723.2515/1040: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Chile (Collier)
52. Your 63, September 20, noon; 65 September 26 [22], 10 a.m.; 66 September 23, 11 a.m.34
Am reluctant to authorize any statements which could possibly be regarded as assurances affecting arbitrator’s determination, as integrity and impartiality of arbitration are of far greater consequence to the United States than any other consideration. You should understand and may state to Huneeus and Claro35 that this Government accepted role of arbitrator with great reluctance, my suggestion being that a commission of jurists or an American jurist should be selected. Provision for selection of the President of the United States was due to the insistence of the Chilean as well as Peruvian delegates. The following answers your specific points:
- 1.
- I think it would be unfortunate for you to state at this time that the Tarapacá question was eliminated because of the position taken by the United States in this matter. It should be remembered that statements made by you in Chile, however cautious, are likely to find their way to Peru and may occasion difficulties there through misunderstanding. I believe that it would be quite sufficient for you to inform Huneeus and Claro that the conversations carried on at Washington indicate clearly that the question of Tarapacá was eliminated and that there would be no justification for Peru to raise this question after the Tacna-Arica problem had been disposed of.
- 2.
- It would be inadmissible for you to make any suggestion whatever with respect to the present inhabitants of Tacna-Arica exercising self-determination or any reference to any qualifications or terms of plebiscite. Nothing must be said which in the slightest degree could intimate any pre-judgment of questions to be submitted to the arbitrator under terms of protocol. Both parties will be given ample opportunity to present arguments and no conversations upon this subject by representatives of the President could possibly be permitted. One of the questions is whether the plebiscite should be held, and another, that if it is held, upon what conditions. The President has an entirely open mind. I may add that I have not myself considered them or reached any determination even of a preliminary character with respect to any phase of them. This matter will await appropriate submission of arguments and [Page 512] the impartial consideration which the arbitrator is bound to give. Fears expressed by opponents of the protocol reflect upon the competence of the arbitrator who will faithfully consider all questions before reaching any decision upon points submitted.
- 3.
- In your No. 63, Sept. 20, noon, you say that Chileans fear that arbitrator will permit women and illiterates to vote is said to be based upon report by Mathieu of statement by me during Conference that qualifications in plebiscite[s] held by League of Nations would be applicable. I do not believe that Mathieu made any such statement as it is wholly without foundation. I have never discussed qualifications of electors in event of plebiscite with Mathieu or anyone else. You may deny categorically that I or anyone representing the American Government has ever expressed or intimated any opinion upon any question of qualifications of electors or other matter affecting plebiscite.