whether

Le officials thought

g his opinion about po

...er was questioned, but in the abone who had any opinion to give even ster. Mr. Bayard has been absent for two uere the latter part of the week.

IT WILL NOT PASS UNNOTICED.

rce, however, I learned that the action of the British minister

ed.

[Inclosure 3 in Mr. Phelps' note of December 4, 1888, to Lord Salisbury.-Extracts from the New York Daily Tribune of October 21, 1888.]

(Printed supra, inclosure in No. 9.)

(Inclosure 4 in Mr. Phelps' note of December 4, 1888, to Lord Salisbury.-Extract from the New York Herald of October 24, 1888.]

Lord Sackville's letter. -Her British Majesty's Minister acknowledges his written views of the administration.-No impropriety in it.-He says he wrote in his private character to a correspondent he considered reputable.

[From our regular correspondent. ]

HERALD BUREAU, CORNER FIFTEENTH AND G STREETS, NW.,

Washington, October 23, 1888.

Sir Lionel Sackville West, the British minister, while at his summer home at Beverly, Mass., received by mail on the 12th September a letter from a resident of Pomona, Cal., to which he sent the following reply, written on the 13th September.

[Private.]

"SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, and beg to say that I fully appreciate the difficulty in which you find yourself in casting your vote. You are probably aware that any political party which openly favored the mother country at the present moment would lose popularity, and that the party in power is fully aware of this fact. The party, however, is, I believe, still desirous of maintaining friendly relations with Great Britain, and is still as desirous of settling all questions with Canada which have been unfortunately re-opened since the retraction of the treaty by the Republican majority in the Senate and by the President's message, to which you allude. All allowances must, therefore, be made for the political situation as regards the Presidential election thus created. It is, however, impossible to predict the course which President Cleveland may pursue in the matter of retaliation should he be elected, but there is every reason to believe that, while upholding the position he bas taken, he will manifest a spirit of conciliation in dealing with the question involved in his message. I inclose an article from the New York Times of the 22d of August, and remain, yours, faithfully,

66 'BEVERLY, MASS., September 13, 1888."

"L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

Its publication in the New York papers did not attract attention of officials and otbers until to-day, when the question was naturally raised as to whether it was a genuine letter, and whether it called for action on the part of the administration.

IT IS GENUINE.

The bell-pull at the office of the British legation has not been so busy for many a day as it was this morning. Inquiries were made from every part of the country through correspondents as to whether the letter was written by Lord Sackville. To all inquiries the reply was made briefly and without evasion that the British minister did write the letter, and had no apology or explanation to offer for doing so.

It was a personal letter, not intended for publication, and therefore he would not discuss it.

In the absence of Secretary Bayard there was no one at the State Department who would give expression as to what was thought of the tenor of the letter, or whether it called for action on the part of the administration. Some of the officials thought it very indiscreet on Minister West's part to confide in writing his opinion about political matters to anybody.

At the White House the genuineness of the letter was questioned, but in the absence of the Secretary of State there was no one who had any opinion to give even if the letter was written by the British minister. Mr. Bayard has been absent for two weeks on his vacation, and is expected here the latter part of the week.

IT WILL NOT PASS UNNOTICED.

From an official source, however, I learned that the action of the British minister will not pass unnoticed.

The policy of our Government in sending representatives to foreign countries is to prohibit their taking part in any way in the political concerns of the country to which they are accredited. They are instructed that "it is forbidden to diplomatic agents abroad to participate in any manner in the political concerns of the country of their residence, and they are directed especially to refrain from public expression of opinion upon local, political, or other questions arising within their jurisdiction. The plain duty of the diplomatic agents of the United States is scrupulously to abstain from interfering in the domestic politics of the countries where they reside. This duty is especially incumbent on those who are accredited to Governments mutable in form and in the persons by whom they are administered. By taking any open part in the domestic affairs of such a foreign country they must, sooner or later, render themselves obnoxious to the executive authority, which can not fail to impair their usefulness." The State Department, as far as possible, impresses upon all foreign ministers accredited to the United States the propriety of following the explicit instructions given our own diplomatic agents abroad. It is very seldom that a minister resident in Washington will give an opinion on any political question, and never for publication.

A POLITICAL TRICK.

In the present instance, it is the opinion of those who have carefully read Minister West's letter that the writer of the letter, to which his is a reply, was instigated by political motives in trying to draw him into saying something that could be used in the Presidential campaign to the injury of the Democratic party.

I went this evening to the British legation for the purpose of receiving the expla nation that Lord Sackville had expressed himself willing to make to the Herald of the circumstances under which he had written the letter.

An English-born citizen of California had sought from him an approval of his expressed desire to vote for the re-election of President Cleveland.

The minister first confirmed the accuracy of the copy of his letter that I had taken to him for verification, and then producing from his cabinet the original of the letter addressed to him by his unknown correspondent at Pomona, Cal., asked me to read it and tell him, if I could, what reasonable objection had been or could be raised to his anwering it, or to the matter and quality of his answer.

I informed Lord Sackville that certain gentlemen, prominent in the Republican party, deemed his letter of sufficient importance to their cause to make use of it for the purpose of creating a prejudice against the candidacy of Mr. Cleveland in the closing weeks of the campaign, and that those who took that view and made that use of the letter considered that its publication had put him so far on the defensive as to require him to justify or excuse the writing of the letter.

HIS POINT OF VIEW.

Lord Sackville declined to accept that view, or to say anything to placate, help, or hinder any partisan interest connected with the pending contest for the Presidency, adding that he did not write letters, nor refrain from writing them, out of regard to political exigencies within the United States, which were matters that in no way concerned him otherwise than as a friendly and impartial spectator, but solely with reference to what was courteous and proper between himself and those that saw fit to honor him with their communications. He was aware that the native ingenuity of the American people was apt to come out strongly at the time of their national elections, and he thought the enthusiasm and enterprise that they threw into such struggles were indications of a sound political constitution, but he would like to know how any of the present contestants are to gain an advantage from the publication of his letter, which contained nothing but statements of well known and indisputable facts.

He had stated "that any political party which openly favored the mother country at the present moment would lose popularity." Does anybody dispute this attribution of fervid patriotism to the American people? He had added that "the party in power is fully aware of this fact." He reads all the leading journals, and knows whereof he speaks on this point.

He had expressed the belief that the party in power was "desirous of maintaining friendly relations with Great Britain," and still as desirous of settling all questions with Canada, and he might say the same of all parties in the United States upon the authority of all the recognized party leaders and organs. His knowledge that the Republican majority in the Senate had rejected the fisheries treaty was derived from the official report of the proceedings of the Senate, published by order of that chamber itself.

THE MINISTER NO PROPHET.

He had written that it was "impossible to predict the course which President. Cleveland may pursue in the matter of retaliation should he be elected," and if anybody can make any authoritative prediction on that point in advance of the situation or circumstances requiring the President to act, the person so enabled is in possession of a valuable piece of information which it is impossible he should long Feep to himself. He had told his correspondent that "there is every reason to believe that while upholding the position he has taken, he (the President) will manifest a spirit of conciliation in dealing with the question involved in his message" (meaning the so-called retaliation message). His authority for that expression of belief is to be found in the American press at large, and he (the minister) can not conceive how he could have justified his words to himself, or have escaped the just censure of the people of this country at large, had he presumed to tell anybody that the President would not uphold any position he has taken on a grave question, or that he would approach such a question in any other than a becoming spirit.

The letter of his correspondent, while professing to see in the past conduct of President Cleveland much to commend him to the suffrages of an elector holding the views and opinions set out in the letter, expressed a fear that partisan exigency might lead the President, in case of his re-election, to do certain things that the writer could not approve, and inasmuch as Lord Sackville was not in possession of a commission to tell anybody, or even to learn for himself whether the Pesident would or would not do the things reprobated by his correspondent, he deemed it proper and sufficient to remind the latter that "allowances must, therefore, be made for the political situation" in estimating the meaning and value of the rhetoric of campaign editors and orators.

The minister does not understand that popular leaders in America, any more than elsewhere, are in the habit or are willing to be held strictly to an account or performance of all they may happen to say in the heat of a political canvass, and hence his soothing reminder to his anxious correspondent.

POSSIBLY ENTRAPPED.

The letter to Lord Sackville, which elicited his much discussed reply, covers four closely written pages of note-paper, and I could not refrain from imparting to the minister my suspicion, based upon the matter and form of the letter, that it was a fraudulent and deceptive communication intended to entrap him into some unguarded expression that could be turned to the disadvantage of one of the candidates for the Presidency. It had not occurred to him that there could be any such purpose in the letter, but he admitted the plausibility of the suggestion, though he declined to take it into serious consideration in the absence of any proof that his correspondent was other than the sincere and conscientious person he held himself out to be in his letter. He declined to permit me to take the letter for publication unless and until the consent of the writer can be obtained.

IN HIS PRIVATE CHARACTER.

The inscription of the word "private" upon Lord Sackville's letter was explained by him to be the ordinary mode of distinguishing letters written in his personal character from those written or signed by him on the business of the legation.

He would cheerfully have given his consent to the publication of the letter if the formality of asking his consent had occurred to those concerned in its publication. He understood, from what was said in the letter to which he was replying, that his answer would be shown to other people than the recipient of it. Consequently, it was advised that he use the term "private" to distinguish the letter from those that he had occasion to write on the public business of his office.

The suggestion that a foreign ambassador should not write unofficial letters on the domestic politics of the country to which he is accredited was dismissed by Lord Sackville in a summary fashion. It happens constantly, he says, in his intercourse with people, that statements are made to him, and information, opinion, and advice asked of him touching matters beyond his sphere and duty as a diplomatic agent of Her Majesty, and in all such instances he acts as any rational and considerate person would. What he would say in a personal interview he would, of course, not hesitate to write to an absent informant or inquirer, and he wrote to the gentleman at Pomona substantially what he should have told him at Beverly had he been called upon there.

In thanking Lord Sackville for his patience and courtesy, I told him that because of the supposed interests of one of our political parties he would probably be severely attacked in the papers for a few days on account of his letter. He replied, laughingly: "Indeed! Well, let them come on. I read all the papers, you know, and I shall enjoy it greatly, I assure you."