723.2515/2283: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Consul at Arica (Von Tresckow)
For Lassiter. Your telegram May 12, 6 p.m. I fully appreciate your desire to have outlined as soon as possible a definite program to be pursued from and following May 21, and I sympathize with it. I must ask you, nevertheless, to be patient, understanding that decisions on this matter will be communicated to you at earliest possible moment. Until next week it is quite impossible to determine what turn affairs may take. At first of week I hope to have another conference with Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stimson.91
As far as plebiscite is concerned, there are obviously various courses of action, choice of which is dependent upon precise situation as it may stand on May 21.
- 1.
- It is quite possible that best course might be to permit present registration period to expire without extending it any further and without any step being taken for present to fix date of election. There is no more reason, technically speaking, for fixing date at this juncture than there has been at any time since the negotiations began. The plebiscitary activities will simply drift along into period provided for cancelation of registration; and theory that unilateral plebiscite may not be sustainable and that extraordinary measures may eventually become necessary to purge lists as you have proposed and to return plebiscite to bilateral basis, will not be either strengthened or weakened by so doing.
- 2.
- To attempt resumption of bilateral basis by offering Peru another opportunity to dispute the existing registrations as well as to register Peruvian voters and by exacting new guarantees from Chile is next possibility. It is clear, however, that if this course be the one chosen it does not necessarily have to start on May 21. The Plebiscitary Commission has ample power to deal with matter at any time.
- 3.
- It may prove advisable in the end to declare plebiscite entirely off on ground that plebiscitary solution of whole controversy does not any longer appear to be practicable. This action can also be taken at any stage of plebiscite.
We are not yet committed to any of these possibilities, and the choice will have to be made finally on considerations which take into account state of negotiations as they are then. We feel that we can best serve interests of Chile and Peru by a patiently exhaustive effort to work out constructive and permanent settlement. The Governments of both countries disclaim any intention to break off the registrations. In promoting a settlement, time continues to be important if not vital factor.
Each party will undoubtedly endeavor to obtain some intimation from you in regard to your probable course of action. In our view it is highly important that these efforts shall not succeed. Press reports have already appeared which indicate that certain features of your recent plans are known. At this juncture it would be well for you to maintain the strictest reticence and give no clue to what is in your mind.
- Mr. Henry L. Stimson, of New York, former Secretary of War.↩