723.2515/2389: Telegram
The Ambassador in Chile (Collier) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 3—6:51 a.m.]
188. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs offered me late last night, for transmission to you, his telegram of instructions to Cruchaga. I intimated that as it was addressed to the Ambassador it should be sent direct to him, thus avoiding delay and possible errors of translation. The Under Secretary accepted my suggestion, but at noon today he told me that the telegram was in process of being coded but would soon be sent. He then gave me copy of which following is résumé: It answers memorandum telegraphed in your No. 93, May 26, 10 p.m., and appears to have been drafted with idea of being transmitted through me in order to call attention to what Foreign Office regards as an irregularity in answering Cruchaga’s notes through me; it states that study of origin of good offices shows they could lead to nothing practical, and that Chile’s acceptance of offer of good offices is proof of her desire to find equitable settlement, but that no obligation is thereby created to accept any proposition that may be submitted; it then refers to your account of your efforts to find acceptable formula and quotes at length the Foreign Office telegram of April 4 to Cruchaga in which long argument was made against suspension of plebiscite and against creation of an independent state but willingness was expressed to accept division along present departmental boundaries, Chile to retain Arica and the railway, etc.; telegram states supposition that Cruchaga has fully acquainted you with these ideas. There is brief reference to alternative proposition of April 15 and to the proposed modification, viz, the corridor plan; and says that you misjudge Chile’s purposes. It discusses next your criticism of proposition for a corridor lying north of railway and your statement that this proposition shows intention to make impossible a solution by good offices; this supposition, it is stated, is remote from Chilean thoughts. Bolivia’s right to intervene in negotiations is again denied. Note goes on to say that your proposal to give Tacna to Peru and the most important part of Arica to Bolivia [Page 459] is in no way equitable as it would take both the cities of Arica and Tacna and the railway from Chile, leaving her only a strip of almost barren desert. Note concludes with expression of desire to arrive at equitable solution which would not be one depriving Chile in substantial measure of rights given to it by Treaty of Ancon, by the award, and by manifest desire of great majority of people of the territory.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .