723.2515/1657: Telegram
The Consul at Arica (Von Tresckow) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 26(?)—11:55 a.m.]
From Pershing:
(1) Edwards came to see me on the evening of October 19 to discuss in general way substitute resolution he is preparing. He insisted that any recognition by Government of Chile of authority of Plebiscitary Commission as we understand it would be impossible and that Chilean Government would not agree to it. I took direct issue with him and said that that recognition must be accorded and question must be decided very soon. After some further talk he became quite confidential and said that he thought plebiscite as contemplated by our construction of award was entirely impossible, that for some time he had been of this opinion, and that he had telegraphed his Government apprising them of his opinion. He said he did not mean any reflection personally, and that if he were in my place he [Page 402] would do exactly as I was doing. Continuing, he said that it would make no difference how many officials it might seem necessary to remove, their places would have to be taken by Chileans and that all Chileans were alike in attitude toward Peruvians. He pointed out that I had seen conditions here and could judge for myself, and that Government could not control Chilean sentiments as they were outgrowth of the past 45 years’ relations between the two peoples. He said no Chilean carabineer or policeman could be expected to intervene in favor of Peruvians against his own people. He repeated with emphasis that it was an impossible situation. He thought it possible to postpone plebiscite 6 months to see if there might not be some other way to settle differences and suggested that he, Freyre, and I might be designated by our Governments to discuss matter here and try to find a solution.
I then said that if plebiscite were found impossible someone would probably be held responsible and I asked him whether his Government would accept whatever blame might attach to such a finding. He answered that it would be unnecessary to blame anyone as situation was inherent in very nature of things. He suggested that I approach Freyre and I said that I would think it over.
On October 21 I called to see him on another matter, but broached the subject only to say that it did not seem expedient for me to speak to the Peruvian Commissioner, and suggested that Chilean Government might take it up with the Secretary of State. He made no reply but he said that we were coming to a deadlock, and that his Government intended to adhere to its view on questions of Commission’s authority, and at next meeting he would state his legal position and propose motion in substitution for mine which would make no reference to Commission’s authority. He said that Chileans would not appeal to the Arbitrator, and a deadlock would be created which I would have to report to Arbitrator who would then have grounds for suggesting conversations between Chile and Peru with view to settlement outside plebiscite. Edwards said he felt they were building up a good case. I expressed no opinion except to say that if situation was as he had outlined it and as it appeared to be, a plebiscite would be well-nigh impossible.
(2) Chile has not made any serious effort on her own initiative to create situation in which plebiscite could be held. On contrary she is actively engaged in effort to make plebiscite impossible through continuation of methods reported again and again. I send résumé of Edwards’ statements in paragraph (1) above merely for Secretary’s information as indicating course Government of Chile may follow. No reference should be made to this cable in communications to Chile [Page 403] or to Ambassador at Washington, nor to fact that conversation reported has been held between Edwards and me.
At yesterday’s meeting of Commission, Edwards’ statement seemed to lay foundation for action he had outlined to me in foregoing conversation. His proposals were so far short of anything adequate as to be entirely unacceptable, especially as they refuse to recognize authority of Commission and show no sincere attempt to meet demands. Commission meets again tomorrow. Pershing.