De Long to Hamilton Fish, June 19, 1873

No. 262. Mr. De Long to Mr. Fish.

Sir: A few days since the Japanese minister handed to the Peruvian envoy his reply in the Maria Luz case. At my request he very courteously allowed Mr. Rice to make a copy of the original on file in the foreign office. (Inclosure No. 1.)

The Japanese minister, a day or two before sending in this answer, conversed with me at great length relative to it. I was a little at a loss when he finished to know exactly what he meant for me to understand, but, on the whole, I gathered the idea that this reply had been considered by the grand council in two lengthy sessions, the Emperor being present in person. That while this had been adopted they entertained grave doubts relative to its correctness, and would welcome an offer to arbitrate should it be made by the Peruvian minister: and it was desired that in some way, without committing him, I would make this known to the Peruvian government, also letting him know that he, the Japanese minister, was prepared to discuss the case further, verbally or in writing. There seemed to exist an apprehension that the Peruvian government would treat their reply as an end of the discussion and resort to hostilities.

As requested I called on Señor Garcia and told him that I had been advised by the Japanese minister that his reply would be sent in within two days; that it would be at variance in its argument and conclusion from the case as stated by him, but that I felt well satisfied that any further discussion he might wish to hold would be welcomed by the Japanese, who in their anxiety to keep the peace and do justice, I felt convinced, would consent to an arbitration if proposed by him.

He thanked me for my information and deferred further comments until the answer should be received, remarking, however, that it was not for him to propose an arbitration when such a course had been indicated by the Japanese minister in opening the case. I replied that this was denied by the present minister, who claimed that what was said on that subject was merely a passing remark to the effect that in presenting his side of the case if any difficulties presented themselves that he should confer freely with the representatives from foreign states at the Japanese court. This was disputed by Señor Garcia, who assigned very good reasons against its verity. I urged him to press the discussion further, and not treat the reply as conclusive; and I also intimated an opinion that he might, with great propriety, propose the arbitration. He dissented strongly from this view, stating that if he should propose this and it should be rejected, his position would be very unenviable. I replied that I had excellent reasons for stating that it would be accepted. He replied that he would, after receiving the answer, let me know his views more at length. A few days afterward I met him and we read over the answer together. He asked my opinion as to whether he should reply in writing, or ask for a conference. I replied that if in his position I should prepare a reply in writing briefly and pointedly stating the points in controversy, and then request an interview at which to discuss those points. He seemed to agree with this view, and then asked me, if I should be requested so to do, if I would, as a mutual friend lending my good offices to each, suggest to both a reference of this matter to arbitration, provided in the end no agreement could be arrived at between the two principals. I replied that I would do so with pleasure. Señor Garcia, with some bitterness of tone, then called my attention to the paragraph in the reply wherein it was stated that it, the Japanese government, had been counseled to take the action that it did with regard to the Maria Luz, by the British and American chargé d’affaires, and he asked me if this was indeed true. I had to admit that it was, to the extent of Mr. Shepard’s having written a note seconding Mr. Watson’s demand for an investigation into the affairs on board of that vessel.

Señor Garcia then remarked that from the newspapers he had learned that you had approved of Mr. Shepard’s action in this affair. I replied that this was true, but that I believed it was also true that when you did so you had no knowledge that Mr. Shepard had taken the action now referred to. He then intimated an opinion to the effect that I should have let him know of this. I replied that it wasi nformation lie had not called for, that I did not consider it material for him to have, and thereupon useless to mention. He replied that he felt it to be his duty to address Mr. Freyre a note on this subject, as it now appeared that while this captain was appealing to Mr. Shepard for aid, he, Shepard, was not merely refusing assistance, as his reply to the captain stated, but at the time, and secretly, he was prompting the persecution. I replied that I regretted that he should feel that he had any cause of complaint; that I did not believe that this note of Mr. Shepard’s had in any manner influenced the action of this Government, and I had kept silent about it mainly because my relations with Mr. Shepard not being very kind, and nothing having been said calling this out, I felt that to make it known voluntarily would bear the appearance that I was doing so with the purpose of involving Mr. Shepard in trouble.

The minister replied that he well understood my feelings, and on my account would with pleasure pass the matter by, but he felt it to be his duty to make known to Mr. Freyre this heretofore unknown action of Mr. Shepard. This terminated our interview, and I have not since heard anything of the case.

I am, &c.,