Professor Hart on the Chilean Question.

A very interesting lecture on the Chilean Question was given by Professor Hart in Sever 11 last evening.

The excitement which has prevailed in this country over the attack made on the sailors of the Baltimore on Oct. 16, 1891, said the lecturer, is the same as that which prevails in England in case of a similar attack on the Alsatian border.

Although an apology has been sent and the affair is settled, it is worth while to consider whether any new principles have been developed in American diplomacy.

This is not a party or personal question; the difficulty might have arisen, had either party been in power. The question is simply what kind of public policy will make our country strongest and most influential.

The Chileans are in many respects like the people of the United States, vigorous, fond of Republican government as they understand it; a commercial people who have been called the "Yankees of South America."

The coming of trouble between the two countries is due, in part, to changes in the foreign policy of the United States. In 1890 trouble broke out between two factions in Chile, leading to civil war in which the United States, though neutral, became concerned, largely through Minister Egan. Mr. Egan's first mistake was that while showing courtesies to both parties, he plainly favored the party of Balmaceda and expected its triumph. Feeling against the congressional party was shown when they attempted to ship arms from a Californian port on the Itata. However unauthorized this act may have been, the sending of a United States cruiser in pursuit upon the high seas was equally unauthorized.

There is no evidence that Mr. Egan exceeded his instructions, although he was the channel of various impudent requests of Balmaceda, among others, that the United States sell him a warship.

The attack upon the sailors of the Baltimore appears to have been made without any elaborate plan simply because they were American sailors. This outrage demanded punishment of the offenders and an immediate apology, but the Chielans took refuge in delay. Minister Egan, meanwhile, had taken into the protection of the United States legation, a large party of Balmacedist refugees, and although this was his right, yet it was disagreeable to the Chileans. The safe conduct out of the country for these refugees, which Mr. Egan demanded of Matta, the foreign minister, was refused and soon after this minister wrote to the ambassadors, notes making abusive charges of bad faith against Minister Egan, Secretary Tracy and President Harrison.

A new foreign minister who succeeded Matta immediately gave the safe conduct demanded by Minister Egan and signified the intention of his government to give an apology for the attack on the sailors. This apology finally came just in time to prevent action by Congress.

Several interesting principles have been brought out by this controversy. A curious lack of harmony in the executive departments is visible; Secretary Blaine and and Secretary Tracy have not pulled together and the president has not undertaken to make them agree. The State department is the organ of foreign policy and the navy and war departments should be subordinate to it.

The harsh and hasty action of our government, although after long and patient waiting, has given an offense to Chile which that country is likely to remember, and the United States seems in danger of entering on the "bullying policy" which has made Great Britain unpopular the world over. We must protect our ships and our men but we can do it without making enemies. Above all we must be careful not to set up new principles of international law which may be wrested to our hurt.