723.2515/2088c supp.: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Peru (Poindexter)
33. I am most anxious that there should be no risk of misunderstanding or of misinterpretation of memorandum quoted in my No. 32, April 1, 7 p.m.44 I want you to know that chief idea in submitting this program is to afford Chile and Peru full opportunity to take immediate advantage of mediation and good offices, in confident hope and expectation on my part that if they do, it will then be possible to find basis of adjustment which for purposes of discussion could be approved in principle. It is not my idea to bind either the one or the other, or both, by a rigid formula or basis submitted by me. Basis for discussion adopted in principle might well be a modification of my proposals or it might be a suggestion by the parties themselves.
Point of whole matter is that, as soon as some basis of discussion which the parties can approve in principle has been established, door [Page 371] would be open for immediate suspension of plebiscitary proceedings and for prosecution of negotiations to their logical conclusion.
Your No. 40, April 1, 6 p.m., indicates that President Leguía rests under some misapprehension about my attitude which I fully expressed in my No. 31, March 31. I hope you can make clear to him that this question of suspension of the plebiscite while negotiations are taking place can be brought about only by agreement between the parties. I have no way to impose this condition upon them, nor do I believe that the Plebiscitary Commission can do anything regarding it except to record agreement of the parties on this matter, if one is reached.