710.11/200½a

The Secretary of State to President Wilson

My Dear Mr. President: I am sending you copy of the communication which we have received from the Chilean Ambassador;6 and I will call your attention to it proposition by proposition.

[Page 477]

In the first place—you will notice that in the paragraph marked “1” he does not expect the matter to be proposed to the other governments unless it is approved by the three to whom it was first submitted—Brazil, Argentina and Chile.

I think it would be well for us to correct this impression and say to him that while we feel that it was wise to submit it to the three larger countries before submitting it to the others, we would not feel justified in refusing to enter into an agreement with such nations as would desire to become parties to such an agreement, merely because one or more of the nations did not see fit to join, and that we feel sure that no nation which for any reason feels that it cannot come in would desire to deny to the other nations such benefits as might result from the negotiation of such a treaty.

Second: You will notice that he objects—(and his Government supports his objection)—to a guarantee of a republican form of government.

There is force in the objection which he makes—namely, that the form of Government is a matter for the people of the country and not a matter in which outside countries should interfere. At the same time, as all these governments are republican in form and as none of them have any intention of returning to any other form I do not believe that the objection which he makes would be entertained by other countries and it would be a great advantage to have this endorsement given to the republican idea of government; and, moreover, we might have difficulty in securing the ratification of a treaty which pledged us to assist in maintaining the independence of a monarchy.

We might meet his objection, it occurs to me, by saying that the treaty will doubtless provide for its denunciation by any of the contracting parties upon notice—which is generally one year—so that any country desiring to change its form of government can give notice of its desire and withdraw, and when released from the treaty can then make such change in its form of government as it desires.

Third: The question which he raises about the guarantee of territorial integrity is more difficult to deal with, and yet I think it is even more important than the guarantee of a republican form of government.

The purpose of the treaty is to insure peace in the western hemisphere and nothing will go further in this direction than a guarantee of territorial integrity. While we are confident as to our own intentions, it will be a very acceptable thing to Latin-America to have us agree that we will respect the territorial integrity of all the other nations, and it will be a great protection to the little countries to have their territorial integrity guaranteed.

[Page 478]

The thing that troubles Chile, of course, is the controversy between Chile and Peru and I suggest that we might meet this proposition as follows:

Let those nations sign which will agree to sign and let the guarantee cover all questions that may arise after the settlement of existing disputes or disagreements, each nation to set forth specifically the excepted dispute.

This will enable Chile to sign and in doing so make an exception of the dispute with Peru. Peru may or may not desire to make an exception of the dispute with Chile. If we make a guarantee covering all future disputes I do not think it will be necessary to go further than have the nations agree to use their best endeavors to reach a settlement of any disputes which may exist, without fixing a time limit on those disputes.

If Peru is guaranteed against any further invasion of its territory I believe it will be possible for the Peruvian government to accept the settlement offered by Chile, which is that the control of the disputed territory be submitted to an election within a year, no one being permitted to vote who is not a resident at the time the agreement is made; the nation securing the disputed territory to pay a fixed sum to the nation losing. The sum of ten millions is proposed, but Chile has indicated a willingness to go beyond that. If Peru can be assured of territorial integrity after the settlement of this dispute it is more than likely that a settlement can be soon effected.

While it would be desirable to have a time limit fixed for the settlement of existing disputes that is not so essential as the agreement that when the disputes are settled there shall be no more forcible taking of territory.

I believe that nearly all the countries would enter into such a treaty and it should be left open for others to sign afterwards.

You will notice that the Chilean Ambassador makes a distinction between original boundaries and disputes of territory arising from other sources. I see no insuperable objection to that distinction, but believe it would be better to let it rest with an agreement on the part of the nations to try and adjust their disputes. Possibly we might make the provision for arbitration as to original boundaries, and then add the promise as to other boundary disputes.

Fourth: You will notice that the objection he makes in regard to the provision of monopoly of arms. I do not think his objection is sound but as the purpose of this paragraph is to prevent the shipping of arms from one American country into another it might be sufficient if the agreement provided for legislation which would enable each country to so control the export of arms as not to permit export of arms to be used by one of the contracting parties as against another. [Page 479] The Chilean Ambassador is afraid that we might have difficulty in securing the ratification of the treaty if it provided for a radical change in this respect, and he does not want to have the treaty fail on account of a provision which would incite opposition.

I might add, in closing, that the Argentine Ambassador is in favor of the draft of the treaty just as it was presented by you and the Brazilian is desirous of that form, with the exception of the question of arbitration of differences, and upon this they have not yet given their final answer.

With assurances [etc.]

W. J. Bryan
  1. Not printed.