boundary line. The United States did not pretend to direct the policy of Mexico, and the Mexican government was of course free to decline the counsel of the United States, no matter how friendly. But it was necessary that the United States should know distinctly what the Mexican government had decided. It was useless, and apparently would be irritating, declared Mr. Blaine, "to keep before the government of Mexico the offer of friendly intervention, while, on the other hand, it would not be just to Guatemala to hold that government in suspense as to whether there was a possibility of the acceptance of the amicable mediation which we have offered." Mr. Morgan was therefore to seek an interview with Mr. Mariscal and urge upon him the peaceful solution of existing differences, and, if he should find it to be practicable, to suggest a limited arbitration. Should the Mexican government decline this "friendly intervention," Mr. Morgan was to state that he accepted this decision as one undoubtedly within the right of Mexico to make; but he was to express the regret of the United States if it should be found that the powerful Republic of Mexico was unwilling to join in maintaining and establishing the principle of friendly arbitration of international differences on the continent of America. Mexico and the United States, acting in cordial harmony, could, said Mr. Blaine, induce all the other independent governments of North and South America to aid in fixing this policy of peace for all the future disputes between the nations of the Western Hemisphere. In concluding the instruction, Mr. Blaine adverted to an intimation made by Mr. Mariscal that President Barrios, of Guatemala, was endeavoring to obtain the influence of the United States towards furthering his ambition of forming a consolidation of the Central American republics. With reference to this intimation, Mr. Blaine declared that the union of the Central American states appealed to the sympathy and judgment of the United States; that this was no new policy, but one which the United States had for many years urged upon those republics. If, said Mr. Blaine, an inference was to be drawn from Mr. Mariscal's language that the prospect of a Central American union was not agreeable to the policy of Mexico, and that the friendly attitude of the United States towards such union rendered unwelcome the "friendly intervention which had been offered, this fact would only deepen the regret at Mexico's decision, and compelled him (Mr. Blaine) "to declare that the government of the United States will consider a hostile demonstration against Guatemala for the avowed purpose, or with the certain result of weakening her power in such an effort, as an act not in consonance with the position and character of Mexico, not in harmony with the friendly relations existing between us, and injurious to the best interests of all the republics of this continent." The United States, added Mr. Blaine, "will continue its policy of peace |