strated. In this connection General Henderson produces statistics according to which the United States get from us nine times the wool bought of us by England. I present to the honorable Delegate the statistics of 1888, from which it appears that while the United States has bought 2,332,000 kilograms of carpet wool, the United Kingdom bought 3,190,000 kilograms of high-grade wool, and if it be true (the English statistics of last year have not reached me), I can assure him that there have not been imported into the United States, as he states, 11,000,584 pounds, but only 8,279,626 of carpet wool and 353,162 of high-grade wool, making a total of 8,632,788 pounds, which are not the 11,000,000 which he supposes. These figures the honorable Delegate may verify by looking on page 136 of this report of the Treasury which I place at his disposal.

The honorable Delegate compares the commerce of the Argentine Republic with that of the United States, and comments, like Mr. Flint, on the free list, which, as far as we are concerned, is limited to raw hides; but I have already replied to this argument, and he can not deny the insignificance of our commerce so long as during 1889 we sent to these markets $5,400,000 out of our total exports of $125,000,000, and when the exports from New York to Buenos Ayres represent nearly double that figure ($9,343,856), its insignificance is even more apparent compared to the total exports of the United States, which amount to $742,000,000.

It is this paucity of our trade which I took upon myself to study, without attacking any one and essaying to benefit all.

I drop figures for the moment to take up certain doctrines advanced by my distinguished colleague. According to him the United States Congress had in view two objects when it called the Conference together; first, peace represented by arbitration, and, second, commerce from which, to his mind, arbitration should spring. I am unable to understand this generative power of commerce, over political and social institutions which prevail and are put into practice with entire independence of commerce. But the honorable Delegate states that all the rest of the act is mere

words, including in the term the enacting clauses which provide for a Customs Union. My distinguished colleague will understannd that the Argentine Government did not permit itself to interpret as mere flights of language the concise terms of a positive law which was worthy of the sanction of the Federal Congress of the United States, but, on the contrary, gave to each article of said act the importance it deserved and instructed its Delegates in sympathy with the text and spirit thereof. The debates begun, the distinguished Delegate judges it easy to evolve new ideas foreign to the law, and ends by considering us in different, because we do not accompany him in the exaltation of extemporaneous remarks. It is well to establish the official position of these two Delegations. That of the United States has declared in the majority of cases that it does not know the opinion of its Government and that it acts without fixed instructions, which may or may not be ratified.

I do not have to recall the incidents which came up in the committees and in the Conference itself, that decided the Argentine Delegates to abstain from voting so long as they were not apprised of the opinions of the inviting Government, represented up to that time by two dissenting votes, which is equivalent to saying that neither was official. The Hon. Mr. Coolidge added that this was a stroke of independence on the part of the American Government, and that the other Delegates had nothing to do with its actions. In the Argentine Republic diplomatic customs are different; the foreign policy which demands unity of thought and action is directed by the national cabinet and not left to the judgment of twenty diplomatic representatives and of a like number of delegates who might attend International Congresses. I do not criticize the diplomatic practices of the United States, but I follow those of my country. The Argentine cabinet has not signed our instructions in blank, and I respect them as indicative of order and foresight. Following, therefore, those instructions, we have resisted any deviation from their concise and exact terms, and in this there is no contradiction but perfect consistency and conformity with our mission.

We have rejected the idea of a Zollverein by the unanimous vote of the committee, and Mr. Henderson avers that I have also rejected reciprocity treaties; but I invite him to read that part of my remarks wherein I discussed the question and in which I have defined our position; it was as follows: "The Argentine Republic does not deny the possibility of making treaties," and furthermore it. says: "She will express herself on this point when it may be requested by friendly nations, or when she decides to initiate the invitation-a matter which belongs to her cabinet." Where then is the rejection of which Mr. Henderson speaks? It is very easy to plunge a Delegate into contradictions when he is placed in a position which he has not thought of assuming, and words are attributed to him which he never uttered. Or, is it thought that the vote of the majority of the committee could obligate me in a certain way to adopt recommendations and reach conclusions which, influencing the mind of the cabinet, would seriously affect the attributes of the national sovereignty? But on the other hand, with which of the nations represented in the committee could we make treaties, since, according to Mr. Henderson, it is the committee who has proposed it to us?

With Mexico, Nicaragua, and Colombia we have no trade, but only our friendly relations and a happy cordiality which we shall ever cultivate with assiduous care. With Chili and Brazil we maintain a mediocre trade, but to conclude reciprocity treaties with our friends and neighbors we need not have them witnessed by America. Going to Rio Janerio and Santiago for the trade of Washington we would have to follow a course as inexplicable as that which brought us from the Plata to the Potomac by way of Liverpool. There now remains to consider the probability of making treaties with the United States, and I again beg my distinguished colleague to inform me and to show me where and in what part of my speech I have doubted the good faith of his Government with respect to these treaties. The words attributed to me by the honorable Delegate are assuming an alarming aspect because they attack my sincerity. I am aware of the respect due

a nation and I know the duties of courtesy, which I have not had to learn so far from home. Nowhere, and I state it emphatically, honorable Delegates, have I spoken the words ascribed to me by Mr. Henderson. I appeal again to the minutes. Was there, perchance, bad faith when the Government of the United States rejected the treaty which the Argentine proposed to it in 1870? How can there be in this most legitimate exercise of sovereignty inspired by the interests of commerce as each nationality understands them? I cited the words of Mr. Hamilton Fish to elucidate a policy which is offensive to no one, even if it is against the ideas of treaties. No official hast proposed to us in the name of the United States to re-open negotiations upon that idea, and I could hardly have rejected it founding the objection on the bad faith of this Government. I can not understand, then, because there is no extenuating reason for the hypothesis, I can not understand, I repeat, such a reproach. The press of this country has made incorrect statements when it said that the Government of the United States has proposed such treaties to us. In the name of the Argentine Delegation I state that such assertion is unauthorized.

The circumstance of Mr. Henderson voting in favor of the majority report which recommends the treaties, would not be an indication of the opinion of this Government, because, at the formal meetings which I attended, he stated that he was ignorant of that opinion, saying that he spoke in his individual capacity. There is more yet; I have proposed to him privately the negotiation of a treaty; I have indicated to him the articles upon which it might be based, and up to the present time I have not had his reply. Where, then, is the rejection of the compacts, which is made as a charge against the Argentine Delegates? Was it not logical to suppose that the Government of the United States still persisted in its policy of 1870? Where is the offense in this supposition? Where the bad faith that can be attributed to it?

Mr. Henderson reminds us of the embarrassed situation of the United States at the time of the proposition. The nation was bearing the results of the civil war, and the

tax-payers were supporting a debt of $2,600,000,000, 50 per cent. of the interest thereon being paid by the customs revenues. I am thankful for these explanations of my honorable colleague, but the Argentine Government never asked them, and that of the United States need not have made them in the exercise of an inalienable right. Today the economic situation has changed, it is true, but there is one factor of that reply which remains unalterable, because of its being wiser than the people of the United States-it is the Constitution which was pleaded as the reason for the rejection when the Department of State declared that it was not the Executive but the Federal Congress which could modify or sanction customs duties.

I must confine myself to the policy which the United States has officially maintained regarding my Government without asking precedents of Hawaii, when I have them in the Argentine Republic as explicit and clear as those of any other nation. I do not think it necessary to reply to the correction directed at me, that the treaty with San Domingo was not rejected, but withdrawn by the President from the Senate. The unsubstantial difference in these statements did not merit the correction; neither did the reference to the treaty with Mexico merit it. I said that Congress did not approve the treaty, and the Delegate from Mexico corrects me, saying that it is the House of Representatives which retains it. I would not wish to touch upon these microscopic points of the diplomatic liturgy and breviary, and, if I need to know the opinion of the Mexican Government upon the policy of the United States with respect to making treaties, it would only be necessary to repeat the words spoken by its representative, spoken officially and publicly in the presence of all the Delegations of America. He has said to us the following, referring to the House of Representative of the United States:

The treaty examined in the committee, only one of the thirteen members composing it, Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, reported in favor of it; the report of the other members, which, more than a report, appeared like a libel against Mexico, founded their vote against the treaty.