723.2515/2151: Telegram
The Ambassador in Chile (Collier) to the Secretary of State
[Received 6 p.m.]
79. News despatches from Arica say that Edwards’ friends expressed surprise as to my statements in my note to Minister for Foreign Affairs and that I had not correctly stated Edwards’ position. I was convinced that my own word was likely to be called in question and to protect it as well as our national honor I felt that immediate publicity of my note of April 14 and one I sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs yesterday was necessary.
[Paraphrase.] I consulted the Minister for Foreign Affairs who replied in writing that he could not deny my right to publish notes but requested me not to say that he had given his consent, as Edwards’ friends are charging him with having made grave diplomatic error in making admission contained in Foreign Office statement which I [Page 389] reported to you in my No. 76, April 16, noon. The Santiago papers have published my notes in full, and their text has been sent abroad by United Press. If you wish, I shall cable their full text which is being sent by mail, but you will probably receive them from United Press. I believe that their publication will shatter Edwards’ influence completely, and may cause the Chileans to take good offices more seriously. Time is now our ally, and proceedings in Washington and Arica should be delayed and protracted in every way possible in order to give pacifying sentiment here a chance to develop. In order to break down Chilean overconfidence from the heavy registration, now about 4,500, in the plebiscitary territory, Ambassador Cruchaga should be constantly impressed with danger of nullification; the Commission should give as wide publicity to corrupt practices which would justify nullification of proceedings as can be done without making the Peruvians overconfident.
Mathieu again complains that you give him too little time to answer your proposition. Undoubtedly he wishes time in order to negotiate with Bolivia. If your latest proposition is to be accepted, this negotiation must be thwarted; otherwise, there is no chance whatever. Permit me to refer you to my No. 78, April 17, 4 p.m., and other telegrams where I have touched on this matter.
If you are unable to obtain acceptance of your last proposition after holding out as long as you can, I suggest that you try division of the territory based upon cession of Arica to Chile to be at once ceded by her to Bolivia and retention of Tacna by Peru. It has lately occurred to me that, failing even this solution, it might be good idea to suggest, in your mediation, that award be modified and each department (Tacna and Arica), separately, be permitted to determine to which nation it wishes to belong, and that further guarantees could be obtained in this connection which would ensure reasonably fair plebiscite. Mathieu has often expressed his desire that plebiscite be departmental and has stated his willingness to give every guarantee, saying that he cares nothing about Tacna if he can retain Arica. Peru, on the other hand, cherishes Tacna; and, although she will not cede Arica, she might consent to that sort of plebiscite which would greatly lessen temptation and opportunity to commit fraud and might ward off disagreeable necessity to us of nullifying the plebiscite. Every effort should be made to suspend or delay proceedings in Arica. In my opinion we can take more chances on this now than we could have three weeks ago, and not give as much heed to the clamor which will be made against it.
Bolivian Minister here will telegraph his Government today to advise suspension of all direct negotiations with Chile as means to get her to accept your proposition. [End paraphrase.]