723.2515/3278: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Chile (Culbertson)
22. Your 28, March 6, noon. I cannot understand why there should be opposition to a separate port at Arica for Peru for the reasons set forth in your telegram. The construction of such a railroad would be so very difficult and expensive and would require such a long time that I do not feel that there is any reasonable danger to Chile on that score. The entire difficulty has been the sentiment [Page 734] regarding Arica, and the proposed plan seems to be an admirable solution by permitting each country to have a port of Arica. The original port of Arica remains Chilean, and the arrangement, therefore, is very advantageous to Chile from every point of view.
Only after months of painstaking negotiations has President Leguia consented to go as far as he has in meeting Chile’s point of view. The very fact that President Leguia has consented to a division of the territory is a great advance over the position he has consistently taken in the past, and his agreement now not only to the division, but also to the division on such terms as to give to Chile the greater part of the territory and the railroad to Bolivia intact, is more than I had been able to hope for for months. The payment of $3,500,000 in lieu of any damages is not a large amount, and if this most difficult question could be settled on that basis, it would appear extremely advantageous. The expenses of Chile in the plebiscite alone were probably not much, if any, short of that amount.
It is my earnest hope that the result of these long months of negotiation will not be lost now because of objections such as these.
The foregoing is for your information and informal use in conversations should a suitable opportunity present itself, but it is not to be used as a basis for making any representations.