723.2515/3617
The Chilean Plenipotentiary (Cruchaga) to the Secretary of State
The Chilean Government, in an endeavour to evidence its willingness to settle the existing controversy with Peru regarding the fulfillment of Article 3 of the Treaty of Ancón, a dispute submitted to the Arbitration of His Excellency The President of the United States and which was decided by the Award rendered March 4, 1925, accepted the tender made by the Government of the United States of its good offices to procure a direct adjustment of the question.
From the outset my Government represented the fact that its acceptance of such a praiseworthy initiative did not imply its consent to a suspension of the plebiscitary proceedings, which were to proceed along the course established by the Award and in the Resolutions of the Plebiscitary Commission appointed to execute the Arbitral decision.
This intelligence given by Chile to its acceptance of the tender of good offices was expressly admitted by the Honorable The Secretary of State and, also, by the Peruvian Government, the latter having participated, under such an understanding, in the negotiations carried on within the good offices.
The meetings of the Plenipotentiaries of Chile and Peru were inaugurated in Washington, upon such a criterion and under the auspices of the Honorable The Secretary of State, and, meantime, the plebiscitary proceedings were parallelly carried onward in Arica. While the suggestions formulated by the Honorable The Secretary of State or by the Parties, were discussed in Washington, the Commission at Arica in fulfillment of the Electoral Regulations, proceeded with the registration of voters, extended the period granted therefor and set in operation the rules enacted to bring about the holding of the popular vote.
[Page 485]The situation was perfectly clear: the Award had directed that a plebiscite should be held, and the good offices were intended to find a direct settlement independent from the former. If the good offices did not bring about any results, there remained, immovable, the plebiscitary solution stipulated by the Arbitr[at]or. If the good offices reached a direct adjustment, the plebiscite would then be inapplicable.
This parallelism of proceedings has been broken through the unexpected Resolution introduced by the Member representing the Arbitrator and which was adopted by the majority of the Plebiscitary Commission.
Said Resolution has declared that the plebiscite prescribed by the High Judge is impracticable; namely, it has repealed the Award wherein it was established that a plebiscite was practicable, which ordered its holding, that organized the agency entrusted with its execution and which reserved to the Arbitrator at Law the right to void the results of the ballot, once it had been held, if there happened to be grounds of intimidation, fraud or bribery.
The plebiscitary line having thus been erased by the Plebiscitary Commission, the line of the good offices, which ran parallel to it has, in fact, been also erased. The good offices were accepted with the understanding—shared by all the parties thereto—that the plebiscitary proceedings were to continue in the form and along the course indicated by the Award; we trod the path of the good offices with the sincere desire of reaching a speedy solution which could eliminate the inevitable and vexatious difficulties brought forth by the electoral process; but we always had the assurance that, if those good offices did not attain the looked for success, the plebiscitary solution still remained pending and in full force; with the acceptance of the good offices new hopes of ending the question were unfolded without there being any abandonment of the plebiscitary solution ordered by such a High Judge as the President of the United States, after a careful study of the bulky antecedents exhibited by both parties, in a lengthy and well founded Award, which has been deservedly extolled by the principal jurists of the world at large; the good offices were accepted and the solution set forth in the Award was kept alive, under which conditions both parties entered into them on an equal footing for the discussions which were to arise therefrom.
In declaring the plebiscite impracticable, a finding being based on antecedents which were not communicated to the accused Party, the aforesaid parallelism disappears and, therefore, I have been instructed by my Government to bring to an end the negotiations under the good office[s].
[Page 486]I am especially pleased to convey the sincere thanks of the Chilean Government for the constant and disinterested services which have been lent, to the cause of harmony and concord among American countries, by the Honorable The Secretary of State, whose intelligent efforts were set into action without attaining the desired results due to the fact that the Resolution of the majority of the Plebiscitary Commission brought about the premature end of the negotiations in which he was so nobly engaged.
- Made in the Chilean Embassy.↩