Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1926, Volume I

723.2515/2251: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Consul at Arica (Von Tresckow)

[Extract—Paraphrase]

Washington, May 15, 1926—noon.

For Lassiter.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

… We are, of course, giving anxious attention to the situation which may exist if there is abrupt breaking off of negotiations and sole choice remaining will be between a unilateral plebiscite and termination. I invite your attention, in this connection, to following form of resolution which might be appropriate if we come to that point:⁹²

“Whereas the Plebiscitary Commission was duly convened and held its first meeting at Arica on the 5th day of August, 1925, and continuously since that date has been actively engaged in attempting to discharge its duty under the Award;

Whereas numerous unforeseen difficulties have been encountered, not only rendering the task a protracted one, but demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Commission that a plebiscite of the character contemplated by the Award can not in fact be celebrated;

Whereas as situation has at length developed in which a vital phase of the plebiscitary process, namely that of registration, has been entered and has been advancing for a period of more than seven weeks in a manner and under conditions which cannot be regarded as satisfactory to the Commission, to the inhabitants of the plebiscitary area, or to the contesting Governments;

Whereas in the course of the proceedings partisan feeling and bitterness have characterized the proceedings to an almost incredible degree, giving rise to acrimonious charges and counter-charges affecting the honor and good faith of the contending parties;

Whereas a patient and conciliatory attitude on the part of the Commission, evidenced by three successive extensions of the period of registration, has produced no improvement in the situation, which has progressively become less and less hopeful so far as the prospects of holding a free and fair plebiscite are concerned;

Now, Therefore, the Plebiscitary Commission hereby formulates and certifies to the Arbitrator for his information and consideration, and for such action as he may be disposed to take in the premises, its findings and conclusions as follows:

1. It is the considered judgment of the Plebiscitary Commission, and it hereby so advises the Arbitrator, that a free and fair plebiscite, within the spirit and letter of the Award, is impracticable of accomplishment. This judgment and advice is predicated upon the experience and observations of the Commission throughout the course of the plebiscitary proceedings, and is arrived at without attempting to assess the blame and responsibility for such state of affairs to either party.

2. It is the considered judgment of the Plebiscitary Commission, and it so advises the Arbitrator, that the further prosecution of the plebiscitary proceedings, in an effort to make teachnical compliance with the terms of the Award, would not only be a vain and futile proceedings, but would in the circumstances aggravate the bitterness, contribute to the perpetuation of the controversy, and defeat the main object of the Arbitration as a whole, which is to produce a lasting settlement of the differences between Peru and Chile concerning the provinces of Tacna and Arica.

3. The Plebiscitary Commission hereby directs the termination of the plebiscitary proceedings forthwith.”

If possible I should like to have your views on above resolution by May 17, as Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stimson will be in conference with me here then. Please see that this matter is disclosed to no one but your closest advisers.

Kellogg

92. Quoted passage not paraphrased.