723.2515/1331
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State (Fletcher)
The Peruvian Ambassador called today to speak of the new turn that had been taken in the Tacna–Arica question by the invitation of the Chilean Government to proceed to hold the plebiscite, et cetera. He said that there was a feeling that Chile was not acting in good faith in this matter, and that false reports of mobilization on the part of Peru had been disseminated from Chilean sources with the idea of putting Peru in a wrong light; but in spite of this he had telegraphed his Government, on his own motion, recommending them to act temperately and in their reply not to close the door to further negotiations looking toward the settlement of this matter; that the public opinion of the world, in view of the success of the Washington Conference and the settlement of the Irish question, was all in favor of conciliation. He said that he thought this matter could not be settled by direct negotiations between Chile and Peru, and that all hope of settlement lay in a conference of, say, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, and the United States.
[Page 253]I replied that we had received no notice as to the probable reply of the Peruvian Government, but that the attitude of the United States had undergone no change; that if any settlement which was satisfactory to both parties could be arrived at, it would be a matter of immense gratification to us, and incidentally I referred to the fact that if the question of transmitting the reply which they intended to make to Chile through our Embassy came up, I would like him to explain to his Government that we would prefer, in the maintenance of our impartial attitude, not to act as the agent of either party in the exchanges now going on, and that this attitude was taken solely with the idea of not prejudicing our position in the eyes of either of the parties to the dispute. The Ambassador said that he understood this perfectly, and would take pains to explain it to his Government.
I told the Ambassador that I had seen by the papers that the Peruvian Government in its reply would claim that the Treaty of Ancon as a whole had been nullified by the failure to hold the plebiscite under Article 12 [3]. He said that while this claim might be made, it would be the extreme claim of Peru, but that naturally it would be susceptible of modification. He said, however, that he had not been advised as to what the answer would be, and hoped that his advice not to close the door to further negotiations would be heeded by his Government.
There was general conversation about the various phases of this long-standing controversy, and the burden of the Ambassador’s contention was that it could never be settled except by the arbitration and interposition of other American countries. I was careful not to commit the Department one way or another as to this.