Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/698

666 Dispute with Chili. The Sealing question. [1886-92 for the Populist candidate for the Presidency was upwards of a million, or a fifth of the votes cast for either of the regular candidates. Several incidents in foreign affairs attracted wide attention during President Harrison's administration. One of these was the lynching of certain Italians in the parish prison at New Orleans, on the ground that, as members of the Mafia, they had been concerned in the assassination of the chief of police of the city, and in other crimes. This affair caused for a time almost a suspension of diplomatic relations with Italy, but it was closed by the payment of an indemnity, after the local authorities had failed to indict the leaders of the mob. Another incident was the contro- versy with Chili, growing out of the killing and wounding of a number of sailors of the U.S.S. Baltimore, at Valparaiso, in October, 1891. On the assembling of Congress in December, 1891, the incident was discussed by the President and the Secretary of the Navy, both of whom com- plained of the attitude of the Chilian authorities. Senor Matta, who was then Chilian Minister of Foreign Affairs, issued in reply a circular in which he imputed to the government at Washington " inexactness " and insincerity. The Chilian Cabinet was soon afterwards reorganised ; and when in January, 1892, the United States presented an ultimatum, the Chilian government apologised for Matta's action, offered a suitable expression of regret for the attack on the American sailors, and proposed to refer the question of further reparation to the Supreme Court of the United States. A settlement, comprising the payment of an indemnity, was effected through the usual diplomatic channels. The discussion as to the fur-seals in Behring Sea began in the first administration of President Cleveland, but did not assume a controversial form till 1889. The first seizures of Canadian sealers outside territorial waters took place in 1886 ; but the vessels were ordered to be released, and the maritime Powers were invited to co-operate in the protection of the seals by joint action. This proposal seemed to excite no opposition; and an arrangement with Great Britain seemed to be assured, when the negotiations were arrested owing to an objection raised by Canada, apparently occasioned by the adverse report of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate on the treaty touching the north-eastern fisheries. The advent of the new Administration was followed by fresh seizures; and Blaine, who had then become Secretary of State, abandoning the principle of co-operation, sought to establish a right of protection on moral and legal grounds. To this end he argued that pelagic sealing, since it was destructive of the species, was to be considered as an act contra bonos mores, and that, moreover, it constituted a violation of immemorial rights which the United States had acquired from Russia on the cession of Alaska. The latter argument assumed various forms, one of which has been popularly and even judicially interpreted as a claim of mare clausum. In December, 1890, however, Blaine declared that the United States had never desired to make such a claim, and he