723.2515/3367: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Peru (Moore)

52. Your 91, May 4, 2 a.m.

1.
The memoranda submitted by the Peruvian and Chilean Ambassadors is not in the form of an award. On the contrary, the preamble definitely states that it is a proposal submitted by the President to the two Governments as the final bases of a solution.
2.
Furthermore, and more important, the President has no authority as Arbitrator to issue an award of this sort. The Protocol and Supplementary Act signed by Chile and Peru on July 20, 1922,37 [Page 794] specifically set forth the scope of the Arbitrator’s functions, power and authority. In his Award the Arbitrator stated his duties to be:
  • “1. To decide whether in the present circumstances a plebiscite shall or shall not be held to determine the definitive sovereignty of the territory in question as between Chile and Peru.
  • 2. If the Arbitrator decides in favor of a plebiscite to determine the conditions of that plebiscite, including the terms and time of the payment to be made by the nation succeeding in the plebiscite as provided in Article 3 of the Treaty of Ancon.38
  • 3. If the Arbitrator decides against the plebiscite to take no further action as Arbitrator, except that—
  • 4. Whether the decision be for or against a plebiscite, the Arbitrator is to decide the pending questions with respect to Tarata and Chilcaya arising respectively on the northern and southern boundaries of the territory.”

For the Arbitrator to hand down an award as suggested by President Leguia would require a new submission to the Arbitrator and this would require a previous agreement by Chile and Peru.

In these circumstances the only course open would appear to be the proposal to the two Governments by the President in the exercise of informal and unofficial good offices of certain stipulations to form the final bases of a solution.

Stimson