723.2515/3293: Telegram
The Ambassador in Chile (Culbertson) to the Secretary of State
[Received 7:39 a.m.]
37. Your 26, March 13, 11 a.m. The location of the port is the only important point in disagreement. Peru accepts the second proposal quoted in my 31, March 9, 7 p.m. The Foreign Minister now says, however, that the location of a port near the mouth of the Lluta River, as in that proposal and in the second paragraph of his written memorandum which I telegraphed in my 35, March 14, 3 p.m., is not practicable because of dredging difficulty, and that the Chilean engineers now recommend that the port be located at a point opposite Escritos, 16 kilometers from Arica, which was mentioned in telegram to Ambassador Davila dated December 14. On March 15 a technical report will be cabled to the Chilean Ambassador in Peru.
Chile asks that the international boundary be located 10 kilometers north of the railroad. I do not know what President Leguia’s view on this point is. Nor do I know whether President Leguia accepts the conditions specified in Chile’s second proposal quoted in my 31, March 9, 7 p.m.
I have the assurance of the Foreign Minister on the following points:
Chile will pay $3,500,000 to build the port; the Government property north of the boundary will be turned over to Peru without charge; Chile will voluntarily, but not by any treaty stipulation, return to Peru certain trophies taken in the War of the Pacific; the removal of the fortifications from the Morro and the erection thereon of a monument to be dedicated by the Presidents of Chile and Peru, and the conversion of the Morro into a public park; reciprocal guarantees of personal and commercial rights; compulsory arbitration of all disputes regarding the interpretation of the treaty provisions.
If we allow the matter of the location of the port to become a wrangle among engineers, delay will result. I feel reasonably certain [Page 744] that Chile will never agree to a port under the sovereignty of Peru anywhere south of the Lluta River. Because of this, if Peru wants terminal facilities in that area, she must accept Chile’s proposal No. 1 in my 31, March 9, 7 p.m. If she insists on a port, we might avoid the dispute over location by giving the money to Peru and leaving her free to construct a port at any place she might select north of Punta Chacota. She could then construct the port wherever she desired or use the money for something else. Perhaps we could persuade Chile to increase the payment so as to cover such items as the re-laying of the [railroad?]. In the declaration to be issued next week the provision on the port could read:
“Chile will pay to Peru the sum of $3,500,000 which sum Peru may use, if she so elects, to construct a port at any point selected by her engineers north of Punta Chacota.”
The views set forth in your 27, March 14, 2 [1] p.m., just received, will be vigorously presented by me.