723.2515/980: Telegram
The Chargé in Peru (Sterling) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 4—12:15 a.m.]
62. Last night I had a long informal conversation with President Leguia in which I took up the several points in your telegram no. 50, of July 1, 4 p.m., and elicited his views. He appreciates the unofficial good offices of Secretary Hughes, but he is unable to understand why, in the contingency that arbitration determine the plebiscite to be impossible, the suggestion does not propose an allocation [Page 494] by arbitration of the territory under discussion. If arbitration results in a decision against the holding of a plebiscite, he sees no possibility of coming to an agreement with Chile by direct negotiations; the result would again be a situation with no issue, and there would have been no advance whatever towards a solution. Chile’s position, indeed, would be better than it was before, for the reason that failure to reach an agreement would confirm her indefinitely in possession of the disputed territory until the fulfillment of the provisions of article 3 of the treaty, and Peru would, conversely, be the sufferer. The President assumes, of course, in his argument that the arbitration would decide against the holding of the plebiscite. With reference to the rumor denied in the third paragraph of your telegram, the President never believed that any plan had been conceived by the United States for the disposition of the disputed territory but he did think it probable that should Chile and Peru enter into direct negotiations, the former would propose to divide Tacna and Arica. At the last the President said that it was incomprehensible to him that if Chile were sincere in her desire to settle the dispute justly and finally, she would object to the proposal that an arbitrator decide the ownership of the two provinces in the contingency that a plebiscite should not be held, and in this sense he has instructed the Peruvian delegates.
I ventured to point out the fact that in endeavoring even unofficially to bring the disputants to an agreement the position of the Government of the United States was extremely delicate, and that this fact is adequate testimonial of the interest which the Government of the United States has in the solution of the problem. The President promised to give the matter careful reconsideration. It is possible that he will change his attitude, for he has come to no final decision.