723.2515/2160 supp.: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Chile (Collier)
58. Your No. 80, April 18, 12 p.m. Your suggestion regarding a formal memorandum has been made subject of careful consideration by my associates and myself in consultation with Mr. Hughes. Although we fully appreciate desirability of impressing Government of Chile, at this juncture, with gravity of the existing situation, we have reached conclusion that memorandum of that nature can not be delivered. We feel that best and safest way to insure continuance of negotiations is by holding plebiscitary process in statu quo and have advised Lassiter of that view as I stated yesterday in my No. 56.
The one vital and indispensable condition that we must always keep before us is the unfaltering maintenance in its absolute integrity of the Arbitrator’s impartial position in dealing with this international controversy. No one of us has any right to speak for him and to foreshadow his attitude either directly or indirectly. It is obvious that the Arbitrator could not himself undertake to prejudge any aspect of this case. Until the matter comes duly before him upon a proper record, he can not decide anything. If any attempt were made to discount his decisions in advance, they could hardly command respect when they are rendered. A bold stroke of this kind, no matter how effective temporarily, would, in the long run, defeat its own end if it involved any risk of impairing honor and prestige of Arbitrator and of the United States, as we feel that this would.
I know that you have all these considerations in mind and I am only taking this occasion to explain the emphasis which we give them here. To act in accord with these views, neither you nor I can undertake by memorandum or even by confidential intimation to attribute any opinion to the Arbitrator which he is not yet duly called upon to express, and I think that we should be equally careful not to forecast action of Lassiter and of Plebiscitary Commission.
It appears to me, however, that within these limits and without making any implied commitments, there is ample scope for wholly legitimate and very effective pressure upon the parties in favor of a settlement. In discussing situation with Government of Chile it can be pointed out in no uncertain terms that to adopt and persistently apply a policy of drawing out negotiations here and at same time blocking suspension and pushing the plebiscite to a conclusion under present conditions, is sure to raise squarely for decision by Plebiscitary [Page 400] Commission, in the first instance, and by Arbitrator, on appeal, the question of whether this plebiscite can be held to be a free and fair one under the treaty and the award; and that, while no one can say for the moment what that decision might have to be upon the record as it is finally presented, the consequences of a decision on this issue adverse to Chile would be so far reaching and so grave as to give any statesman pause before proceeding too far.
I am sure that responsible officials of Government of Chile are beginning to realize risks involved, and that nothing more is needed now than a calm and frank analysis of the situation, entirely free from threatening intimations.