served in fixing the boundaries of the two countries, the representative of Chili should not have forgotten that according to his own claim, the establishment of the colony of Punta Arenas in 1844, notwithstanding the protest of the Argentine Republic, in the only territory which was at that time in dispute, constituted the most flagrant violation of the status quo; while the charge which he makes that we have violated it, is without foundation, according to his own doctrines with respect to Eastern Patagonia, which, previously to the year 1810, as well as subsequently, was constantly under the absolutely undisputed jurisdiction of Buenos Ayres. The Argentine Republic might then with a better right have initiated the discussion by raising a dispute with Chili with regard to that territory which she improperly and unlawfully occupied; but being actuated by other sentiments, she was always far from attributing designs to a neighbor which could compromise the dignity of a friendly and sister nation, preferring, with respect to actual possession, to leave the question of ownership to be decided by arbitration. The Argentine government always expected from Chili the frank and friendly reciprocity to which it believed itself entitled by its constant acts of deference; and great was our surprise on seeing that simultaneously with the peaceable discussion she commenced her aggressions in order to claim, subsequently, to base her rights thereupon, forgetting that her government had by implication recognized the illegitimate nature of those acts, either by apologizing for their character, or promising not to continue them. To our frank and friendly reclamation on account of ac's of jurisdiction exercised by Chili at the eastern mouth of the Straits of Magellan, it replied by insinuating that we were opposing the free and untrammeled navigation of that body of water, as if such a charge could be made against the Argentine Republic, which, in its respect for the principle of free navigation, has gone so far to enforce it in its widest latitude in its own internal rivers. The Argentine Republic only asked of Chili that it should first solicit our consent and co-operation for the execution of the works which were necessary to facilitate the navigation of that interoceanic passage. Can a request be conceived more in harmony with the principles of international law, in view of the nature of the dispute? The government of Chili, however, would not even enter into this arrangement, which, as your excellency will understand, might have been the stepping-stone to others, which would have resulted in the amicable settlement of our differences. Thus the time for the decision of the question by arbitration has been retarded by causes over which we had no control, and good grounds have been given to think that under the semblance of a desire for settlement, there was rather a purpose to delay it indefinitely. Otherwise, every act of deference on our part would not be met with a new demand or aggression. If the government of Chili sincerely desired the termination of this dispute, why, abandoning its unfounded pretensions, does it not place both itself and us in such a position as to have arbitration carried into effect? Our titles to Patagonia are of such a nature, Mr. Minister, as really to exclude better ones, because it is impossible that, in founding the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres, the Spanish sovereign should have assigned that region to this government and to that of Chili at the same time. Any other division would have been absurd, in view of the position of the Andes; and one of the best-known men in Chili truthfully said, in a moment of unrestrained frankness, that history, geography, and right constituted us masters of Patagonia. Now, with such convictions we can place no difficulties in the way of the settlement of the dispute by arbitration, nor can we delay it in the hope that dangerous contingencies will give us what is our own. But this same confidence which we feel in the result of the dispute inspires us with apprehensions in view of the agitation which it is sought to produce by presenting the prospect of a state of dangers. We live for progress; and the intervals of peace which we have enjoyed have of late years enabled us to catch a glimpse of what we may soon become by pursuing a policy of peace. America, and the nation which your excellency so worthily represents, being connected with us by a considerable commerce and vast capital employed in promoting our progress, and by thousands of its sons who have met with cordial hospitality in this country, are, like us, interested in the maintenance and perpetuation of peace as well in the acts as in the minds of the people, undisturbed by the want of trust which grows out of groundless and menacing acts, which, though they may be sufficient to produce alarms which do us injury, will never be able to intimidate us. Our desire to continue in the path of progress will not lead us to abandon our rights, nor to consent to the dismemberment of our territory, because justice is on our side, and we have the courage to sustain it. I beg your excellency to be pleased to lay before your Government the protest and reply to which I have referred in this note, that it may judge on which side are justice and moderation. And in order that your excellency may be able to give your testimony to it of the right which is on our side in refusing to yield to the demands of the Chilian government, and of the evidence of our right, I offer to your excellency to demonstrate it by exhibiting our original titles. I desire thus to furnish a proof of the respect which my government entertains for the enlightened and impartial opinion of the friendly nations with which our own maintains relations of friendship and mutual interest. I avail myself of this occasion to reiterate to your excellency the assurances of my most distinguished consideration. His Excellency General THOMAS O. OSBORN, PEDRO ANT'O PARDO. Minister Resident of the United States. No. 93.] No. 6. Mr. Osborn to Mr. Fish. UNITED STATES LEGATION, Buenos Ayres, Feb. 3, 1876. (Received March 30.) SIR: In an interview this afternoon with Dr. Iregoyen, minister for foreign affairs, he informed me that a treaty had just been concluded between the Argentine Republic, Paraguay, and Brazil on the following basis: All the Grand Chaco (the territory west of the Paraguay River) as far north as the mouth of the Pelcomayo River is declared to belong to the Argentine government. That portion of the Grand Chaco from Rio Verde northward is given to Paraguay. Both the Argentine and Brazilian governments are to evacuate Asuncion, Villa Occidental, and all disputed territory, before June, 1876. The island of Cerrito is conceded to the Argentine Republic, but cannot be fortified in time of peace. The minister intimated to me that the result of the conference was yet a secret, as the protocol has not yet been signed, but would be this evening. I think there is no doubt that Paraguay will ratify, as Dr. Iregoyen intimated to me that the Paraguayan minister acted under special instructions from his government, and that they covered all the articles agreed upon. I am, &c., No. 7. THOS. O. OSBORN. No. 96.] Mr. Osborn to Mr. Fish. UNITED STATES LEGATION, Buenos Ayres, Feb. 14, 1876. (Received March 27.) SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith a printed copy, taken from the Nacional, of the articles of the treaty signed by the Argentine, Brazilian, and Paraguayan envoys at their last conference, and referred to in my dispatch of February 3, and numbered 93. The minister of foreign affairs informed me that the terms of the treaty as published in the Nacional are correct. From what I can learn it seems that the terms of the treaty are very acceptable both to the government and people. * I am, &c., THOS. O. OSBORN. [Inclosure.] TREATY OF LIMITS. The Nacional, semi-official organ, publishes the terms of the treaty just signed by the Argentine, Brazilian, and Paraguayan envoys as follows: 1. All of Chaco, south of the Pilcomayo main channel, is hereby recognized as Argentine territory. 2. The Parana is the boundary between Paraguay and Argentine territory from the Tres Bocas upwards. 3. The island of Apipe belongs to the Argentines, that of Yacireta to Paraguay. 4. The island of Cerrito is declared Argentine. 5. That part of Chaco from Bahia Negra down to Rio Verde belongs to Paraguay. 6. The territory from Rio Verde southward to the Pilcomayo, including Concepcion and Villa Occidental, will be decided by President Grant as arbitrator. 7. The Brazilian and Argentine forces will evacuate Paraguay and Villa Occidental on or before 3d July, 1876. 8. The possession and civil jurisdiction of Villa Occidental will continue in the hands of the Argentine government, pending President Grant's decision. 9. Whoever be decided owner of Villa Occidental must recognize the Argentiue and Paraguayan rights of property there. 10. If it be adjudicated to the Argentines they must pay the Paraguayans for any buildings belonging to the latter, and vice versa. 11. Paraguay engages to pay war expenses and indemnities to the Argentines whenever and however she pays Brazil and Uruguay. 12. The Argentine and Paraguayan governments must send in their statements, plans, and documents to President Grant within twelve months. The Nacional adds that a treaty of commerce and navigation on the most liberal terms has also been concluded and signed. No. 111.] No. 8. Mr. Osborn to Mr. Fish. UNITED STATES LEGATION, Buenos Ayres, July 8, 1876. (Received August 25.) SIR: This legation was thrown open at 2 p. m. on the 4th instant for reception in honor of the first centennial anniversary of the independ ence of our country. A few moments after the hour named, President Avellaneda arrived, accompanied by all the ministers of his cabinet, the justices of the supreme court of the republic, with many senators and deputies of the National Congress. Soon after receiving the governor and officials of the province of Buenos Ayres-the diplomatic and consular corps in full costume-I was informed that a large procession headed by the press of the city was moving from the grand plaza to this legation to pay their respects, and soon more than five thousand people gathered, with four brass bands of music, in front of the legation. Late in the evening of the 3d instant I received a note from the gov ernor of the province conveying the congratulations of the chamber of deputies in honor of our centennial anniversary and the joint resolutions of both houses of the provincial government declaring the 4th a feast-day throughout the province. The United States war-vessel Frolic, Captain Kirkland commanding, arrived in this port from Montevideo on the evening of the 3d instant. At 12 m. on the 4th, Captain Kirkland fired a salute of twenty-one guns, dressed ship, and then with his officers in full uniform reported to this legation. The National Congress, after dispatching congratulations to the Congress of the United States, adjourned. Throughout the city business was entirely suspended during the day. The plazas and streets were beautifully decorated with United States and Argentine flags, and at night the public plazas and public, and many private, buildings were illuminated. In fact it caused an American to feel that he was in old Boston. I am, &c., THOS. O. OSBORN. No. 93.] AUSTRIA-HUNGARY. No. 9. Mr. Orth to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Vienna, January 21, 1876. (Received February 12.) SIR: A question of much internal interest to the empire has recently occupied the debates in the upper house of the Reichsrath, and its discussions have induced the coming to the capital of a large portion of the spiritual peers of the realm, with the view of taking part in the same, as well as of obtaining the rejection of the bill through their influence and votes. I refer to the draft of a law presented by the government and, with the exception of some immaterial amendments, adopted by the lower house, having for its object the investment in the state of the following rights, namely: To regulate the formation of religious communities; To subject the establishment of every monastery or convent hereafter to the approval of the temporal authorities, to be evidenced by a special law for that purpose; To limit their correspondence with the superiors of the orders residing at Rome, or otherwise out of the empire; To exercise control over the members and over the administration of the property of the respective institutions; To allow a supervision by the police over such establishments; and finally, To protect the individual rights of such members as might renounce those orders. The prominent speaker against the proposed law was Cardinal Schwarzenberg, archbishop of Prague, who was supported by the Abbot of the Schotten monastery and several of the Bohemian landed aristocracy, while its chief advocates were the Baron Lichtenfels and Count Anthony Auersperg. The minister of public instruction and worship, Dr. Stremayr, failed in his effort to amend that part of the bill requiring a special law in every case for the establishment of a new religious institution, desiring to substitute for this provision a simple authorization of such institutions by the executive power. Even the eloquence of Mr. v. Schmerling, formerly premier minister, proved unsuccessful in amending that provision of the bill restraining such institutions from acquiring landed property, irrespective of its value, without a special law being previously passed to authorize such acquisition. This amendment, if adopted, would have excepted from this provision all such orders as should devote themselves to the care of the sick, and all such convents of nuns as should be occupied in the instruction of youth. Had this amend ment been adopted, it would have changed very materially the original purpose of the bill, by affording facilities for evading its spirit and intent, for it would have been an easy matter for the founders of such institutions hereafter to allege that they were to be established "for the care of the sick" or for "the instruction of youth." After a most animated and able debate, which lasted several days, the bill passed the upper house with slight amendments, which will doubtless be concurred in by the lower house. I am of the opinion that such a law will prove both sound and salutary, being in consonance with the present constitutional principles and régime of the empire and demanded by the progressive spirit of the age. The large landed estates already owned by religious institutions, which enjoy a partial and in most cases total immunity from taxation, manifestly render it impolitic that the number and extent of these estates should be permitted to increase by new acquisitions. I have, &c., No. 10. GODLOVE S. ORTH. No. 109.] Mr. Orth to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Vienna, March 9, 1876. (Received April 6.) SIR: In my No. 93, of date January 21, 1876, I advised you of the passage in the upper house of the Reichsrath, with slight amendment, (the same having previously passed the lower house,) of the bill regu lating and restraining religious institutions. These amendments received the subsequent approval of the lower house, and the bill is now, and ever since its passage by both houses has been, in the hands of the ministry awaiting their recommendation for approval by His Majesty the Emperor. As stated in my No. 93, this measure, during its pendency in the upper house, encountered the united opposition of the spiritual peers, who doubtless represented not only their views but also that of the body of the ultramontane clergy, who oppose, step by step, every innovation upon or change of their established notions or customs. Pending this bill a most vigorous protest against it has been issued, signed by Cardinal Schwarzenberg and thirty-one archbishops and bishops and ecclesiastics. Presuming that the views thus expressed would be of interest to you in connection with this reformatory movement, I herewith send a copy of the original protest, as published in the New Free Press, with translation thereof. The final action has not yet been taken by the ministry, but it is understood that a majority favor the measure and that the bill as it passed the Reichsrath will receive imperial approval. I have, &c., [Inclosure.-Translation.] GODLOVE S. ORTH. Declaration of the Austrian archbishops and bishops relative to the draft of the law affecting monastic society as debated in the Reichsrath. Already, in the year 1874, the Austrian archbishops and bishops assembled in Vienna found themselves placed in the sad necessity of bringing complaint against a propo |