723.2515/3291a: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Chile (Culbertson)9
27. I had a long talk with Mr. Cady, the engineer who studied the situation at Arica regarding a port. He told me that while of course a port could be built anywhere, provided one had the money to do so, nevertheless, a port at Lluta would be most inadvisable. The port which he proposed at the San José River could be built satisfactorily [Page 741] for $3,500,000, and it could be moved 300 meters north as suggested in Ambassador Moore’s 28, March 11, 5 p.m. Mr. Cady confirmed the distances and measurements given in that telegram. The port could not be constructed much more than 300 meters to the north or at any point between there and the Lluta River on account of the absence of water. There is water again when one gets to the Lluta River and a port could be built, but it would be greatly exposed to the sea and would be more costly because of the need for stronger breakwaters and the material would have to be transported a greater distance and hence the cost would be increased. Also, it would require probably 8 or 10 kilometers of new railroad construction to bring the Tacna railroad to a new port at Lluta at approximately the same grade as to Arica. No change in grade would be needed on the Tacna railroad to bring it into the new port proposed at the San José River, but very costly grading would be needed near Lluta where, Mr. Cady said, the character of the soil, sand and gravel is constantly changing after the yearly floods in the river and much bridging might be required.
While Mr. Cady disliked to make an estimate of cost without additional data before him, nevertheless, he said that to construct a port somewhat like the one proposed for the San José River at Lluta would probably come to two or three million dollars more than at San José, and that even then it could not be guaranteed against weather conditions, and that when the surveys are made at Lluta it may be discovered that conditions are such that an entirely different type of construction would be needed, which would greatly increase the cost. Mr. Cady referred in this connection to the costly breakwater at Antofagasta, in which there is already a breach, and to the costly construction at Valparaiso. Neither from an engineering nor from an economic point of view is a port at Lluta to be recommended, and Mr. Cady added that the site proposed on the San José River was the best in that vicinity. The proposed port would be protected by the Morro and Alacran Island and the breakwaters proposed would give protection but, on an open point as at Lluta, no guarantee could be given against damage.
Please communicate this at once to the Government of Chile and say that in view of these conditions I very much hope that it will find it possible to accept the proposal of President Leguia, which seems to be most advantageous. You may say that Mr. Cady stated that the distance from the northernmost dock at Arica to the proposed breakwater was 4000 feet, and from the same pier to the southernmost proposed pier of the new port 6400 feet, and that this port would not appear to interfere in any way with the shops of the railroad or the Velazquez barracks. The shops north of San José River have apparently been abandoned and used simply by Chilean [Page 742] army officers. Again, the Arica-La Paz railway rises rather sharply after it crosses the San José River and there is a natural division formed by the cliff at that point between the Tacna and La Paz railroads, so there appears to be no obstacle but rather every facility for constructing the port at that point and have the dividing line come in between the port and the La Paz railroad. Please telegraph the result of your conversation. Ambassador Davila is now in New York but he will return to Washington tonight, and tomorrow will have an interview with Mr. Cady and me at the Department.
- Repeated to the Ambassador in Peru, for his information only, in telegram No. 23 of the same date; not printed.↩