Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 42, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 November 1888 — WEST MUST GO HOME. [ARTICLE]

WEST MUST GO HOME.

HE IS DISMISSED BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT. His Government Officially Notified that He M ill No Longer Be Recognized—Text of Secretary Bayard’s Letter to Mr. Cleveland. Washington, Oct. 31 —By direction of the President the Secretary of State has informed Lord Sackville that for causes heretofore made known to her Majesty’s government his continuance in his present official position in the United States is no longer acceptable to this government, and would, consequently, be detrimental to the relations between the two countries. Sackville Declines to Talk. At the British legation access was denied to all newspaper men and they were informed that Ixird Sackville had nothing to say. Your reporter managed, however, to have a copy of the report of Secretary Bayard to the President sent to the Mmister. After about half an hour Lord Sackville in person returned the copy and cordially expressed his thanks for having had an opportunity to read the report, which he said he had not seen before. He declined to express any opinion in regard to it. Lord Sackville wore a pleasant smile and he did not seem in the least disturbed at the turn affairs had taken. Mr. Bayard Interviewed. Secretary Bayard when seen said that there was nothing he could say in addition to what was stated in his report to the President. The government’s action, he said, constituted a complete severance of our relations with Minister West, The Secretary did not care to enter into any speculation as to what Great Britain would do in the matter or as to when a new minister would be sent here, but Sackville, he said, would no longer be recognized in any event. Secretary Bayard declined absolutely to give out anything in regard to spirit in which the communications of the United States were received by the British government. The matter, he said, was the subject of letters or messages between two parties, and neither had the right to give out the contents of these communications without the consent of the other. What has taken place between the President and himself he had given to the press, but the other correspondence he did riot feel at liberty to make public.

SECRETARY BAYARD’S REPORT. Official Communication to the Presidenton the Sackville Matter. Washington, Oct. 31.—The Cabinet meeting lasted about two hours, and was attended by Secretaries Bayard and Endicott and Attorney-General Garland. It was devoted mainly to a consideration of the case of the British minister, and the result is shown in the statement furnished to the press by the Secretary of State. After Secretary Bayard had prepared this statement he walked over to the White House and submitted it to the President for his approval. The President perused it carefully and suggested a few verbal changes in the introduction, and when these hid been made the members of the press were furnished copies of it. The following is the full text of Secretary Bayard’s statement: “To the President: The undersigned has the honor to submit for your consideration the following statement, with a view to receive your direction thereon. ‘ ‘On the 4th of September last a letter purporting to have been written by one Charles F. Murchison, dated at Pomoma, Cal., was sent from that place to the British minister at this capital, in which the writer solicited an expression of his views in regard to certain unsettled diplomatic questions between the United States and Great Britain, stating at the same time that such an expression was sought for by him for the purpose of determining his vote at the approaching Presidential election. He stated that he was a naturalized citizen of the United States of English birth, but that he still considered England the mother country, and this fact led him to seek advice from the British representative in' this country. He further stated that the information he sought was not for himself alone, but to enable bun to give certain assurance to many other persons in the same situation as himself, for the purpose of influencing and determining their political action as citizens of the United States of English birth, but who still regarded their original obligations as paramount. The letter also contains gross reflections upon the conduct of this government in respect to questions now in controversy and unsettled between the United States and Great Britain, and both directly and indirectly imputed insincerity in such conduct. Mr. West’s Offense. “To this letter the British minister at once replied from Beverly, Mass., under date of the 13th of September last. In this reply he stated that any political party which openly favors the mother country at the preStent moment ‘would lose popularity and that the party in power is fully aware of that fact, ’ and that in respect to the ‘questions with Canada which have been unfortunately reopened since the rejection of the [fisheries] treaty by the Republican majority in the Senate, and by the President’s message to whicli you allude. All allowances must therefore be made for the political situation as regards the Presidential election.’ “The minister thus gave his assent and sanction to the aspersions and imputations above referred to. “Thus under his correspondent’s assurance of secrecy, in which the minister concurred by marking his answer ‘private, ’ he undertook to advise a citizen of the United States how to exercise the franchise of suffrage in an election close at hand for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the United States; and through him, as the letter suggested, to influence the votes of many others. “Upon this correspondence being made public the minister received the representatives of the public press, and in frequent interviews with them intended for publication added to the impugnments which he had already made of the good faith of this government in its public action and international dealings. Although ample time and opportunity have been afforded him for the withdrawal, modification, or correction of his statements, to some of which his attention was called personally by the undersigned, yet no such disavowal or modification has been made by him through the

channels in which his statements first found? publicity. Cannot Be Permitted. “The question is thus presented whether it is compatible with the dignity, security, and independent sovereignty of the United. States to permit the representative of a foreign government in this country not only to receive and answer without disapproval, and confirm by his repetition, aspersions upon its political action, but also to interfere in its domestic affairs by advising persons formerly his countrymen as to their political course as citizens of the United States. “As between this country and Great Britain there can be no controversy as to the complete severance of the ties of original allegiance by naturalization. Disputes., on this point were finally put at rest by thotreaty of naturalization concluded by thetwo countries on the J 3th of March, 1870. Therefore it will not be contended, nor was--such contention ever admitted by us, that citizens of the United States of British origin are subject to any claim of the country* of their original allegiance. “The undersigned also has the honor tocall attention to the provisions of section 5335 of the revised statutes of the United. States by which severe penalties are visited' upon the citizen of the United' States who, without the authority or permission of this’ government, ‘commences or carries on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, either with an intent to influence the action of such government or its agents, in relation to any dispute or controversies with the United States,, or with any intent to defeat the measures, of the government of the United States.’ These penalties are made equally applicable to every citizen of the United States, not duly authorized, who ‘counsels, advises, or assists in any such correspondence’ with similar unlawful intent.

Mackville’s Dismissal Suggested. “The undersigned respectfully advises that the attention of tho Attorney-G eneral of the United States be directed to these enactments in order that an investigation may be made, w'ith a view to ascertaining whether they have not been violated in the present ease by the correspondent of theBritish minister. “By your direction the attention of theBritish government has in a spirit of comity been called to the conduct of its minister, as* above described, but without result. It therefore becomes necessary for this government to consider whether, as the guardian of its own self-respect and of the integrity of its institutions, it will permit further intercourse to be held through the present British minister at this capital. It is to be observed that precedents are not wanting as to the question under consideration. It is a settled rule, essential to the maintenance of international intercourse, that a diplomaticrepresentative must be persona grata to the government to which he is accredited. If by his conduct he renders himself persona, non-grata an announcement of the fact may be made to his government. In the present case all the requirements of comity havebeen fulfilled, the facts having been duly communicated to her majesty’s government, with an expression of the opinion of this, government in regard thereto. Respectfully submitted, T. F. Bayard.”

HOW LOT D SACKVILLE FEELS. The British Minister Not Excessively Delighted at Being Asked to Go. "Washington, Oct. 31. —Following is the report of an interview between an Associated Press reporter and Lord Sackville:: He (Sackville) carefully read the Secretary’s statement through, pausing frequently to express his feelings in gestures rather than words, and in a few instances he even condescended tomake some remark by way of criticising Secretary Bayard’s strictures upon his correspondence. For instance, he took exception to that part of the statement wherein the Secretary alleges that An erican citizens of English birthi still regarded their original obligations of allegiance to the mother country us paramount. The Minister compressed his lips aud shook his* diplomatic head in disapprobation and denial when be read in the Secretary’s statement the following passage: “The letter also contained gross reflections upon the conduct of this Government iu respect, to questions now in controversy and unsettled between the United States and Great Brita n,. and both directly and indirectly imputed insincerity iu such cond ct.” When the Minister came to that passage in which the Secretary holds him responsible for frequent interviews with him published in thenewspapers he fairly spoke out and expressed the opinion tnat it was a new thing in official intercouso for a Minister to be held responsible* and officially < ensured for newspaper publications, the accuracy of which had not been acknowledged. The Minister politely but firmly declined tosay what communication had taken place between himself and his own Government in regard to this matter. He would not give to the press for publication the letter which he admitted fie had received from Secretary Bayard. Whatever was wanted for publication, he repeated over and over again, in a more or less petulent tone, must be obtained from the StateDepartment. “Have you ever in your Ion? experience in the ■ diplomatic service of England,” the correspondent inquired, “known another instance of this - kind, an instance in which a foreign Minister has been similarly treated for s similar occurrence?" “I should very much prefer,” said the Minister, “to be excused from making any comparison orindulgingin any criticisms. The criticism in this case, it seems, must all be. on one side, and I am content to have it so." . “Does this notification from Secretary Bayard. finally determine your lordship’s departure from this capital?” “Well, really, I am very unwilling to enter intoany public discussion of any part of this matter, but I should think that it seems to bear that ■ meaning. ” “Of course your lordship has not yet fixed the - date when you will take your farewell of Washington?” “Not jui t yet," said his lordship. “One might suppose that after more than forty years of active diplomatic service and exile your lordsh’p would now be disposed to retire and enjoy at home and at leisure the peerage honors which you so worthily inherited not ■ long ago." “One might suppose so," said his lordship. “You would probably not like to enter intoany speculation as to who is likely to be the ■■ next British Minister at Washington?” “You are right. I would probably not.” “Would you care to say whether it is at all likely that the British Government may resent - the action of our Government in this matter by dismissing the United States Minister at ■ London?” “I would not care to say ; I do not know.”