Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1926, Volume I

723.2515/2042: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Consul at Arica (Von Tresckow)

[Paraphrase]

Washington, March 22, 1926—6 p.m.

For Lassiter.

1. I have received your telegram of March 21, 6 p.m., in which you point out objections to further postponement of plebiscitary proceedings, renew your recommendations for immediate termination of those proceedings, and express your willingness to carry out program outlined in Department’s telegram of March 18, 4 p.m., if we still feel that that is best course.

2. Within past 24 hours both the Chilean and Peruvian Governments have again expressed their desire to continue with plebiscite. Peru categorically declines to accept alternative which has been presented to her, and states that there can be no better solution of the problem than a plebiscite and that she expects Arbitrator to hold plebiscite in accordance with the award. Peru complains about conditions, but in official statements to me she carefully refrained from making any suggestion of terminating plebiscite because of conditions. Chilean Government not only insists on plebiscite likewise, but inquires what further steps she can take to insure a fair plebiscite.

3. In view of these circumstances we could not possibly terminate plebiscite at this time without deciding two things: (1) That conditions are not such as to permit a fair plebiscite; (2) that nothing can be done to create conditions under which fair plebiscite can be held, in spite of fact that Chile now offers formally in writing to do anything that is required. All of us, including Mr. Hughes, are definitely of opinion that proper course to follow is one referred to in paragraph 4 of your telegram of March 21, 6 p.m., which may be outlined as follows:

(a) Vote down both resolutions now pending before the Plebiscitary Commission.

(b) Vote down any additional resolution calling for termination or postponement of the plebiscitary proceedings which either party may offer.

(c) Put upon record with your negative vote on any resolution for termination following statement:²⁹

“I am prepared to continue the plebiscitary proceedings with the hope and expectation that appropriate safeguards for the plebiscite will be provided and with the intention of observing conditions and utilizing all information gathered throughout the plebiscite to formulate a judgment as to further decisions to be taken.”

(d) Refrain from making any communication to either Peruvian or Chilean member which is inconsistent with idea of going ahead with plebiscitary process to its normal conclusion.

4. I seriously doubt that Peru will withdraw; if she does, take the briefest possible adjournment for purpose of submitting that fact to Arbitrator and of receiving instructions. If Peru should not withdraw, then you should go ahead at once with registration, and judgment on question of fairness of plebiscite must be reserved until vote has been taken.

5. For present I am withholding publication of correspondence over good offices.

6. Chile’s formal statement, which is going forward to you as a separate message is obviously one of utmost importance. You should at once seize this opportunity to make specific demands upon Chilean Commissioner looking to immediate improvement of any conditions which you think necessary to the holding of fair and free plebiscite. Chilean Ambassador understands that Foreign Minister Mathieu’s statement is being transmitted to you for this purpose.

Kellogg

29. Quoted passage not paraphrased.