723.2515/1663: Telegram
The Consul at Arica (Von Tresckow) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 30—11:45 a.m.]
From Pershing: Edwards called on me this morning and reasserted position of Chilean Government on statement I made before Commission on reduction of troops by discharge of conscripts. I had stated that Chile should reduce proportionate number of officers and noncommissioned officers, announce that she was making reduction herself in order to demonstrate desire for free plebiscite, discharge native-born Tacna-Aricans and return others, and move these troops in public manner and notify Commission of the proposed movements.
Edwards said that his Government could not accede to these conditions as they infringed Chile’s sovereignty. Thus we were forced back to difference of views on construction of award. Edwards said that Chile would not yield her position on that construction, and I said that recognition of Commission’s power was vital to the plebiscite. He then said that he hoped we could come to some agreement, and asked why we should not make it a juridical deadlock instead of my continuing to insist on passage of my motion for which at last meeting Peruvian Commissioner had said he would vote.
I said that situation had been studied, and that the demands which had been made were thought to be absolutely necessary; this action on my part had brought forward question of Commission’s authority for decision which sooner or later would have to be made. Edwards then said that this action would place Chile in difficult position toward any consideration of diplomatic settlement, and again said that plebiscite was absolutely impossible, even though we might be able to resolve the present impasse. He stated that Chilean Government had cabled to Mathieu suggesting suspension of plebiscite. Edwards also thinks that any Commission which might be got together to discuss diplomatic settlement should meet in Washington.
Edwards then asked if there would be any objection to my calling off Saturday’s meeting which had been planned but not announced. I asked him about his delayed legal argument and his statement in answer to my presentation of facts and he said he had been promised them for Saturday. I wanted to comply with his request that no meeting be held Saturday, and, with the additional reason in mind that my advisers would have opportunity to examine Chilean case, therefore I agreed to call off meeting.
[Page 408]I think Edwards’ request for delay was made in hope that it would be possible eventually to prevent further consideration of my resolution, and that Chile would thus be able to extricate herself from present situation without serious consequences. She would then be in position to say that she had always been ready to do all that had been asked if and when question of her refusal to comply with Arbitrator’s interpretation should arise. It is my opinion, strongly supported by my advisers, that an early meeting should be held and motion passed. Should motion not be passed and plebiscite should be suspended at this point, our position would be seriously weakened as no direct issue has yet been made and there are no grounds for appeal by Chile to Arbitrator even if she should decide to do so, nor is there any issue or default by either Government on which Commission could go to Arbitrator.
Another reason for early meeting and passage of motion lies in fact that otherwise Peru would be left entirely without guarantees; and I greatly fear that we should forfeit confidence and support of Peruvian delegation and that Peru would withdraw, leaving field free for Chile and making my position impossible.
Action on our demand, moreover, would have salutary effect on Chile, not only in regard possibly to inducing change of attitude on her part but also in regard to her proposals for a diplomatic settlement. The risk that Peru will be so encouraged as to become unreasonable is, I think, less than risk she will not prosecute negotiations in earnest if we weaken and fail to pass motion. Passage of motion will not increase Chile’s present embarrassment materially but it will make clear that we are in earnest. Anyway, Peru’s attitude toward any compromise is very doubtful.
I have ventured to cable at this length only because of representations I know will be made to you at Washington by Chile; I think that I should advise you of my views in advance, so that if you agree with me, you will be able to reply to Chilean Ambassador in such a way as greatly to strengthen my position. Pershing.