723.2515/2263: Telegram
The Consul at Arica (Von Tresckow) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 8—2:45 p.m.]
From Lassiter. Your telegram May 6, 4 p.m.
1. The following is my reply to your inquiry: The Chilean member wrote me on April 24th asking when the American and Peruvian members of the Appeals Board would be appointed. I referred the letter to Freyre and the pertinent part of Freyre’s reply of April 29 which I transmitted to Edwards is as followitem:
“That the Peruvian electorate has abstained from registering pursuant to my Government’s purpose to cooperate in suspending the plebiscitary proceedings in compliance with a suggestion from the United States Government until the negotiations initiated through the good offices of the Secretary of State of the United States had reached a definite conclusion.”
This represents the attitude which the Peruvian member has consistently taken since March 27th and I made no comment on it either to him or to Edwards’ statement.
[Paraphrase]
2. I fear I have not been able in previous cables to make Peru’s attitude toward registration clear to you. In my telegram March 27, 3 p.m., I asked you specifically to notify Peru that suggestion for suspension was annulled, so that there could not be any misunderstanding on her part. The only replies that I received were that you wanted registration to proceed even if it were unilateral. You said nothing about urging Peru to register; and it would have been out of the question, under the circumstances, for me to do so, as matter was in your hands and not in mine.
3. Ostensible reason that Peru gives for her abstention was your suggestion for suspension. Underlying reason was that conditions were intolerable. It was not possible for Commission to act promptly on your suggestion for suspension which was described in your telegram March 25, 6 p.m.,76 so as to avoid beginning registration already fixed for March 27, as Chilean Commissioner refused to waive regular notice of meeting. As Peru had suspended her participation in the plebiscitary proceedings on March 27, her reason being, as she gave it, the desire to cooperate in conformity with your suggestion, it [Page 422] would have been preposterous to expect her to enter upon registration in middle of period when all her electors would be subject to challenge while great numbers of those of Chile would have escaped it. I thought that you understood this situation when you suggested extension of the registration period by 25 days on ground that existing situation would be least disturbed. It never occurred to me that you expected that Peru would commit herself to registration at that late moment without an effective effort being made to restore the balance between the two contestants. In voting for the resolution, therefore, I made following statement, which I supposed conformed to your idea:77
“This resolution has been introduced for the purpose of preserving the status quo. In adopting it the Commission is not exhausting its powers. Certain remarks made by me at the sessions of March 1st, 4th, and 25th are pertinent,”
Remarks referred to in last sentence indicated that conditions compatible with fair plebiscite had not been attained.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Lassiter
- Von Tresckow