723.2515/999
Memorandum by Dr. Leo S. Rowe, Director General of the Pan American Union, of a Conference Held in the Office of the Secretary of State, July 17, 192227
In attendance were:
- The Secretary of State, Hon. Charley E. Hughes.
- The Chairman of the Chilean Delegation, Hon. Carlos Aldunate.
- The Chairman of the Peruvian Delegation, Hon. Melitón Porras.
At the request of the Chairmen of the two Delegations, and by invitation of the Secretary of State, Dr. Rowe was present and served as interpreter.
At the opening of the conference Señor Aldunate informed the Secretary that the Conference had decided to request the President of the United States to serve as arbitrator and expressed the hope that the President would be willing to do this very great service. Dr. Porras then expressed a similar request.
The Secretary then stated that he was certain that the President of the United States would be deeply appreciative of the honor done him by such selection. Although Secretary Hughes had entertained the hope that the Conference might decide either upon a board of jurists or a single jurist; yet, in view of the decision that had been made, he desired to express his appreciation of the confidence thus expressed by both Delegations, and would be glad to advise the President of the United States to accept the designation.
Sr. Aldunate then set forth the views of the Chilean Delegation with reference to the desirability of inserting, either in the Protocol, or the Supplementary Act,28 or in a definite way in the minutes of the Conference, a statement to the effect that, if the arbitrator should decide against the holding of a plebiscite, the status of possession of the provinces by Chile should not be disturbed, and that her right to legislate for the provinces and to appoint administrative authorities should not be questioned. He pointed out that this was the interpretation which both the Chilean Delegation and the Chilean Government had placed upon the formula proposed by Mr. Hughes and which they had so gladly accepted. Without some such declaratory statement he felt that there was real danger that Peru might interpret Clause “C” of the Supplementary Act to mean that, in [Page 502] case the arbitrator decided against the holding of a plebiscite, the provinces should be turned over immediately to Peru. He felt certain that neither Dr. Porras nor Dr. Velarde would give such an interpretation, as they were fully acquainted, not only with the letter but also with the spirit of the Clause, but he stated that men come and go and it was impossible to foresee who would give interpretation to the Clause when the time comes for its application. He felt, furthermore, that where in Clause “C” of the Supplementary Act the two governments agree to “enter into a discussion of the situation created by the decision of the arbitrator,” it might be assumed that the situation thus “created” is an entirely new one and that the declaratory words are intended to overcome such a presumption. He deemed it necessary, therefore, in order to avoid subsequent controversies, to include a declaratory statement which would remove all doubt from the situation and that his government regarded such a declaratory statement as indispensable.
Dr. Porras then stated that, in his opinion, the introduction of the declaratory words proposed by the Chilean Delegation would mean a transformation of the formula proposed by Secretary Hughes into something which was not intended at the time that it was pro-posed and when it was accepted by the Peruvian Government. Dr. Porras emphasized the fact that he regarded the declaration proposed by the Chilean Delegation as unnecessary, because such declarations are superfluous when there is no change in the person or entity in occupation or possession. Furthermore, he regarded such a declaration as derogatory to Peru and likely to wound national sensibilities.
To this observation Sr. Aldunate made a brief reply, stating that there was no thought in proposing these additional words to change the formula proposed by Secretary Hughes, but simply to clarify the situation so as to avoid subsequent controversies.
Secretary Hughes began by stating that he wished to congratulate both Delegations on the splendid progress that had been made, and that it was exceedingly gratifying to find that they had reached agreement on all important points and that the point as to which there was disagreement at the present time was one of rather secondary importance. He deemed it a matter of very great moment that the final agreement when reached should not only express the actual understanding of the two governments, but, also, should be so worded as to avoid future differences and controversies; that he had thought over the matter very carefully and felt that it should be clear that in case the arbitrator should decide against the holding of a plebiscite that Chile thereby acquired no new or additional rights. On the other hand, he deemed it important that, pending the settlement as to the final disposition of the territory, the administrative organization of the provinces should not be disrupted and [Page 503] that, in the interest of peace and good order, it should be made clear that there would be no such disruption. It is evident, the Secretary said, that if the decision of the arbitrator should be against the holding of a plebiscite, then the procedure provided for in the treaty for the final transferance of title can no longer be made operative. This fact, therefore, involves the necessity of negotiations in order to determine the final disposition of the territory.
The Secretary then went on to say that he fully appreciated that both parties were somewhat apprehensive as to the future. He could see that Chile was somewhat apprehensive lest Peru might say that Chile should relinquish all control of the provinces prior to the negotiations stipulated in the agreement, and, on the other hand, he could see that Peru was apprehensive lest Chile should remain in possession for an indefinite, and possibly prolonged, period. He deemed it important, therefore, to avoid language which might give rise to embarrassing and irritating claims on either side, and to find a formula which would avoid contention. He was endeavoring to look at the question from the standpoint of both countries, with a view to suggesting something that might allay the apprehensions of both. He stated, furthermore, that he deemed it beyond his province to discuss where the statement which he was about to suggest was to appear, as that was a matter for the two Delegations to determine.
In explaining the suggestion that he was about to make, the Secretary stated that he had placed at the beginning of the statement the reason for the suggestion in the form as submitted, namely, the introductory words:—
“In the interest of peace and good order.”
Having done this, it is made clear that the administrative organization of the provinces should not be disturbed pending an agreement as to the disposition of the territory.
The complete suggestion, therefore, which he desired to submit for the consideration of the delegates is as follows:
“It is understood, in the interest of peace and good order, that in this event and pending an agreement as to the disposition of the territory, the administrative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed.”