723.2515/1053: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Chile (Collier)
56. Your 73, October 15, 11 A.M.
I had an interview this morning with Chilean Ambassador who showed me proposed reservations under consideration in Senate. I informed him that these reservations would be tantamount to reopening the negotiations and that it would be impossible for me to approve them and I sincerely hoped in the interest of an amicable adjustment of the controversy they would not be pressed.
The Ambassador then presented the question of an extension of time upon the grounds stated in your telegram.
I expressed the opinion that it was inadvisable to ask for an extension at this time; that Peru would undoubtedly urge, and I was inclined to think correctly, that the present provisions of the protocol as to exchange of ratifications could not be altered by the President of Peru or without the consent of the Peruvian Congress; that it was inadvisable to seek such consent while Chile was debating reservations to the protocol; that such a request and especially the submission of such a question to the Peruvian Congress at this time would simply raise points of controversy without favorable result. It seems to me that Chile should proceed with the ratification despite the expiration of the period and when Chile has ratified an appropriate request could then be made for whatever action was necessary to permit an exchange of ratifications despite the expiration of the period. In this event both countries having ratified the only question presented would be one of the agreed time for the exchange of ratifications and I can hardly suppose that there would be any basis for refusing to grant the extension as the delay would apparently have no injurious effects and would be slight in comparison with the duration of the controversy. While I do not wish to be put in the position of giving advice to either party and simply am endeavoring to act in the interest of both in order to promote a peaceful settlement, I should be entirely willing in case Chile ratifies [Page 514] to support earnestly the request for such action as might be necessary to provide for an exchange of ratifications.
In answer to the suggestion that the request for extension should be made before the time limit had expired, I should say, first, that such a request made at this time would only create controversy in view of the discussion now being had in the Chilean Senate, and, second, that as the Peruvian Government through its Congress would have to give its consent in any event it can give it just as well after the event as before regardless of the time when the request was made.
It seems to me that the fundamental question is simply whether the protocol will be ratified by Chile and I cannot believe that after its ratification there will be eventually any great difficulty with respect to the question of time, provided of course there is ratification within a reasonable time. I can see, however, serious complications if requests are made of Peru by Chile while the latter is discussing reservations.