Tacna-Arica Arbitration THE CASE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS ARBITRATOR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROTOCOL AND SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN CHILE AND PERU AT WASHINGTON ON JULY 20, 1922 Tacna-Arica Arbitration THE CASE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS ARBITRATOR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROTOCOL AND SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN CHILE AND PERU AT WASHINGTON ON JULY 20, 1922 3 EXOHWWS*' 5^ TABLE OF CONTENTS. Pages INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 1 PART I. The Scope of the Arbitration 8 PART IT. The First Question : Shall a Plebiscite be Held? 13 1. Method of Treatment 13 2. Language of Article III 13 (a) The Ten-year Period 15 (b) The Plebiscite 21 (c) The Payment of the Ten Millions 25 3. Negotiations 27 (a) The Ten- Year Period 28 (b) The Plebiscite 63 (c) The Payment of the Ten Millions 99 4. The Present Circumstances Ill PART III. The Second Question: Conditions for Holding a Plebiscite 116 1. Secrecy of the Ballot 117 2. Qualifications of Voters 117 3. Method of Registering Voters 136 4. Method of Receiving the Votes 148 5. Time for Holding the Plebiscite 150 6. Payment of the Ten Millions 153 PART IV. The Third Question: Tarata and Chil- caya 1 58 1. Tarata 159 2. Chilcaya 172 STATEMENT IN CONCLUSION 180 0£ (f^OJ THE CASE OF CHILE. Introductory Statement. War broke out in 1879 between the Republic of Chile on the one hand, and the Republics of Peru and Bolivia on the other hand, which were allies under a secret treaty entered into on February 6, 1873. Chile was the victor in the war, known as "the War of the Pacific," and at its conclusion she was in occupation of the littoral of Bolivia and Peru, and also of the city of Lima, the capital of the latter country. A treaty of peace between Chile arid Peru was signed at Ancon on October 20, 1883, which treaty is commonly termed "the Treaty of Ancon." Ratifications of this Treaty were exchanged on March 28, 1884. On April 4, 1884, Chile and Bolivia entered into a truce agreement which was eventually replaced by the Treaty of Peace and Boundaries between those countries. It was signed on October 20, 1904. The present arbitration arises out of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, which reads as follows : "Article III. The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, bounded on the north by the River Sama from its source in the Cordilleras on the frontier of Bolivia to its mouth at the sea, on the south by the ravine and River Camarones, on the east by the Republic of Bolivia, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean, shall continue in the possession of Chile subject to Chilean laws and authority during a period of ten years, to be reck- oned from the date of the ratification of the present Treaty of Peace. "After the expiration of that term a plebiscitum will decide by popular vote whether the territories of the above mentioned provinces will remain de- 2 The Case of Chile. finitely under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile or continue to form part of Peru. Either of the two countries to which the provinces of Tacna and Arica may remain annexed, will pay to the other ten millions of Chile silver dollars or Peruvian soles of the same weight and fineness. "A special protocol, which will be considered as an integral portion of the present treaty, will prescribe the manner in which the plebiscitum is to be carried out, and the terms and time for the payment of the ten millions by the nation .which may remain in possession of the provinces of Tacna and Arica."* This Article provides for a special protocol to be considered an integral part of the Treaty, which shall prescribe the manner in which the plebiscite is to be carried out and the terms and time for the payment of ten millions of Chilean silver dollars or Peruvian soles to the country unsuccessful in the plebiscite. The negotiations for this special protocol began shortly before the expiration of the ten-year period and have continued at intervals between the two countries up to 1922, without any final agreement having been reached. On January 18, 1922, the American Ambassador to Chile, Honorable William Miller Collier, transmitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Senor Ernesto Barros, the following invitation for a confer- ence ill Washington : "The Government of the United States, through the courtesy of the Ambassadors of Peru and Chile in Washington, has been kept informed of the progress of their negotiations carried on directly by telegraph between the two Governments of Peru and Chile looking toward a settlement of the *This translation is taken from the Foreign Eelations of the United States, 1883, p. 731. Introductory Statement. 3 long standing controversy with respect to the un- fulfilled provisions of the Treaty of Ancon. It has noted with the greatest pleasure and satisfac- tion, the lofty spirit of conciliation which has an- imated the two Governments, and that as a result of these direct exchanges of views the idea of arbitration of the pending difficulties is acceptable in principle to both. It has also taken note of the suggestion that representatives of the two Gov- ernments be named to meet in Washington with a view to finding the means of settling the diffi- culties which have divided the two countries. "Desiring in the interest of American peace and concord to assist in a manner agreeable to both Governments concerned in finding a way to end this long standing controversy, the President of the United States would be pleased to welcome in Washington the representatives which the Govern- ment of Peru and Chile may see fit to appoint to the end that such representatives may settle, if happily it may be, the existing difficulties or may arrange for the settlement of them by arbi- tration. ' ' A similar invitation was transmitted to the Govern- ment of Peru through the American Embassy at Lima. This invitation was accepted by both countries and their duly accredited representatives were sent to Washington where negotiations for a settlement began on May 15, 1922, and ended on July 20th of the same year. On that date the plenipotentiaries of the two Powers signed a Protocol and Supplementary Agree- ment. The Protocol reads as follows: "Assembled in Washington, D. C, pursuant to the invitation of the Government of the United States of America for the purpose of reaching a solution of the long standing controversy with respect to the unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of Peace of October 20, 1883, the undersigned representatives of Peru and Chile to wit : The Case of Chile. "Don Carlos Aldunate and Don Luis Izquierdo, Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipoten- tiary of Chile on Special Mission; and "Don Meliton F. Porras and Don Hernan Ve- larde, Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Pleni- potentiary of Peru on Special Mission ; "After exchanging their respective full powers, have agreed upon the following: "Article .1. It is hereby recorded that the only difficulties arising out of the Treaty of Peace, re- garding which the two countries have not been able to reach an agreement, are the questions arising out of the unfulfilled stipulations of Article III of said Treaty. "Article 2. The difficulties referred to in the preceding article will be submitted to the arbitra- tion of the President of the United States of America who shall decide them without appeal after hearing the parties and taking into consid- eration the arguments and evidence which they may present. The times and the procedure shall be determined by the arbitrator. "Article 3. The present Protocol shall be sub- mitted for approval to the respective Governments and the ratifications shall be exchanged in Wash- ington through the diplomatic representatives of Chile and Peru within the maximum period of three months. 1 * Signed and sealed in duplicate in "Washington, D. C, the twentieth of July, one thousand nine hundred twenty-two. 9 ' The Supplementary Agreement reads as follows: "In order to determine with precision the scope of the arbitration provided for in Article 2 of the Protocol signed on this date, the undersigned agree to place on record hereby the following points : "First. The following question, raised by Peru at the session of the Conference held on May 27th last, is included in the arbitration : Introductory Statement. 5 1 For the purpose of determining the manner in which the stipulations of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon shall be fulfilled there shall be submitted to arbitration the question whether, in the present circumstances, the plebiscite shall or shall not be held.' "The Government of Chile, on its part, may present to the arbitrator all the arguments that it may deem necessary to its case. "Second. In case that it is decided that the plebi- scite shall be held, the arbitrator is empowered to determine the conditions under which it shall be held. ' i Third. If the arbitrator should decide that the plebiscite shall not be held, both parties, at the request of either of them, shall discuss the situ- ation created by this decision. "It is understood, in the interest of peace and good order, that, in this event, and pending an agreement as to the disposition of the territory, the administrative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed. "Fourth. The two Governments shall solicit, in case that they should not reach an agreement, the good offices of the Government of the United States of America, in order that an agreement may be reached. "Fifth. The pending* claims regarding Tarata and Chilcaya likewise are included in the arbitra- tion, subject to the determination of the final fate of the territory to which Article III of the said Treaty refers. "This Act is an integral part of the Protocol to which it refers. "Signed and sealed in duplicate in Washington, D. C, the twentieth of July, one thousand nine hundred twenty-two. n The ratifications of this Protocol and Supplemen- tary Agreement were exchanged in Washington on January 15, 1923. 6 The Case of Chile. On January 16, 1923, the Ambassador of Chile and the Ambassador of Peru requested that the President of the United States accept the office of , Arbitrator under the Protocol and Supplementary Agreement of July 20, 1922. On January 29, 1923, the Secretary of State informed the Ambassadors of Chile and Peru that the President of the United States accepted the office of Arbitrator under the Protocol and Supplementary Agreement. On March 2, 1923, the Ambassadors of Chile and Peru in Washington agreed upon the periods within which the Cases and Counter Cases in the Arbitration, and the documents relied upon, should be presented to the Arbitrator and advised the Secretary of State of this agreement. Thereupon the Secretary of State, on March 13, 1923, advised the Ambassadors of Chile and Peru that this agreement was satisfactory to the Pres- ident, and he informed the Ambassadors on behalf of the President that the time for the presentation of the Cases would date from March 13, 1923. The printed Case on the part of Chile, accompanied by an Appendix of printed copies of the official corre- spondence, documents, maps and other evidence on which she relies, is submitted to the President of the United States as Arbitrator pursuant to the agreement between the Ambassadors of Chile and Peru above mentioned. While not all of the papers printed in the Appendix are referred to in the Case, they have been presented in order to avoid any suggestion that they have been intentionally withheld from the Arbitrator. The subject of this controversy as presented in the printed Case of Chile is divided into Part I — The Scope of the Arbitration. Part II— The First Question: Shall a Plebiscite be Held? Introductory Statement. 7 Part III — The Second Question: Conditions for Holding a Plebiscite. Part IV— The Third Question: Tarata and Chil- caya. The position of Chile is recapitulated in the form of conclusions at the end of the Case under the heading "Statement in Conclusion. ' ' 8 The Case of Chile. PART I. The Scope of the Abbitration. The jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is denned by Ar- ticles 1 and 2 of the Washington Protocol of July 20, 1922, and also by Clauses 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th of the Supplementary Agreement. Articles 1 and 2 of the Pro- tocol limit that jurisdiction to a consideration of and a decision upon "the questions arising out of the un- fulfilled stipulations of Article III" of the Treaty of Ancon, which are stated to be "the only difficulties arising out of the Treaty of Peace regarding which the two countries have not been, able to reach an agree- ment. ' ' The "unfulfilled stipulations," to which reference is made in the Protocol, relate to the holding of a plebi- scite in the territory which formerly comprised the Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica, but are now departments of the Chilean province of Tacna, and to the terms of payment of the ten millions of dollars by the country successful in the plebiscite. In order, to determine definitely the scope of the Arbitration and the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator it was agreed in Clause 1st of the Supplementary Agree- ment that, in order to determine ' ' the manner in which the stipulations," under consideration, should be ful- filled, there should be submitted to the Arbitrator for decision the question, "whether, in the present cir- cumstances, the plebiscite shall or shall not be held." In the event that the Arbitrator decides this ques- tion in the affirmative, he is then called upon by Clause 2nd of the Supplementary Agreement to fix the con- ditions of holding the plebiscite, as the decision of the Arbitrator is, to all intents, a substitute for the special protocol provided for in Article III of the The Scope of the Arbitration. 9 Treaty of Ancon, and the arbitral proceedings are sub- stituted for the negotiation of such protocol. But, if the Arbitrator decides that the plebiscite should not be carried out, all his arbitral duties, by virtue of Clause 3rd of the Supplementary Agreement, cease, and the matter of adjusting the difficulties aris- ing out of the unfulfilled stipulations of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon reverts to the two parties, either of whom may introduce a diplomatic negotiation con- cerning those difficulties, in which the other party is bound to participate, . provided that the scope of the negotiation is restricted to the situation in regard to the terms of Article III resulting from the Arbitrator 's decision against holding a plebiscite, and provided also that "pending an agreement as to the disposi- tion of the territory the administrative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed." There is no provision in the Protocol or Supplemen- tary Agreement which authorizes the Arbitrator to consider any other means of settling the differences relative to Tacna and Arica if he decides that a plebi- scite should not be held nor is he authorized to sug- gest bases for a settlement to the disputants. To do so would be, it is respectfully submitted, to exceed the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the Washington Protocol. Incidental to the question of a plebiscite and of de- termining thereby the definitive sovereignty over Tacna and Arica, the territory, in which the plebi- scite should be held and the final disposition of which would be determined by it, ought to be fixed and de- fined. In view of the fact that certain inland bound- aries of this territory have been in dispute between the parties, it was agreed by Clause 5th of the Sup- plementary Agreement that "the pending claims re- 10 The Case of Chile. garding Tarata and Chilcaya likewise are included in the arbitration subject to the determination of the final fate of the territory to which Article III of the Treaty refers.' ' While the provision for submission of these conflicting claims concerning territory might be construed as requiring no decision by the Arbitrator unless he decides that the plebiscite is to be carried out, a broader interpretation would be that the defini- tion of the boundaries in dispute is, in any event, to be rendered by the Arbitrator, so that whether or not a plebiscite is held, a vexatious though minor question will be finally removed from discussion. It is assumed that the Arbitrator will determine which interpreta- tion should be given to Clause 5th. Whichever interpretation may be decided upon by frim, Chile will accept it readily and without controversy, though she feels that a decision of this question, however the other questions may be answered, would be in the interest of both parties since it would re- move at least one of the causes of controversy be- tween Chile and Peru. The Arbitrator (to repeat what has already been said) is called upon, therefore, to decide in the first instance whether, in the present circumstances, the holding of a plebiscite in the territory of Tacna and Arica should take place in conformity with the mutual intent of the parties to the Treaty of Ancon as set forth in Article III of that treaty and as interpreted by the negotiations which have been conducted be- tween the Governments of Chile and Peru since the signature of that convention. An affirmative answer to that question extends the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator since it empowers him to formulate the conditions for holding the plebiscite, among which conditions should be included the terms of payment of the ten millions of dollars, an essen- The Scope of the Arbitration. 11 tial part of the protocol provided for- in Article III of the Treaty. Furthermore he is not called upon to consider the legality of Chile's continued occupation of the territory since that is expressly confirmed by the Washington Protocol and Supplementary Agreement; In addition to the foregoing the Arbitrator, as stated, is required to determine the boundaries of Tacna and Arica by settling the pending claims to the districts of Tarata and Chilcaya, which are the only territo- rial areas whose inclusion in or exclusion from Tacna and Arica are at the present time in dispute between the parties to the Treaty. In view of these definite limitations upon the juris- diction of the Arbitrator it is not deemed proper to dis- cuss in this Case the causes of the War of the Pacific, the justice of the terms of peace incorporated in the Treaty of Ancon, or any portion of that treaty other than Article III embracing the unfulfilled stip- ulations of the Treaty of Peace which have formed the subject-matter of this long-standing controversy and which are, under the provisions of the Supplemen- tary Agreement of July 20, 1922, submitted to arbitra- tion for the purpose of final settlement and in order to remove the "only differences ' ' which are obstacles to the restoration of that friendly intercourse and mutual good will that ought to and it is hoped will characterize the future relations of Chile and Peru. To introduce into this. Case extraneous matter, which has nothing to do with the specific questions submit- ted to arbitration and which would in no way aid the Arbitrator in reaching a just and reasoned decision of those questions, would seem to Chile to be an un- justifiable attempt to becloud the real issues with sentiment and with prejudice in favor of one or the other participant in the War of the Pacific. Holding this view as to the limits of the Case to be submitted, 12 The Case of Chile. Chile refrains .from statement, comment and argu- ment on any subject which has to do with the origin and terms of the Treaty of Ancon other than Article III. All matter, which does not pertain to the "un- fulfilled stipulations ' ' of that article are excluded from the Case of Chile as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues specifically raised by the Washington Protocol and the Supplementary Agreement of July 20, 1922. The responsibility for the long delay and continued failure in reaching an agreement upon the manner of holding a plebiscite and upon the terms and time of payment of ten millions of dollars by the party successful in the plebiscite is not involved in this ar- bitration, although in the past it has been the subject of much discussion between the parties. The material fact is that the two countries were unable to agree upon conditions for holding the plebiscite or upon the terms and time for the payment of the ten millions, a fact which is a matter of common knowledge and evidenced by the Washington Protocol. Neither coun- try was willing to accede to the proposals of the other during the course of the negotiations, and the efforts of both to find a common ground for compromising their differences failed. The negotiations initiated in practically every case by Chile, extended with inter- ruptions over a period of twenty years, 1893 to 1912; and, while on several occasions an agreement seemed near, the Governments were frustrated by some un- fortunate occurrence from securing the necessary sanc- tion of the protocol by the legislative branch of one or the other of the respective Governments. Arbi- tration has now taken the place of diplomatic nego- tiation, which has proved fruitless in the past. Chile seeks an arbitral award based upon principles of international justice and sound policy and not a de- cision founded upon national sentiment and the pride of race. The First Question. 13 PART II. The Fiest Question: Shall a Plebiscite Be Held? 1. — Method of Treatment. The First Question submitted to the Arbitrator for decision under the Protocol and Supplementary Agree- ment of July 20, 1922, is stated in Clause 1st of the Agreement in the following terms : " For the purpose of determining the manner in which the stipulations of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon shall be fulfilled there shall be submitted to arbitration the question whether, in the present circumstances, a plebiscite shall or shall not be held." In order to aid the Arbitrator in reaching a decision of this question it is the purpose to consider, first, the meaning of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon and the intent of the parties as shown by the language of the Article ; second, the interpretation of the provisions of the Article, which has been placed upon them by the parties in the negotiations that took place, after the celebration of the Treaty of Ancon, in the endeavor to reach an agreement upon the special protocol provided for in Article III ; and, third, the interpretation to be placed upon the phrase "in the present circumstances ! ' appearing in the Clause of the Supplementary Agree- ment above quoted. 2. — The Language of Article III. Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, which was signed on October 20, 1883, and the ratifications of which were exchanged on March 28, 1884, reads as follows : "Articulo III. El territorio de las provincias de Tacna i Arica, que limita por el norte con el rio Sama desde su nacimiento en las Cordilleras limi- 14 The Case of Chile. trofes con Bolivia hasta su desembocadura en el mar ; por el sur con la quebrada i rio de Camaro- nes ; por el orient.e con la Repiiblica de Bolivia, i por el poniente con el mar Pacifico, continuara po- seido por Chile i sujeto a la legislacion i autoridades chilenas durante el termino de diez anos contados desde que se ratifique el presente Tratado de paz. Espirado este plazo, un plebiscito decidira, en votacion popular si el territorio de las provincial referidas queda definitivamente del dominio i soberania de Chile, o si continua siendo parte del territorio peruano. Aquel de 10s dos paises a cuyo favor queden anexadas las provincias de Tacna i Arica, pagara al otro diez millones de pesos moneda chilena de plata, o soles peruanos de igual lei i peso que aquella. "Un protocolo especial, que se considerara como parte integrante del presente Tratado, es- tablecera la forma en que el plebiscito deba tener, lugar i los terminos i plazos en que hayan de pagarse los diez millones por el pais que quede duefio de las provincias de Tacna i Arica." Translation appearing in the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1883, p. 731. "Art. III. The territory of the province of Tacna and Arica, bounded on the north by the River Sama from its source in the Cordilleras on the frontier of Bolivia to its mouth at the sea, on the south by the ravine and River Camarones, on the east by the Republic of Bolivia, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean, shall continue in the posses- sion of Chile subject to Chilean laws and authority during a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date of the ratification of the present Treaty of Peace. " After the expiration of that term a plebiscitum will decide by popular vote whether the territories of the above-mentioned provinces will remain definitely under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile or continue to form part of Peru. Either of The First Question. 15 the two countries to which the provinces of Tacna and Arica may remain annexed, will pay to the other ten 'millions of Chile silver dollars or Peru- vian soles of the same weight and fineness. "A special protocol, which will be considered as an integral portion of the present treaty, will pre- scribe the manner in which the plebiscitum is to be carried out, and the terms and time for the pay- ment of the ten millions by the nation which may remain in possession of the provinces of Tacna Arica. ' ' The Article divides itself into three parts: (1) the possession of the territory of Tacna and Arica for a period of ten years succeeding the ratification of the treaty; (2) the holding of a plebiscite after the ten years had expired to determine definitely the sover- eignty over the territory under a protocol prescribing the manner of carrying out such plebiscite; and (3) the payment by the country successful in the plebiscite to the other country of the sum of ten millions of Chil- ean silver pesos or their equivalent in Peruvian soles, the terms and time of payment to be prescribed by the protocol regulating the holding of the plebiscite. (a) The Ten-year Period. The Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica, having been occupied by the armed forces of Chile during the conduct of the War of the Pacific, were at the time of the negotiation and signature of the Treaty of Ancon under the military occupation and control of Chile. It was agreed by Article III of the Treaty that the possession of the provinces by Chile should continue and that the territory and its inhabitants should be subject to Chilean laws and authority, thus converting military occupation into a formal cession of the prov- 16 The Case of Chile. inces by recognizing in the Treaty Chile's complete sovereignty over the territory and over its people in time of peace. The terms of the cession in no way lim- ited the exercise by Chile of fnll sovereign powers with- in the territory ceded. Chilean laws were supreme and Chilean authority was unconditional, and Chile was not accountable to any other sovereign state for the way in which she exercised the sovereign rights pos- sessed by her after the ratification of the Treaty of Ancon. While the cession of the territory, comprised within the boundaries of Tacna and Arica, was complete and unqualified and while the two provinces became there- by an integral part of the territorial possessions of Chile, Article III of the Treaty provided that, after the expiration of ten years from the date of the ratifica- tion of the Treaty, the cession might be annulled and Chilean sovereignty extinguished by a plebiscite by popular vote, provided that before the plebiscite was held a special protocol was negotiated between Chile and Peru prescribing the manner in which it should be carried out, and also prescribing the terms and time for the payment of ten millions of Chilean silver dollars or Peruvian soles by the successful party. The provision of Article III under consideration, is that for the period of ten years following the ratifica- tion of the Treaty of Ancon, which took place on March 28, 1884, the acts of Chile as sovereign over the ceded territory were not to be questioned but that Peru might endeavor to obtain a recession of Tacna and Arica through the medium of a plebiscite upon the expira- tion of that term, and upon a protocol being agreed upon by the parties providing the manner of holding the plebiscite and also the terms and time of payment of ten millions by the nation successful in the plebi- scite. The First Question. 17 While the reasons for providing in Article III for the possible annulment of the cession of Tacna and Arica to Chile, after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the Treaty of Ancon went into effect, are not stated in Article III, they may be presumed from the provisions of the Article and from the condi- tions which prevailed at the time of the negotiation of the Treaty. Chile, after four years of conflict, waged at the expense of many Chilean lives and much of her national wealth, had completely defeated the allied Republics of Peru and Bolivia both on land and sea. The Peruvian capital, the southern provinces and most of the littoral of the Republic were occupied by the military and naval forces of Chile. The Peruvian navy no longer existed. The armies of Peru, defeated and disorganized, were incapable of further resistance. The Peruvian treasury was empty and the national re- sources were inadequate to meet the large debts which the Peruvian Government had incurred before and during the war. Exhausted, prostrate and with- out military or financial ability to continue the struggle, Peru was in no position to resist any terms of peace which Chile might have seen fit to impose. The dictation of the terms of peace was as fully in her power as were the terms which were imposed upon Mexico by the United States of America in 1848 and upon Spain in 1898, as well as those imposed upon the Central Empires by the Allied and Associated Powers at Versailles in 1919. Chile exercised the rights which belong to a nation victorious in a long and bitterly fought war, which had cost much in life and property, as did the victors in the wars which are referred to above. She had the same right to annex Peruvian ter- ritory as the United States had to annex the vast terri- tory acquired from Mexico or the Philippines and Porto Rico from Spain. 18 The Case of Chile. Though Chile possessed the power to impose upon Peru any terms of peace which might be for Chilean interests, the Santiago Government showed a consider- ation for the national spirit of the Peruvian people and a desire to spare them the humiliation of ceding to her the Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica without recourse. Chile sought a proper indemnity for the great waste in blood and treasure which her people had suffered as a consequence of the War of the Pacific. As victor she was entitled to indemnity, as other vic- tors have been. This idemnity could be paid either in territory or money. Peru was bankrupt. She could not pay a money indemnity. It was only possible, therefore, to obtain a cession of territory by way of indemnification. This Chile insisted upon, but in order to lessen the harshness of the blow to Peruvian national pride she went so far as to make provision for a recession of a portion of the ceded territory, namely that comprising the provinces of Tacna and Arica, after the expiration of ten years and under certain con- ditions. Unless those conditions were fulfilled the ceded provinces would remain Chilean. In this way Chile was furnished opportunity to employ her full sovereign rights in Tacna and Arica to prepare the inhabitants of that territory for the time when a plebiscite should take place to determine the definitive dominion and sovereignty of the prov- inces. It also offered the Peruvian Government oppor- tunity to obtain by loan or otherwise the ten millions of soles which were to be paid by Peru in the event that the plebiscite should be decided in her favor. ' ' Chile- anization" — to use a term which has been invidiously employed by Peruvian statesmen and publicists — was certainly justifiable during the period under considera- tion, and was to be expected. That it was expected is The First Question. 19 evidenced by the fact that Peru made no preparations to obtain the ten millions which she would be com- pelled to pay, if the plebiscite resulted in her favor. It is difficult to draw any conclusion from this inaction other than that Peru was convinced that, when the time came for holding the plebiscite, the popular verdict would be in favor of Chile and that Peru would be the Recipient of ten million Chilean pesos rather than the payer of ten million Peruvian soles. Considering that the cession of Tacna and Arica was in the nature of a war indemnity, it is illogical to assert that, upon the expiration of the period of ten years, Peruvian sovereignty was automatically restored and that Chile was, ipso facto, compelled to withdraw her laws and authority from the ceded territory. If this were the case, Chile would have been deprived of that part of her indemnity provided for in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon. To surrender this indemnity was never her intention, nor was it the expectation of Peru. If, on the other hand, Peru had believed that she was entitled to take over the sovereignty of Tacna and Arica, she would have either tendered to Chile ten million soles or else placed with a neutral depository that sum subject to the result of the plebiscite. But Peru did neither, thus showing by her failure to pre- pare for payment what her belief was at that time as to the future disposition of her former provinces. Under the stipulations of Article III it is clear that before Tacna and Arica could be returned to Peru three conditions must take place: (1) the expiration of ten years; (2) the holding of a plebiscite; and, (3) the payment of ten million soles. Of these conditions one has happened, viz., the ex- piration of the period of ten years, but the others have not as yet been fulfilled. They are among the "unful- 20 The Case of Chile. filled stipulations ' ' referred to in the Washington Pro- tocol. As has been set forth, Chile's possession was not a mere holding of conquered territory but a com- plete ownership by formal cession thereof subject to re-cession compelled by a plebiscite in favor of Peru and upon the payment of ten million soles by Peru to Chile. Chile's conditions of peace accepted by Peru were fundamentally based among other things on the receipt by her of an indemnity in territory or money. Accordingly, Chile was to have the permanent posses- sion of Tacna and Arica or ten million soles, depending upon the result of the plebiscite. Stripped of unneces- sary verbiage this is the sum and substance of Article III. Was it the intent of the parties or was it reason- able to expect that Chile would give up the dominion and sovereignty of the territory at the end of ten years without either a plebiscite or the payment of ten mil- lion soles? The mere statement of the proposition answers the question. To return the dominion and sovereignty over the territory to Peru would assume the fulfillment of the two conditions mentioned which have never been performed, and would, moreover, as- sume that there had been a plebiscite favorable to Peru. There is no stipulation in Article III as to receding the territory to Peru except upon the contingencies mentioned nor is there any provision for turning the territory over to a third power pending the outcome of the plebiscite and the payment of the ten million dol- lars. The conditions not having been performed and no other provision having been made for the disposi- tion of the territory after ten years had elapsed, there was and is no other disposition of Tacna and Arica to be made save that which has been made, namely, con- tinued possession of the dominion and sovereignty by The First Question. 21 Chile until the conditions have been performed or have been modified by mutual consent of the parties. The rights of dominion and sovereignty, which Chile possessed after the expiration of the ten-year period, were the same as those which she possessed during that period, and she was legally authorized to exercise such rights as fully in one case as in the other. (b) The Plebiscite. The language of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon relative to the holding of a plebiscite in the territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica is as follows : ! "After the expiration of that term! [ten years from the ratification of the Treaty \ a plebi- scitum will decide by popular vote whether the ter- ritories of the above-mentioned provinces will re- main definitely under the dominion and sover- eignty of Chile or continue to form part of Peru [territorio peruano], "A special protocol, which will be considered an integral part of the present treaty, will prescribe the manner [forma] in which the plebiscitum is to be carried out [deba tener lugar], and * * V The holding of the proposed plebiscite is by the terms of Article III dependent upon two prerequisites ; first, the expiration of the ten-year period, and, second, the negotiation and ratification by Chile and Peru of a special protocol prescribing, or, literally, "establish- ing, ' ' the manner or form of holding the plebiscite, and also the terms and time of payment of the ten millions of dollars by the party successful in the plebiscite. The first of these prerequisites, the expiration of the ten-year period, required no action by either of the parties to the Treaty. It automatically resulted from 22 The Case of Chile. the lapse of time and was accomplished on March 28, 1894. The remaining prerequisite was the execution by the parties of a special protocol, which was to pre- scribe the manner of holding the plebiscite and also the terms and time [literally, times] of payment of ten mil- lions of Chilean pesos or Peruvian soles by the party successful in the plebiscite. This latter subject of agreement and its necessary inclusion in the protocol Avill be considered later. The negotiation and ratification of the special pro- tocol were vital to the holding of the plebiscite. Unless the parties to the Treaty came to an agreement as to the manner of organizing the agency for receiving the popular vote and of determining the time when it should be held, and unless the parties agreed as to the quali- fications of the persons entitled to cast their votes in the plebiscite, the plebiscite could not be carried out. Furthermore, the protocol could not be executed or be- come effective unless an agreement was included in it as to the terms of payment of the ten millions after the plebiscite had been held and the popular will had been expressed by popular vote. It was not to be presumed that a protocol of this character, which involved the final determination of the sovereignty over the territory of Tacna and Arica, could be settled without a protracted negotiation cover- ing all the various phases of the plebiscite, as well as the payment of the ten millions. The phrase, "by popular vote/' was alone sufficiently uncertain in its possible application to present opportunity for an honest difference of opinion as to its meaning and to furnish a subject for a long and stubborn controversy. Chile had from the first expected and Peru had desired to obtain the dominion and sovereignty of the prov- inces in perpetuity, and each, in the endeavor to attain The First Question. 23 its end, would naturally insist upon terms in the proto- col which would give her an advantage in the plebiscite. It is apparent that there would have to be a compro- mise of conflicting interests, based upon a withdrawal by both parties from their extreme demands as to terms. The success of the negotiation depended in large measure on the spirit of conciliation manifested by the negotiators and on their influence with their respective Governments, including both the executive and legisla- tive branches, to secure a sanction of the agreement reached in the negotiation by a ratification of the pro- tocol. Unless there was "a meeting of the minds' ' of the two Governments as well as of the individual negotiators, the prerequisite of the execution of the special protocol would fail and the plebiscite mani- festly could not be held. The only recourse, in the event a negotiated protocol failed to obtain the necessary governmental endorse- ment, was to reopen the negotiations and to endeavor to find a formula which would meet the objections raised to the protocol proposed and by doing so to se- cure the sanction and approval of both Governments to a new agreement. A review of the past thirty years shows that Chile and Peru realized that the agreement upon a protocol was absolutely essential to the deter- mination of whether or not Tacna and Arica should re- main permanently Chilean territory or be receded to Peru as a consequence of a plebiscite favoring such re- cession. The question to be decided by the plebiscite is stated by the provisions of Article III to be "whether the territories of the above-mentioned provinces [to wit, Tacna and Arica] will remain definitely [definitiva- mentel under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile or continue to form part of Peru [territorio peruanol." The italicized words, "remain" and "continue," 24 The Case of Chile. seem to convey contradictory ideas since both carry the same meaning of perpetuation of an existing terri- torial sovereignty. This contradiction, however, is only apparent. The explanation is to be found in the conditions which existed immediately prior to October 20, 1883, when the Treaty of Ancon was being negoti- ated. At that time the legal sovereignty of Tacna and Arica was in Peru, though its exercise was suspended because the territory was occupied by Chilean forces and subject to Chilean military authority. There had then been no formal cession of the provinces to Chile. They were a part of Peru, of the "territorio peruano," which Chile held in possession as an invading power, subject to their disposition under the terms of peace. It was with this fact in mind that the negotiators em- ployed the word, ' ' continue. ' ' It did not refer to the state of the provinces existing at the time when the plebiscite was to be held, but to their state at the time when the Treaty of Peace was negotiated and when Article III was drafted. There is no other logical ex- planation for the use of the word "continue" when read in connection with the words in the same clause of Article III which refer to Chilean "dominion and sovereignty. ' ' The word "remain," on the other hand, must of necessity refer to the time in the future when the spe- cial protocol, provided for in Article III, had been negotiated and signed. The cession of the territory by Peru to Chile had taken place at least ten years before that time. Chile then possessed the dominion and sovereignty over Tacna and Arica by treaty grant. Her possession was a legal right and not merely a belliger- ent right. The question submitted to popular vote in the plebiscite was whether or not the provinces should remain "definitely under the dominion and sover- The First Question. 25 eignty" of Chile. These words express full and com- plete sovereign rights over territory and persons. No attributes of sovereignty exist other than those in- cluded in dominium et imperium. The foregoing comments, on the words "continue" and ' * remain, ' ' it is submitted, offer a rational explana- tion of their use in Article III. It is thus that they have been understood by Chile and no other explana- tion has been suggested which does not introduce doubt and uncertainty as to the intention of the parties to the Treaty, and compel the acceptance of an argument Avhich is illogical and based upon unsound principles of interpretation and false deductions. (c) The Payment of the Ten Millions. The special protocol, which was to be entered into by Chile and Peru and was to prescribe the manner [forma] of holding the plebiscite, was also to prescribe the terms and time for the payment of the ten millions of Chilean silver pesos or Peruvian soles of the same weight and fineness, which it was agreed should be paid by the country to which Tacna and Arica should "remain annexed" as a result of the plebiscite. This provision as to the terms and time of payment was to be an integral part of the protocol and without an agreement between the parties as to such payment the protocol could not become effective and the plebi- scite could not take place even though the parties were in full accord as to the manner in which it should be conducted. Agreement in regard to this matter was a condition precedent to the holding of the plebiscite, and either party was justified in withholding its approval to the plebiscitary protocol until terms of payment satisfactory to it had been accepted by the other party. Under normal conditions this matter of payment 26 The Case of Chile. would have been easily adjusted, as it ought to be at the present time. But the conditions during the early negotiations were not normal. Peru was politically disorganized and bankrupt at the close of the War of the Pacific. So grave was her financial situation and so remote the probability of her return to solvency in view of her inability to meet the interest upon her for- eign debts, that a bare promise to pay, in the event of Peruvian success in the plebiscite, was not sufficient to assure the payment of the sum to Chile. It was not a question of good faith or honest purpose but of ability on the part of Peru to meet this further demand upon her national income, which was already overburdened. Chile did not doubt her good faith or sincerity of pur- pose, but she did doubt Peru's ability. If the state of Peru's political and financial condi- tion had been otherwise, the terms of payment might have been written into Article III at the time that it was drafted, instead of reserving them for future nego- tiation between the two countries. It was clearly the intent of the parties to postpone a discussion of this important matter to a time when the political situation and finances of Peru were in a better condition, a con- dition which it was mutually hoped and doubtless ex- pected would exist after the ten-year period had ex- pired and the special protocol in regard to holding a plebiscite was being negotiated. It was only natural in the circumstances that Chile should insist that an agreement as to terms and time of payment of the ten millions should be included in the special protocol providing for the way in which the plebiscite should be held before that undertaking could be finally entered into by the parties. It could not be ignored or avoided in any event except by a formal amendment of the Treaty of Ancon, which by Article III made it a necessary part of the special protocol. The Fiest Question. 27 The wisdom of this condition precedent to the hold- ing of the plebiscite will be manifest when the negotia- tions following the expiration of the ten-year period are reviewed, as they will be in a later place in this Case. Suffice it here to say that it became a prominent subject of discussion and of exchange of views between the two Governments, and was, for a time, one of the chief obstacles to an agreement upon the special proto- col, though it assumed less and less importance as time progressed and as Peru gradually recovered from the deplorable state of financial exhaustion and political unrest in which she was at the close of the War of the Pacific. 3. Negotiations. In considering the negotiations which have taken place between Chile and Peru regarding Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, it is convenient to repeat the lan- guage of the Article : V Article III. — The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, bounded in the north by the Eiver Sama from its source in the Cordillera on the frontier of Bolivia to its mouth at the sea, on the south by the ravine and River Camarones, on the east by the Republic of Bolivia, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean, shall continue in the posses- sion of Chile subject to Chilean laws and authority during a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date of the ratification of the present Treaty of Peace. " After the expiration of that term a plebiscitum will decide by popular vote whether the territories of the above-mentioned provinces will remain defi- nitely under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile or continue to form part of Peru. Either of the two countries to which the provinces of Tacna and Arica may remain annexed, will pay to the other 28 The Case of Chile. ten millions of Chile silver dollars or Peruvian soles of the same weight and fineness. "A special protocol, which will be considered as an integral portion of the present Treaty, will pre- scribe the manner in which the plebiscitum is to be carried out, and the terms and time for the pay- ment of the ten millions by the nation which may remain in possession of the provinces of Tacna and Arica. ' ' This Article contains three provisions in respect of Tacna- Arica, viz: (1) the ten-year period; (2) the plebiscite by a popular vote; (3) the payment of ten million dollars. Several years after the Treaty of Ancon went into effect, on March 28, 1884, negotiations between Chile and Peru began for the consummation of the special protocol and have been carried on intermittently up to the Washington Conference of 1922. It will be our purpose to trace these negotiations from their begin- ning with a view to determining what interpretation has been placed by the parties on the several provi- sions of Article III itemized above. (a) The Ten-Year Period. The negotiations in regard to carrying out the provi- sions of Article III naturally began toward the end of the ten-year period mentioned in that Article which occurred on March 28, 1894. It appears that the first discussions relative to the unfulfilled conditions of that Article were carried on orally at Lima, and at Santiago between the Peruvian Minis- ter and the President and Minister of For- eign Affairs of Chile. In reporting on these con- versations, the Peruvian Minister, among other things, The First Question. • 29 stated that he had formulated a remonstrance against legislation pending at that time in the Chilean Congress for the organization of departments in the territories of Tacna and Arica and, in this connection, it may be noted that the Peruvian Minister spoke of the "temporary cession of Tacna and Arica" to Chile, the temporary character of the cession being the ground of his remonstrance. (Appendix, p. 23.) 1893-1894 Negotiations. In 1893, at the invitation of Peru, a series of confer- ences were held between the Peruvian Minister of For- eign Affairs and the Chilean Minister at Lima, extend- ing from April to December of that year, for the pur- pose of formulating the basis of the special protocol mentioned in Article III. Senor Jimenez, the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs, at first proposed that at the expiration of the ten-year period the possession of the occupied provinces be returned to Peru * ' as they belong to her by reason of rights that grow out of her character as direct sovereign," Chile being qualified in the Treaty as simple possessor. Chile replied that it could not be deduced from the Treaty that these ter- ritories must be returned to Peru upon the mere ex- piration of the period of ten years mentioned in Article III which granted occupation until the obligations of the Treaty were fulfilled — a grant which was tantamount to a territorial ces- sion subject to the condition of the vote of the in- habitants. (Appendix, p. 36.) The result was that Chile refused to agree to deliver to Peru the territories of Tacna and Arica on March 28, 1894. Thereupon, Peru suggested as a compromise that the territories be de- livered on that date to a third power, designated by common consent, under whose auspices the plebiscite would be held. To this proposal, Chile replied that 30 The Case of Chile. she could not accept it for the reason that she had a right to "occupy the disputed territories before and after the plebiscite and until Peru should fulfill all the obligations that Article III of the Treaty imposed on her." (Appendix, p. 39.) A further discussion of the question of possession and evacuation was continued but came to naught. The result of the conferences was the so-called Jimenez- Vial Solar Protocol of January 26, 1894. This Protocol did not really settle matters as it left the conditions of holding the plebiscite for future agreement, as will be seen from Article 1 of the Protocol, which reads as follows : ' * The plebiscite will be effected under such con- ditions of reciprocity as the two Governments may deem necessary to assuring an honest vote, one that shall be the faithful and exact expression of the popular will of the provinces of Tacna and Arica." (Appendix, p. 52.) Nothing ever came of the Jimenez-Vial Solar Pro- tocol, and March 28, 1894, the end of the ten-year pe- riod referred to in Article III, passed with Chile still in possession of Tacna and Arica notwithstanding the protest of Peru. (Appendix, p. 62.) The next day, March 29th, the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs replied to the protest of Peru, maintaining the posi- tion of the Chilean Government in the following lan- guage : "You are aware that, prior to the making of the Treaty of Ancon, Chile lawfully occupied the provinces of Tacna and Arica. "Hence, if, later, a Treaty was signed in which were stated the conditions under which the defini- tive possession of those territories should be de- The First Question. 31 cided, it is evident that, until those conditions should be fulfilled, or until there should be an ex- press agreement that should settle things other- wise, occupation ought invariably to continue to be maintained by Chile. * * * "I deem it opportune, besides, to reproduce, next, paragraph I of a memorandum that His Ex- cellency Seiior Jimenez placed in the hands of the Plenipotentiary of Chile in Peru, which shows the sense and scope of the bases of an ar- rangement proposed by the % former in his official communication of January 26 last, and leaves the way open to the negotiators : "Sehor Vial Solar sought to have in- cluded among the bases a basis that would em- body the idea that the territories should remain, during the plebiscite, in the same state as that in which they are today. I told him that it would be unnecessary to say so, for only in order to change the person of the occupant, would an express declaration be necessary. Senor Minister deemed my view of the case just." "My Government, therefore, Mr. Minister, maintains, in this respect, the opinions that it has previously expressed as to Chilean possession of the provinces of Tacna and Arica until the settle- ment that must be sought in the celebration of the plebiscite.' ' (Appendix, pp. 65, 67; see also Ap- pendix, p. 59.) 1895-1896 Negotiations. After this exchange of views the question of posses- sion did not come up for direct discussion in the nego- tiations for some time, as the countries were occupied in trying to reach an agreement on the special proto- col. In the autumn of 1895 the chief matter under dis- 32 The Case of Chile. cussion was the guaranty for the payment of the ten millions by Peru in case the plebiscite should go against her. Chile insisted that foresight counseled that some guaranty should be agreed upon in addition to the solemn pledges and the signatures of the parties. To this Peru replied as indicated in the following ex- tract from the minutes of a conference between the negotiators on October 8, 1895 : " The Minister of Foreign Relations [of Peru] denied that it was necessary to establish other guaranties than those that might be deduced from the very convention to which recourse should be had in fixing the conditions of the plebiscite and from the signatures on which that Treaty would depend; that, in respect of the obligation of the Government of Peru, Chile was amply guaranteed by the possession of the pledge, that is, the terri- tory of Tacna and Arica, * * V (Appendix, pp. 85-86.) From this statement it must be concluded that Peru had waived her interpretation of Article III that Chile was not entitled to possession after March 28, 1894. No other interpretation can be placed upon the lan- guage of the Peruvian negotiator. In spite of this waiver, however, Peru saw fit to raise the point again. In the later discussion Chile made this reply as ap- pears from the minutes of October 30, 1895 : * i * * * However, the return of the territories, in case of Peru's being favored, ought to coincide with the payment of the indemnity, and this inter- pretation has in its support a reason of much weight. * * * "When Chile should have returned the territory, she would have fulfilled the totality of the obligations that the Treaty imposed on her ; in the meanwhile, Peru would have done no more The First Question. 33 than give security for the later fulfillment of hers. Since this is unnatural, concluded the Min- ister of Chile, neither can that which leads to such a result be the true interpretation of the Treaty, and the fulfillment of correlative obligations under conditions of strict equality for both parties ought to seem to be the more acceptable. ' ' (Appendix, pp. 90-91.) In a subsequent note of February 10, 1896, the Chil- ean Minister restated this thought as follows : a* * * This is equivalent to saying that Chile, in order to acquire those provinces, or Peru, in order to recover them, must submit to a double condition : that of a popular vote, which shall give them to her, and that of paying ten million pesos. These two conditions, incorporated, as they are, in the same article of the Treaty, are inseparable and do not admit of fictitious distinctions of pri- ority or of importance. * * * It is impossible to think of the execution of the Treaty apart from the fulfillment of the two conjointly." (Appendix, p. 120.) Any other interpretation, the Chilean negotiator as- serted, would have this result : "* * * Chile would return to Peru the provinces of Tacna and Arica, and Peru would confine her- self to receiving them ; Chile would thus have ful- filled the obligation she contracted, by respecting the will of those provinces manifested in the plebi- scite ; and Peru would leave postponed until better times fulfillment of hers, which would consist in paying ten million pesos for their redemption. * * * In a word, Chile would have carried out the Treaty in so far as she is concerned, and Peru would not have done so." (Appendix, p. 122.) 34 The Case of Chile. In the minutes of December 31, 1895, Peru pro- posed that the ten millions be paid at the rate of one million a year secured by the customs of the port of Callao, and the Foreign Minister added: "and all this without prejudice to Chile's retain- ing the territories occupied and receiving the reve- nues from the custom-houses in them." (Appen- dix, p. 96.) In a subsequent note of February 3, 1896, the Minis- ter of Foreign Affairs of Peru confirmed his earlier views in these words : <<# * • gj^ [p eru ] a i so testifies that she is pre- paring to make the payment in case the result of the plebiscite shall be favorable to her; and, al- though the recovery of those territories is not sub- * ject to the payment of the ten millions, she agrees that Chile shall retain the pledge while she is effecting the delivery of the ransom.' ' (Appen- dix, p. 104.) 1898 Negotiations. In 1898 Peru sent a Special Envoy to Chile, the Vice-President of the Republic, Senor G. E. Billing- hurst, for the purpose of negotiating the special protocol required by Article III of the Treaty of Ancon. He held several conferences with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile in February and March of that year, which resulted in the so-called Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol of April 9, 1898. The Protocol embodied for the first time a com- plete arrangement for the holding of the plebiscite and for the paying of the ten million dollars. (Appendix p. 131.) It was agreed to arbitrate two questions, who shall vote in the plebiscite, and whether the vote shall be secret. It will be observed that the two conditions The First Question. 35 precedent to the recession of Tacna and Arica were thus disposed of conjointly, which had been the course uniformly and repeatedly advocated by Chile. No provision, however, was made for the evacuation of the territory before or during the plebiscitary vote or before the payment of the ten millions, and, there- fore, it is apparent that the parties agreed that the status quo in the territory should be maintained until these conditions had been fully met. 1900-1901 Negotiations and Correspondence. Final action by the Chilean Congress on the Billing- hurst-Latorre Protocol was delayed, although it was laid before the Congress in 1898 and although the Chilean Government, urged the approval of the agree- ment by that body. Meanwhile the matter of the pos- session of Tacna and Arica was in abeyance, as stated in. the note of the Peruvian Minister of May 10, 1900 : ' 'He continued that, with the drawing up of the protocol, several questions of importance had fallen into abeyance, and among them, the de- mands of Peru as to the occupation by Chile of a part of the province of Tarata, and the objection opportunely made by the former to the occupation by the latter of the provinces of Tacna and Arica after -the ten years provided for in the Treaty of Ancon. These and others that present themselves today — such as the demand in respect of the schools of Tacna and Arica under the direction of Peruvian teachers — would be implicitly settled by the definitive sanctioning of the protocol." {Ap- pendix, p. 152.) It is admissible, therefore, to point out that in the same way, the Protocol and Supplementary Agree- ment of July 20, 1922, under which the present Arbitra- 36 The Case of Chile. tion is proceeding, holds in abeyance all irrelevant questions which have heretofore been matters of dis- pute, such as the possession of the territory by Chile. In fact, as we shall see, the Protocol and Act expressly provide for such possession in the same manner and to the same extent as theretofore enjoyed and exercised by Chile. The question of the possession and sovereignty of Chile was discussed with Peru not only from the point of view of the exercise of the rights of a possessor of the sovereignty after the expiration of the ten-year period mentioned in Article III, but also from the point of view of the manner in which those sovereign rights were exercised. {Appendix, pp. 21, 179, 202, 204, 171, 210, 225, 241, 250. Peru complained of the administra- tion of the territories in respect of the location of ad- ministrative boundaries, the conduct of schools, the grant of concessions, the construction of railways and irrigation works, the control of the press, the location of the courts and the military headquarters, the reduc- tion of customs duties, and other matters of domestic concern. In one of these complaints the Peruvian Min- ister in his note of November 14, 1900, made the fol- lowing statement as to the possession of Tacna and Arica by Chile until the plebiscite should be held : "To simple occupants, as Chile is in this case, the right to act as complete master is not given, nor is the right to compromise the territory for the future which does not belong to them accrue to them. Immediately after having signed the Treaty of Peace, it could have made temporary con- cessions of a certain order which would not amount to the alienation of the soil; then, there was as- sured Chile the exercise of a limited dominion for ten years ; but today, the subsistence of its author- ity is subject to the contingencies of a plebiscite The First Question-. 37 of early realization, the concessions of dominion can not be explained, and in no case can they ex- tend, their effects beyond the time of occupation. ' ' (Appendix, p. 190.) Chile replied to the complaints of Peru basing her right to take such measures upon the authority ex- pressly granted to her by the clause of Article III providing that "Tacna and Arica * * * shall continue in the possession of Chile subject to Chilean laws and authority * * *,*' and disclaiming that the measures have any character of hostility or violence attributed to them. In the dis- cussion of these matters Chile, January 19, 1901, stated her position as to the scope of her authority in the ad- ministration of Tacna and Arica as follows : "Your Excellency seems to forget that Clause III of the Treaty of Ancon subjected to Chilean legislation the territories of Tacna and Arica, and, that, in consequence, our laws prevail there with- . out any limitation whatsoever and in the same manner as in the other provinces of the Eepublic. "Your Excellency considers that Chile may not perform acts that presuppose the complete exer- cise of sovereignty. "According to such a theory, this Government could not administer justice, impose taxes or perform in Tacna and Arica any of the acts that pertain properly to the exercise of sover- eignty, and therefore it could not assume charge of the administrative services in those ter- ritories, which, in such a case, would be abandoned to their own fate. "Among the faculties of administrating a ter- ritory, pursuant to the laws of the country, is in- cluded that of making concessions of mines and 38 T«he Case of Chile. deposits of mineral substances, and that of rent- ing or disposing of fiscal lands for exploitation, cultivation or colonization. "To stimulate the progress and development of production, wealth and commerce in the territories subject to the administration and laws of Chile is one of the fundamental duties of the Govern- ment. i ' Might it be affirmed that what the Governments desired when they signed the Treaty of Ancon was to keep Tacna and Arica in a state of stagnation by disregarding their needs, their industries, their natural and progressive development? " Furthermore, what evil could result from concessions for exploiting mineral substances, which all private individuals, without dis- tinction of nationality, may solicit in Tacna and Arica, as well as in any other department of Chile? "Can there be anything in this that would con- tradict the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Ancon or that would in the slightest degree wound the national sentiment of Peru? "The undersigned holds there is not, and on the contrary, he considers that whatever may be the definitive fate of the territories whose nationality will be settled by the stipulated plebiscite, it is Chile 's duty, and one that she will be able duly to perform, to give thought to the means which, ac- cording to our legal regime, she deems adequate to the proper administration of the departments of Tacna and Arica, the well-being of their inhabi- tants and the prosperity and progress of those territories." (Appendix, pp. 215-217.) "The explanation contained in this note in re- spect of each of the charges formulated by Your Excellency show clearly that all the administrative measures adopted or on the way to adoption by my Government are within the constitutional and legal faculties of the executive. • "None of these measures implies hostility to or disregard of, the rights of Peru, or runs counter to the stipulations of the Treaty of Ancon. The The Fiest Question. 39 most of them are designed to stimulate the de- velopment of the territory and to secure the well- being of the inhabitants and to assure their pros- perity and future aggrandizement. "By these legitimate means — applying her laws and keeping within the realm assigned to her by the Treaty of Ancon — Chile is seeking to strength- en her chances for the definitive dominion of Tacna and Arica. "She will spare no effort to fulfill the mission imposed on her in respect of those territories by the treaty of Ancon, in a manner that will render her worthy of the confidence and gratitude of their inhabitants. "While respecting the rights and the legitimate expectations of Peru, my Government will continue to minister to the interests and needs of the pres- ent departments of Tacna and Arica to the full measure of her powers, and the contingency that they may pass later under the dominion of Peru, together with all the benefits that have accrued to them from the well-meaning and progressive un- dertakings of the Chilean Administration, will not diminish its activity. i ' The Government of Chile has cherished no .de- sign of postponing indefinitely the solution of the problem of Tacna and Arica, nor may Your Ex- cellency 's Government justly charge it with having done so. * ' The agreement about the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol is the most conclusive proof that this Government has carried its good will in respect of Peru beyond what was possible within the consti- tutional limitations within which it would have exercised its action in order to arrive at an under- standing with the Government of Peru. "Your Excellency is aware that the protocol mentioned encountered insuDerable obstacles among the membership of the Honorable Chamber of Deputies, when it was submitted to its consider- ation in 1896, and that the efforts made by the 40 The Case of Chile. Government to obtain its approval have been in- efficacious. "As the discussion of the protocol has been in- definitely postponed, different circumstances, in- dependent of the will of the Government, have de- layed a pronouncement by that branch of the legis- lative power, thus producing the consequent para- lyzation of the negotiations subject to the sanction- ing of that protocol by the Chilean Congress.' ■ (Appendix, pp. 222, 224.) The position of Peru in regard to the exercise of authority by Chile in the possessed territories is stated thus in her reply of January 30, 1901 : "In no case, however, even in solving a problem of internal management, is it permitted to disre- gard the international character of this question. The authority of Chile, even in respect of internal affairs, may not be exercised in the territories north of the river and gorge of Camarones to the same extent as in those that lie to the south of the said line. The former are subject to a simple tem- porary 'occupation, and the latter to a definitive dominion ; over the former it has been lawful for Chile to exercise only the rights of the possessor and usufructuary, while over the latter she may exercise the powers inherent to complete sei- gniory ; in the former she has not been able to, and she cannot, make perpetual concessions of public lands or of wealth related to the soil ; and in the latter she has been able to and can ; in the former, political laws have no application through which is expressed the exercise of a permanent and definitive authority, such as those relative to the election of the President of the Eepublic, senators and deputies ; and, in the latter, they have ; in the former, in short, Chile acts as a simple adminis- trator with limited faculties ; and in the latter, as an owner and sovereign. * * * "As a consequence Your Excellency says 'our The First Question. 41 laws prevail there without any limitation whatso- ever and in the same manner as in the other prov- inces of the Republic. ' This is not wholly correct. The authority of Chile is subordinate, in its exer- cise, to two conditions that restrict it : to her char- acter as a mere precarious possessor and to the duty of adjusting her acts to Chilean legislation. The laws of Chile exist in Tacna and Arica, not to uphold the rights of an absolute and permanent sovereignty, but the rights of a temporary occupa- tion. Just as in the private realm, the simple hold- er for a limited time possesses faculties much more limited than the proprietor, although both are sub- ject to the dominion of the same legislation, so also in the present case Chile has over Tacna and Arica, as a mere possessor, rights much more re- stricted than over her own territories, in spite of the fact that both are governed by an identical legislation. "The signatory nations of the Treaty of A neon when they subjected the authority of the occupant to Chilean legislation, purposed to prevent the ex- ercise of an absolute and arbitrary power; but they did not entertain the design of constituting definitively a new sovereignty; they referred the resolution of this point to a subsequent plebiscite. In a word, Chile, as a simple possessor, and not as an owner and sovereign, was subjected to Chilean legislation. Hence she could administer as well as use and enjoy things until 1894; but she might never dispose of them. Therefore she might grant mines and public lands validly only until the date indicated ; but she might not and she may not grant perpetual and absolute dominion over them." (Appendix, pp. 231-234.) On these grounds Peru objected to the application of "Chilean laws and authority" (the words of Article III) to the territories of Tacna and Arica in respect of the matters mentioned above which had been the subjects of complaint by Peru. 42 The Case of Chile. Chile replied, February 18, 1901, to these contentions of Peru point by point in the following manner : ' * The other measures that Your Excellency calls 'Chileanization' and which, nevertheless, belong properly to the administrative action of the Ex- ecutive, were all analized in detail and sufficiently explained in my communication of January 19. Nevertheless, Your Excellency protests against all of them and remonstrates against them to this Chancellery because he considers them beyond the limits of the restricted and precarious sovereignty, which, in Your Excellency's judgment, Chile exer- cises in the provinces of Tacna and Arica, and be- cause the right of occupation granted her by the Treaty of Peace of 1883 had legally terminated. "I must consider separately this double objec- tion, which does not rest on any of the clauses of the Treaty, the only law that regulates and defines the obligations and rights of the countries that signed it to establish the reign of peace in them. Chile obtained two important concessions in the Treaty of Peace celebrated with Peru in respect of the territories that constituted the former Peru- vian provinces of Tacna and Arica. "The first of them consisted in the right to re- tain in her power those territories, which, until that moment, she had occupied under a war title ; and the second, in the faculty of administering them in harmony with her own laws, which were to continue in force and thereafter, instead of the laws of Peru. "The political and legal condition of the former Peruvian provinces, whose especial regime was de- termined in an unmistakable manner by the Treaty of Ancon, was consequently modified. "In this famous Treaty was granted to Chile a greater extent of rights and expectations since on her was bestowed the occupation of the territory and its administration, without other limitation than that of governing in harmony with her own The First Question. 43 laws, and to Peru was granted only the expecta- tion of recovering provinces which the conse- quences of an unfortunate war had separated from the dominion of her authorities and her laws, in a plebiscite that would determine the nationality of those provinces. ' ' Granted this fundamental antecedent, it is evi- dent and unquestionable that Chile has the right to perform all the political and administrative acts that are authorized by the national laws. If Chilean laws are the sole manifestation and ex- ercise of the sovereignty of Chile, it is also evident and unquestionable that in this case it is not an affair of an incomplete or restricted sovereignty, in spite of the circumstance that the rights of Chile are subordinated, in respect of their future ex- ercise, to the holding of a plebiscite. "It is indubitable then that, according to the regime established in the Treaty of Ancon, Chile preserves her character of sovereign in Tacna and Arica until the plebiscitary vote would modify the present situation. "The full exercise of sovereignty is not incom- patible with the eventuality that the territory in which it is exercised may pass later under the do- minion of another nation. Because the mere fact that the territory of Tacna and Arica are subject to Chilean legislation, the exercise of Chilean sovereignty, without the limitations that Ypur Ex- cellency attempts to establish, was recognized. "I now proceed to examine the point relative to the right of Chile to continue to occupy the terri- tories of Tacna and Arica after the expiration of the ten years designated in the Treaty of Ancon for the holding of the plebiscite. * • • "It is unquestionable' that the Treaty of Ancon either did not foresee the contingency that, after the expiration of the period of ten years, the pleb- iscite would not be held, or that it did not desire, in that emergency, to modifv the situation in the territories the occupation of which was granted to Chile. On either hypothesis it is necessary to 44 The Case of Chile. come to the conclusion that nothing authorizes the demand that Chile deliver to Peru territories that may only be acquired by virtue of a plebiscitary vote that shall be favorable to her, since this would simply be equivalent to assuming as settled at once, in her favor, the question that is today in dispute between the Chancelleries of Chile and Peru and that affects the great interests of both countries. "In order that the delivery of the territory oc- cupied by Chile may be effected, it is necessary that the condition indicated in the Treaty shall be fulfilled, it is necessary to determine previously the definitive nationality of the said territory, or, rather, it is necessary that there shall be a new agreement between the interested Governments that shall modify the provisions of the Treaty of Peace. "The acceptance of the theory upheld by Your Excellency would be tantamount to annulling, leav- ing without effect, or at least altering substantial- ly those provisions, and suppressing, for the ex- clusive benefit of Peru, the advantages that they conferred on Chile, to strengthen her claims to the definitive dominion of Tacna and Arica. "Indeed, if consideration be given to what may have been the purpose kept in view by the negotia- tors of the Treaty of Ancon in conceding to Chile the right to continue to occupy the territory of Tacna and Arica and of administering it in pur- suance of her laws, it may easily be understood that my country could not rob herself of these rights, just as it has not shirked the obligations that are inherent to their exercise, unless an ex- press provisions of the Treaty of Peace should so establish or unless a new convention, as solemn as that Treaty, should be adopted." (Appendix, pp. 243-246.) With the arguments, from which the foregoing are extracts, presented on both sides, the negotiations and The First Question. 45 correspondence of 1900-1901 terminated without any agreement having been reached as to the points in con- troversy. Treaty of 1902. The next incident in the history of the possession of sovereignty by Chile in Tacna and Arica is the Boun- dary Treaty between Peru and Bolivia signed Sep- tember 23, 1902. Article 2 of this treaty reads as follows (italics not in the original text) : , "Article 2. The high contracting parties like- wise agree to proceed, in accordance with the con- ditions of the present treaty, to the demarcation of the line which separates the Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica from the Bolivian province of Carangas, immediately after the said provinces are once more under the sovereignty of Peru." (Appendix, p. 686.) It may be observed that this treaty, which was duly ratified by both parties, without doubt expresses the official view of the Government of Peru as to the sover- eignty over Tacna and Arica in 1902. In this treaty Peru admits formally that the sovereignty over Tacna and Arica is not located in her. The only other alter- native is that the sovereignty is vested in Chile, for Chile and Peru are the only disputants as to the sover- eignty of these territories. This treaty then, contain- ing a statement in the nature of an admission against interest on the part of Peru, is strong evidence as to the fact that the legal sovereignty over Tacna and Arica rests and has rested since March 28, 1884, in Chile. 1905-1907 Correspondence and Negotiations. No negotiations regarding the execution of Article III were carried on between 1901 and 1905 for the rea- 46 The Case of Chile. son that Peru suspended diplomatic relations with Chile during this period. Meantime the Treaty of Peace between Chile and Bolivia had been signed on October 20, 1904, which treaty replaced the Truce Agreement of April 4, 1884. (Appendix, pp. 345, 688.) On February 18, 1905, Peru protested against the provisions of this treaty which fixed the boundaries be- tween Bolivia and Tacna-Arica and Tar at a, and which also stipulated for the construction of the Arica-La Paz Eailway, the grant of free transit of goods, etc. This protest was based essentially on the same ground theretofore advanced by Peru, namely that such acts on the part of Chile exceeded her powers as temporary possessor and sovereign of Tacna and Arica. (Appen- dix, p. 347.) On March 15, 1905, Chile replied to the protests of Peru, pointing out that the Treaty of 1904 with Bolivia proceeded in harmony with the sovereign rights ac- corded to Chile under the Treaty of Ancon in respect of Tacna and Arica. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile said : "In truth, Your Excellency is not unaware that a portion of territory belongs to the State, which with adequate title, is empowered to occupy it and subject it to its authorities and laws ; and, as the third Article of said Treaty provides that the ter- ritory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica 'will continue to be possessed by Chile and subject to Chilean legislation and authorities,' it is evident that Peru ceded to Chile the free and absolute sov- ereignty over these provinces, without any limita- tion as to their exercise, and limited only in repect of their duration by the event that a plebiscite — which ought to be called after the passage of ten years, reckoned from the ratification of that Treaty — should so declare. The Fiest Question. 47 "The period of ten years set by the Treaty of Ancon had no other object than to insure to Chile a minimum of time in the exercise of sovereignty, but it signifies in no wise that during it there ought necessarily to be an appeal to the popular delibera- tion. * * * "After the expiration of this period, Article III adds, 'a plebiscite will decide by popular vote, whether the territory of the aforementioned prov- inces of Tacna and Arica shall remain definitively under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile, or whether it shall continue to be a part of the Peru- vian territory. ' ' l In order that this territory may remain defini- tively under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile, this country must have exercised and must con- tinue to exercise these rights temporarily. The word 'continue' which Your Excellency under- scores in his communication, does not refer to the situation prior to the Treaty, but to the one that may occur after the plebiscite shall have been con- voked, since, otherwise, there would exist a contra- diction in the terms of Article III, of which those that drafted it could not have been guilty. "The rights of Chile and of Peru, in respect of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, as they are de- fined in the Treaty of Ancon, are therefore quite different: the right of Chile is present and com- plete, but not definitive ; the right of Peru is mere- ly eventual." (Appendix, pp. 356-357.) The Minister of Foreign Affairs also pointed out that the treaty with Bolivia had gone no further in re- gard to determining the boundaries of Tacna-Arica than the corresponding treaty of Peru with Bolivia of 1902. The discussion continued in further correspondence hetween the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile and the Minister of Peru at Santiago without reaching any 48 The Case op Chile. definite conclusion or advancing any new points of view. (Appendix, pp. 362, 369.) It may be noted in passing, however, that the Minister of Peru admitted the suspension of Peruvian sovereignty over Tacna and Arica in his note of April 25, 1905, in these words : ' * Your Excellency's enlightened judgment will easily comprehend that in the Treaty mentioned sovereignty and dominion over the provinces under discussion belong to Peru, and that she has not renounced them, although it is recognized that the exercise of them is suspended, as is the reality of facts, as a consequence of the Treaty of Ancon. "In the political realm, as in the civil, the exer- cise of a right may be in suspense, in divers cases, but the right in itself does not disappear, save for causes that legally extinguish or transfer it. * ' On the other hand, there can be no exercise of a right that is not possessed, either by a title of one's own or by transfer by the one to whom it belongs and who has not renounced it. " It is not contrary to the incontrovertible force of those principles of universal legislation that, until the definitive situation of the provinces of Tacna and Arica shall be decided, they shall be subject, in the internal and civil sense, to the Chil- ean authorities and legislation, which is the true and only situation established by the Treaty of Peace of 1883 in the provinces of Tacna and Arica during the ten years of possession that was granted to Chile : a title that legally ceased after the expiration of the period." (Appendix, pp. 365- 366.) At the invitation of Chile, Peru sent Seiior Alvarez Calderon in 1906 to Santiago to continue the negotia- tions, but as the negotiations were fruitless, it is un- necessary to discuss them here. The First Question. 49 1908-1910 Correspondence. After the failure of Alvarez Calderon's mission, his successor Senor Seoane was urged by Chile to open new negotiations. They were begun by a note of the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs dated March 25, 1908, and continued intermittently to March, 1910, when Peru again broke off diplomatic relations with Chile. (Appendix, pp. 370-493.) In the early part of this period no new arguments were advanced by the respec- tive chancelleries. In August, 1908, a new Chilean Minister arrived at Lima to urge the Peruvian Govern- ment to present its points of view. But the latter Gov- ernment never carried out its promises to do so. In his note of September 30, 1909, however, the Peru- vian Minister of Foreign Affairs made an important statement to which attention should be directed. Dis- cussing the alleged closing of certain churches by the authorities of Tacna and Arica and the supposed colo- nization plans of Chile he said : "It was agreed that those populations should be governed by Chilean laws as long as the occupa- tion should continue, and hence it is impossible to discern the ground on which the local administra- tion can take its stand to proceed in such a manner that the protection which these laws are designed to offer is, in truth, withheld. It is evident that to deprive a people of the means of continuing its religious practices by an act of violence is equiva- lent to the suspension of one of its most ele- mentary and indispensable rights. * * * "The colonization law is contrary in its spirit to what that Treaty provides in setting on the temporary occupation, because, indeed, the mere occupant does not possess the right to dispose of what does not belong to him, and much less under circumstances in which the occupation may cease 50 The Case of Chile. at any moment by reason of the expiration of the period. As the eventuality of the plebiscite and the expectations of Peru may not be disregarded, it is deduced that Your Excellency's Government ought not to execute a measure designed to pro- duce its effect in a remote future, and which, sup- posing the indefinite continuance of the Chilean administration, might be interpreted as a declara- tion that these eventualities had disappeared." (Appendix, pp. 420-421.) The conclusion to be drawn from these quoted para- graphs is that Peru had come to the point of condoning the occupation of Tacna-Arica by Chile and of waiving her previously asserted rights until the plebiscite should be held, for no protest is made in this note as to the period of occupation and possession, but on the contrary the equal application of the Chilean laws re- lating to worship is demanded in Tacna-Arica. In later notes, however, this attitude of Peru was modified and she revived her contention that the period of occupa- tion should have ended in 1894. (Appendix, p. 434.) In the autumn of 1909 an effort was made by Chile to reach an agreement on a plebiscite plan modeled upon the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol in which cer- tain changes were suggested by the parties. The at- tempt was futile. Both before and after this attempt the correspon- dence had to do with the general subject of the alleged efforts at Chileanization. The arguments advanced by the contending parties were repetitions of those made before. The attitude of Peru is shown in a note of Decem- ber 23, 1909, in which the Peruvian Minister of For- eign Affairs, Sefior Porras, said: The Fibst Question. 51 ' * Since this title does not exist, her attitude ought to be the same as it would be if she were on the eve of the plebiscite. She had, during the ten years agreed on, the right to bestir herself in order to win the sympathy and attachment of the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica. It is well known « that the period passed without her securing this sympathy, because of which, it may be said, the definitive nationality of the territory was then virtually decided. To believe therefore that, be- cause of the simple fact of a postponement to which Peru did not consent and after sixteen years in which the obligation to return Tacna and Arica has been in suspense; to believe, I repeat, that Chile has the right to dictate measures that tend to obtain the majority of votes in favor of her cause by bringing about a change in the population is to discredit the thought of the nego- tiators, is to desire to accomplish by arbitrary acts, during a period of more than twenty-five years, what was not achieved by lawful acts in ten years." (Appendix, p. 43S.) Chile's position may be summed up in the following succinct statement of her Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sehor Agustin Edwards in his reply of March 3, 1910 : ' ' according to the law and the spirit of the Treaty of Ancon, the territories of Tacna and Arica were ceded to Chile in full and absolute sovereignty, without any limitation as to its exercise, and limited only in regard to its duration by the event of a plebiscite called after the passage of ten years." (Appendix, pp. 450-451.) For a detailed answer to the charges of Peru in this regard reference is made to the Chilean circular ad- dressed to the Foreign Legations in Santiago and dated March 15, 1910. (Appendix, p. 466.) 52 The Case of Chile. The reply to the note of Senor Edwards of March 3rd was a notice dated March 19, 1910, by the Peruvian Minister, that the maintenance of diplomatic relations was useless and that he had been ordered by his Gov- ernment to return to Peru, after lodging his protest against the acts of Chile in Tacna and Arica to which he had referred in the correspondence. Since that date diplomatic relations between the two countries have never been resumed. 1912 Negotiations. Noth withstanding the fact that diplomatic relations were severed, negotiations were introduced in 1912 through unofficial channels in an effort to reach an agreement as to the basis of a plebiscite and to the re- newal of friendly relations. The result was the mutual exchange of telegrams between the Ministers of For- eign Affairs of Chile and Peru, dated November 10, 1912, and known as the Huneeus-Valera Protocol of that year. {Appendix, pp. 495-500.) This arrangement provided for holding the plebiscite in 1933 and con- tained no word of protest or objection to the continued possession by Chile of the territories in dispute until that date. It was taken for granted that the adminis- tration of the provinces would not be disturbed until the plebiscite had been held. This is clearly evident from a reading of the secret message of President Bil- linghurst to the Peruvian Congress, November 30, 1912, in which he strongly advocated approval of this protocol. {Appendix, p. 500.) He said: 1 * This agreement intended to obviate such a re- grettable situation [continued occupation] by sup- pressing the cause and the pretext which have created and maintained it, because the date having been named and the definite conditions for a plebi- The First Question. 53 scite having been set forth, the repetition of the uncertainties of the past and of the difficulties of the present are definitely avoided. * * * "The hazardous uncertainties of the future, as a consequence of a long and indefinite occupation, are replaced by a definite period of time within which, placing in its proper category the juridical situation of Chile with regard to Tacna and Arica — the capacity of this nation to perform acts not in conformity with her constitutional provisions, and that might affect the exercise of a permanent and definite sovereignty, is annulled." (Appendix, pp. 510-515.) While this exchange of telegrams between the For- eign Ministers of Chile and Peru is not contended to be the special protocol provided for in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, it indicates a complete under- standing at that time between the countries as to the subjects mentioned in the telegrams. Such an under- standing in the light of the intention of Peru, as set forth by President Billinghurst in his secret message to the Peruvian Congress, quoted above, shows that then Peru acquiesced in the occupation of Tacna-Arica by Chile up to that time and shows further that she approved the continuance of that occupation for the intervening period up to 1933, that is until the plebi- scite had taken place. 1921 Negotiations. Although diplomatic relations still remained severed, Chile again in 1921 renewed negotiations by a tele- graphic correspondence carried on directly between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries, Sehor Ernesto Barros and Senor Alberto Salomon respectively, in an effort to find a common basis of accord with reference to carrying out the stipulations 54 The Case of Chile. of Article III (Appendix, pp. 536-584.) Sefior Barros proposed on behalf of Chile that the Huneeus-Valera Protocol should be the basis of negotiations. Seiior Salomon, however, desired a ' * full arbitration ' ' of all pending questions including all alleged infractions of the Treaty of Ancon on the part of Chile. The discus- sion reached the point where both parties expressed a willingness to send representatives to Washington to carry on the negotiations, but the Governments could not come to an agreement as to whether the Chilean or the Peruvian basis was to be the subject of nego- tiation in Washington. In the telegraphic interchanges up to this point neither Government expressed any novel views as to the meaning of Article III. Sefior Barros, however, in reply to the assertion of Sefior Salomon that Article III could not be carried out as to the plebiscite because of the expulsions from Tacna and Arica by Chile said : "Your Excellency, however, referred to the mass expulsion of the Peruvians from Tacna and Arica and to the impossibility of the carrying out of the plebiscite, due to this fact. • 'If the expulsions decreed by the Government of Chile are not those requested by Your Excel- lency, because of a fear of revolutionary agita- tors I do not know which ones are meant by the references in your communications but, in any event, I am pleased, to offer to the Government of Your Excellency the guarantee which may be re- quested for the return of the Peruvian citizens meeting the voting requirements and who prove that they have left Tacna and Arica because of violence." (Appendix, p. 544.) At the end of 1921, these negotiations were at a dead- lock as each Government was insistent on its position as to the subject to be discussed in the proposed con- The Fiest Question. 55 ference. At this opportune moment the President of the United States, taking note of the situation, sent an invitation to the Government of Chile and the Govern- ment of Peru to send representatives to Washington "to the end that such representatives may settle * * * the existing difficulties or may arrange for the settle- ment of them by arbitration. ■ ' (Appendix, p. 589.) The Washington Conference. The representatives of Chile and Peru met in Wash- ington in May, 1922, and began their deliberations. During the Washington Conference Peru complained of the unjustifiable occupation of the provinces by Chile, and contended in the first place for the imme- diate restoration of Tacna and Arica without a plebi- scite, and in the second place for the arbitration of the question of a plebiscite and the final disposition of the provinces. (Appendix, p. 609.) On the other hand, Chile contended that her sovereignty was complete not for ten years or forty years, but until the conditions of Article III were carried out. (Appendix, pp. 609, 649.) Out of these respective con- tentions as to the possession of Tacna and Arica and through the good offices of Secretary of State Hughes, there came the agreement to submit to arbitration the question, whether or not a plebiscite should be held in the present circumstances. Arbitration as to the hold- ing of a plebiscite having been determined upon, there arose the question as to the relation of Chile to the territory should the Arbitrator decide that no plebi- scite should be held. Chile proposed a declaration that in that event her relation to those territories should not be changed in any way. Peru answered that — 56 The Case of Chile. a * * # y. wag no ^. now necessary to include such a declaration because the silence of the Protocol took that as understood. We thought that it was abso- lutely essential that in the documents constituting the agreement, the express declaration of limiting the powers of the arbitrator, should appear in case the plebiscite should be declared to be unenforci- ble, instead of a mere declaration of principle on this point, so that he would not be empowered to assume the authority to supplement the Treaty, and altering, in any way, the conditions under which we exercise dominion there, by virtue of the terms of the Pact of Ancon." (Appendix, p. 658.) With this difference of view — not as to Chile's rela- tion to Tacna and Arica if the Arbitrator decided that no plebiscite were held but as to the inclusion of a dec- laration on this point in the Protocol — both parties ap- pealed to Secretary Hughes to express an opinion as to whether or not a declaration, that Chile's relation to the territories should remain unchanged if the Arbi- trator decided against a plebiscite, should be set forth in the Eecord. Accordingly, the Chairman of the Chil- ean Delegation, Senor Aldunate, and the Chairman of the Peruvian Delegation, Senor Porras, had a confer- ence with Secretary Hughes on July 7, 1922, in which this point was discussed. (Appendix, p. 639.) The following extract from the minutes of that con- ference shows the views expressed by Senor Aldunate and Senor Porras as to the question of inserting the declaration mentioned in the Eecord : "Sr. Aldunate then set forth the views of the Chilean Delegation with reference to the desir- ability of inserting, either in the Protocol, or the Supplementary Act, or in a definite way in the minutes of the Conference, a statement to the ef- fect that, if the arbitrator should decide against The First Question. 57 the holding of a plebiscite the status of possession of the provinces by Chile should not be disturbed, and that her right to legislate for the provinces and to appoint administrative authorities should not be questioned. Pie pointed out that this was the interpretation which both the Chilean Delega- tion and the Chilean Government had placed upon the formula proposed by Mr. Hughes and which they had so gladly accepted. Without some such declaratory statement he felt that there was real danger that Peru might interpret Clause 'C of the Supplementary Act to mean that, in case the arbitrator decide against the holding of a plebi- scite, the provinces should be turned over immedi- ately to Peru. He felt certain that neither Dr. Porras nor Dr. Velarde would give such an inter- pretation, as they were fully acquainted, not only with the letter but also with the spirit of the Clause, but he stated that men come and go and it was impossible to foresee who would give inter- pretation to the Clause when the time comes for its application. He felt, furthermore, that where in Clause 'C of the Supplementary Act the two Governments agree to 'enter into a discussion of the situation created by the decision of the Arbi- trator, ' it might be assumed that the situation thus i created ' is an entirely new one and that the decla- ratory words are intended to overcome such a pre- sumption. He deemed it necessary, therefore, in order to avoid subsequent controversies to include a declaratory statement that would remove all doubt from the situation and that his Government regarded such a declaratory statement as indis- pensable. "Dr. Porras then stated that, in his opinion, the introduction of the declaratory words proposed by the Chilean Delegation would mean a trans- formation of the formula proposed by Secretary Huo'hes into something that was not intended at the time that it was proposed and when it was ac- cepted by the Peruvian Government. Dr. Porras 58 The Case oe Chile. emphasized the fact that he regarded the declara- tion proposed by the Chilean Delegation as un- necessary, because such declarations are super- fluous where there is no change in the person or entity in occupation or possession. Furthermore, he regarded such declaration as derogatory to Peru and likely to wound national sensibilities. ' ' To this observation Sr. Aldunate made a brief reply, stating that there was no thought in pro- posing these additional words to change the for- mula proposed by Secretary Hughes, but simply to clarify the situation so as to avoid subsequent controversies.' ' (Appendix, pp. 640-641.) After these statements by the Delegates of Chile and Peru, Secretary Hughes took up the discussion of the point in question. The following extracts from his statement are taken from the minutes of the same meeting : "* * * He deemed it a matter of very great moment that the final agreement when reached should not only express the actual understanding of the two Governments, but, also, should be so worded as to avoid future differences and contro- versies ; that he had thought over the matter very carefully and felt that it should be clear that in case the arbitrator should decide against the hold- ing of a plebiscite that Chile thereby acquired no new or additional rights. On the other hand, he deemed it important that, pending the settlement as to the final disposition of the territory, the ad- ministrative organization of the provinces should not be disrupted and that, in the interest of peace and good order, it should be made clear that there would be no such disruption. * * * "The Secretary then went on to say that he fully appreciated that both parties were somewhat ap- prehensive as to the future. He could see that Chile was somewhat apprehensive lest Peru might The Fiest Question. 59 say that Chile should relinquish all control of the provinces prior to the negotiations stipulated in the agreement, and, on the other hand, he could see that .Peru was apprehensive lest Chile should re- main in possession for an indefinite, and possibly prolonged, period. He deemed it important, there- fore, to avoid language which might give rise to embarrassing and irritating claims on either side, and to find a formula which would avoid conten- tion. He was endeavoring to look at the question from the standpoint of both countries, with a view to suggesting something that might allay the ap- prehensions of both. * * * ' ' In explaining the suggestion that he was about to make, the Secretary stated that he had placed at the beginning of the statement the reason for the suggestion in the form as submitted, namely, the introductory words : 'In the interest of peace and good order.' "Having done this, it is made clear that the ad- ministrative organization of the provinces should not be disturbed pending an agreement as to the disposition of the territory. "The complete suggestion, therefore, which he desired to submit for the consideration of the dele- gates is as follows: 'It is understood, in the interest of peace and good order, that in this event and pending an agreement as to the disposition of the territory, the administrative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed.' " (Appendix, pp. 642- 643.) The above quoted statement of Secretary Hughes was summarized in a telegram to Santiago by the Chilean Ambassador at Washington as follows : 60 The Case of Chile. "In a meeting today in the office of the Secre- tary of State, at which Aldunate, Porras and Rowe were present, Hughes made a verbal explanation in which he indicated that his purpose was to pro- pose a drawing up of terms which would avoid the two difficulties : (a) That the declaration of the unenforcibleness of the plebiscite might change the status of the territory, thereby damaging the interests of Chile; and (b) That this declaration might be interpreted as a new title vested in Chile, damaging the interests of Peru." (Appendix, p. 659.) The formula of Mr. Hughes was carefully considered by the Government of Chile and the Government of Peru. It was freely criticized in Santiago as limiting Chile's sovereign rights in Tacna and Arica, and in order to satisfy the anxiety in Congressional circles as to the exact scope of the formula of Mr. Hughes, the Chilean Delegation was instructed: 1 i to refrain from signing if the point as to the un- changeability of our rights in Tacna and Arica, in the event that the plebiscite should be declared un- founded by law, was not perfectly clear.' ' (Appen- dix, p. 661.) At the same time the Chilean Ambassador in Washing- ton was instructed to ask Mr. Hughes to make clear his interpretation of the formula. Accordingly, Ambas- sador Mathieu in a note to Secretary Hughes, dated July 19, 1922, said: "My Government has accepted this clause with the understanding that when it is stated that 'the administrative organization of the provinces shall not be distrubed ' such statement confirms the pro- vision of Article III of the Treaty, which subjects the territory to the 'Chilean laws and authori- ties." (Appendix, p. 637.) The Fibst Question. 61 At the close of his note the Ambassador asked Mr. •Hughes the question whether it was correct that in suggesting his formula : "Your Excellency [Mr. Hughes] did not have in view changing the actual status of territory as de- termined by the Treaty of Ancon, nor did you thereby have in view conferring either upon Chile or Peru new title or new rights." (Appendix, p. 638.) Secretary Hughes replied on July 19, 1923, that he hestitated to make any further suggestion save in a further conference with the delegates, and added : "It seems to me, however, that it may serve the purpose you have in view if I send to you a sum- mary prepared by Dr. Rowe of the interview held with Senor Aldunate and Dr. Porras, in the course of which the clause in question was sug- gested. It seems to me that what was then said is entirely sufficient by way of commentary upon the purpose and intent of the clause.' ' (Appendix, p. 639.) Upon this understanding of the meaning of the formula, the Chilean Delegation was instructed on the same day to sign both the Protocol and the Supple- mentary Agreement, the latter containing Mr. Hughes ' formula word for word and without change as a part of Clause 2nd. In order to avoid future misunderstand- ing and to preserve the full meaning of the clause as interpreted by Mr. Hughes it was set forth in the Agreement in English, as well as in Spanish. The for- mula and the interpretation given to it as above indi- cated was accepted by Peru when she signed and rati- fied the Protocol and Supplementary Agreement. 62 The Case of Chile. The foregoing is the history of the origin and the explanation of the meaning of the formula proposed by Mr. Hughes and accepted by the parties to this Arbi- tration. One thing is clear, that Peru, by accepting this formula, has waived all objections which she has heretofore made to the possession by Chile of Tacna and Arica since the expiration of the ten-year period mentioned in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon. More than that, she has agreed to Chilean occupation and the application of Chilean law and authority until the disposition of the territories shall be finally deter- mined. Manifestly, Peru cannot in the face of this formal waiver of her previous contentions raise any question as to the past, present or future exercise of sovereignty by Chile in Tacna and Arica until the fate of these territories shall have been determined by plebiscite under the Arbitrator's award or by a nego- tiated agreement if the Arbirtator should decide against a plebiscite. In the award or the agreement, it will be necessary to take care of the " terms and times' ' (terminos i plazos) for the payment of the ten millions of Chilean silver dollars or .Peruvian soles — which is the other condition precedent to the recession of the territories to Peru. It would appear to be demonstrated, therefore, be- yond the peradventure of a doubt, from the language of Article III, from the negotiations up to the Washington Conference and from the proceedings of the Confer- ence and the resulting Protocol and Supplementary Agreement, that Chile has been and is rightfully in sovereign possession of Tacna and Arica, and that Peru is estopped from objecting to such possession until the two conditions of plebiscite and payment have been complied with or the final disposition of the territory has been determined by a new agreement between the two countries. The Fiest Question. 63 (b) The Plebiscite. As we have seen, Article III of the Treaty of Ancon provides in respect of the plebiscite as follows : 1 * After the expiration of that term ["ten years, to be reckoned from the date of the ratification of the present Treaty of Peace"] a plebiscitum will decide by popular vote whether the territories of the above mentioned provinces will remain defi- nitely under the dominion and sovereignty of- Chile or continue to form part of Peru. * * * "A special protocol, which will be considered as an integral part of the present treaty, will pre- scribe the manner in which the plebiscitum is to be carried out * * *." (Appendix, p. 678.) The holding of the proposed plebiscite is, as pointed out elsewhere, dependent upon two conditions prece- dent : First, the expiration of the ten-year period, and second, the negotiation and ratification of the special protocol provided for in Article III. The first of these conditions has been fulfilled, but the second has never been met, owing to the fact that Chile ,and Peru were unable to agree upon the "manner in which the plebiscitum ["by popular vote"] is to be carried out." It will be observed that no provision is made in Article III as to the date of the plebiscite, the con- trol of the plebiscitary proceeding, the qualifica- tions of the voters, the method of registering the voters or holding the election, or any other details of the plebiscitary proceeding. These subjects were all to be matters for discussion and agreement in the negotiation of the special protocol. The efforts of the Governments concerned to come to such an agreement will be briefly reviewed. It will be realized that only 64 The Case op Chile. a gloss of the extended negotiations and correspon- dence can be given here and that a fnll understanding of the obstacles in the way of reaching a mutually satisfactory arrangement can best be obtained by read- ing the documents referred to and quoted from, which are printed in the Appendix. The discussion of the special protocol began before the expiration of the ten-year period, that is in 1890, in conversations initiated by the President and Min- ister 'of Foreign Affairs of Chile with the Peruvian Minister in Santiago. In a report of June 10, 1890, re- garding these conversations, the Peruvian Minister at Santiago said : " * * * T have hastened to make it known, in con- formity with your instructions, that Peru desired to fulfill strictly the Treaty of Peace, without ad- vancing the period designated in it for the plebi- scite that is to settle the fate of those territories. "No occasion is lost, however, to show how great is the interest of the present Government in antici- pating the solution of this delicate subject in a manner favorable to Chile; although it may not be doubted that it wounds the legitimate patriotic sentiment of Peru." {Appendix, p. 2.1.) 1892-1894 Negotiations. Conversations were also conducted at Lima between the Minister of Chile and the Minister of Foreign Affairs which resulted in the submission by the latter on September 5, 1892, of a memorandum of bases of negotiation, in which Peru, in connection with cer- tain commercial arrangements, made a proposal which in effect did away with the holding of the plebiscite. This proposal was : The First Question. 65 "The Government of Chile dis occupies the ter- ritory of Tacna and Arica, which will continue under the sovereignty *and dominion of Peru." (Appendix, p. 27.) Chile, in her reply of April 8, 1893, declined to re- nounce her legitimate expectations under the Treaty of Ancon as to the permanent acquisition of Tacna and Arica. (Appendix, p. 32.) These exchanges led to a series of conferences at Lima between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Chilean Minister extending from April to December, 1893. One of the first topics taken up for discussion was the control of the plebiscite, Peru suggesting that Tacna and Arica be returned to her at the expiration of the ten-year period, in order that the plebiscite might be held under her auspices. Chile, however, took the opposite view indicating that the plebiscite should be held under her supervision as cessionaire of the ter- ritory. The Chilean Minister's reply is given in the minutes of the conference of June 19, 1893, as follows: "The Minister of Chile replied that he could not accept this interpretation, since the date speci- fied in connection with the ten years referred only to the time of the plebiscite and no more ; that the occupation of Chile until this act should be accomplished definitively and the obligations of the treaty fulfilled, was taken for granted in the article referred to by the Minister of Foreign Rela- tions; and that, finally, the very nature of this treaty is tantamount to a territorial cession sub- ject to the condition of the vote of the inhabi- tants." (Appendix, p. 38.) Peru, then proposed as a compromise that : "the said territories should be delivered, on the date mentioned to a third power, designated by 66 The Case of Chile. common consent, under whose auspices the plebi- scite would be effected, which would immediately return them to Chile or to Peru, according to what the result of the vote might be." (Appendix, p. 39.) Chile replied that this proposal was also unaccept- able, in view of her right under Article III to occupy the disputed territory. (Appendix, p. 39.) Agreement on the control of the plebiscite not being reached, the negotiators turned to the question of qualification of voters. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru took the view that "the right of suffrage be- longed to none except Peruvians born and residing in the territories * * * those of over twenty-one years." (Appendix, p. 43.) The Minister of Chile, on the other hand, held that ' ' all inhabitants of the territory possessed by Chile had the right to declare their will to belong either to Peru or to Chile." (Appendix, p. 44.) But the Minister of Foreign Affairs replied that "this popular vote could not refer to any save Peruvian citi- zens, a character not possessed by the other inhabi- tants." (Appendix, p. 45.) On August 19, 1893, the Minister of Foreign Affairs submitted a memorandum in which he suggested the division of Tacna-Arica into two zones along the line of the Vitor ravine and the occupation of the northern zone by Peru and the southern zone by Chile, each country to control and determine in her respective zone, all of the details of the plebiscitary proceeding. (Appendix, p. 42.) Chile declined to accept the Peruvian memorandum above mentioned as a basis of discussion "since it would be impossible for the negotiation to progress on the basis of a prior dis occupation" of a part of the territory subject to the plebiscite. (Appendix, p. 49.) Peru then made a proposal for arbitration of certain questions as follows : The First Question. 67 a* * * j- ne f ii ow i n g question be submitted to a friendly Government for immediate solution : first, to which of the two countries ought to belong the territories after March 28, 1894 ; and, second, does the right to vote include only persons whose na- tionality would be affected by definitive incorpora- tion with Chile 1 , or also other inhabitants? The Minister of Foreign Relations added that they would proceed according to the result of the arbitral decision to discuss the regulations for the registration of voters and other procedures of the plebiscite, as well as the terms and periods in which the indemnity would have to be paid by the country that might be favored. ' ' (Appendix, p. 50.) The Minister of Chile declared that : <<# * # f- n i s m eans f understanding and settle- ment was unacceptable; for, in order to be so, it would be necessary to suppose that the possession of the territory of Tacna and Arica, which Chile enjoys by virtue of the prescription of the Treaty of Ancon, was a disputable subject or one of doubt- ful rights, which could not be admitted, even for a moment, * * V (Appendix, p. 51.) The conference outlined above finally led to an agree- ment known as the Jimenez-Vial Solar Protocol or exchange of notes of January 26, 1894, which left un- settled all questions relating to the "manner in which the plebiscitum is to be carried out, ' ' although it made definite arrangement as to the payment of the ten mil- lions and the rectification of boundaries in the case of success in the plebiscite by one or the other coun- try. (Appendix, p. 52.) The conclusion of the Jimenez-Vial Solar Protocol was followed by an effort to agree upon the details of the manner of holding the plebiscite. To that end the Minister of Peru in Chile presented to the Minister of 68 The Case of Chile. • Foreign Affairs of Chile a memorandum dated Febru- ary 23, 1894, providing for the machinery for register- ing the voters and casting the' votes, the qualifications of the voters, the payment of the ten millions, the trans- fer of the territory, the citizenship of nationals of the unsuccessful country residing in Tacna and Arica, and other matters relationg to the plebiscite. (Appendix, p. 55.) On account of the ministerial crisis in Chile and death of the President of Peru (Appendix, p. 71) no agreement was reached along the lines of the Peruvian memorandum in respect of the details of the manner of holding the plebiscite, and the ten-year period expired on March 28, 1894, with Chile still in possession of Tacna and Arica in spite of the protest of Peru. (Ap- pendix, p. 62.) In the summer and autumn of 1894, informal conver- sations were had in Santiago between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Peruvian Minister with refer- ence to carrying out the Jimenez-Vial Solar Protocol, but no arrangement w T as arrived at or committed to written form. (Appendix, p. 68.) It is proper to point out that no suggestion was made on either side in the negotiations outlined above, that the date of the holding of the plebiscite, the qualifica- tions of the voters, the method of registration or voting, or other details were to be determined in any other manner than by agreement between the parties in the special protocol mentioned in Article III or by arbitration if both parties agreed to that procedure. There was no provision in Article III regarding arbi- tration and, therefore, neither party was under any obligation to resort to that method of settlement un- less it desired to do so. It is possible to realize, from what has already been stated, something of the difficul- The Fiest Question. 69 ties in the way of an agreement which were inherent in the sensibilities of the two countries with reference to the possible acquisition of the territory of Tacna and Arica, and also in the nature and number of questions necessary to be decided prior to carrying out the plebi- scite. 1895-1896 Negotiations. The negotiations were not renewed until the autumn of 1895 when they were taken up in Lima between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Chile. In these conferences the discussion related almost ex- clusively to the terms and guaranty of payment of the ten millions, the manner of carrying out the plebiscite being scarcely touched upon. However, in the course of the discussion Peru committed herself in several statements to the view that the disposition of Tacna and Arica depended solely upon the outcome of a plebi- scitary vote. For example, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru said in his note of February 3, 1896 : "* * * As may be seen, this clear and definitive clause [Article III] subordinated only and exclu- sively the future nationality of those provinces to a vote expressed in a free plebiscite. ' ' {Appendix, p. IDS.) u* * * It is demonstrated that, according to the treaty, the nationality of Tacna and Arica is sub- ject only and exclusively to the result of the plebi- scite and that it is in no wise subordinate to the payment of the ransom * * *." (Appendix, p. 104.) In his reply of February 10, 1896, the Minister of Chile said : <<* * * This is equivalent to saying that Chile, in order to acquire those provinces, or Peru, in 70 The Case of Chile. order to recover them, must submit to a double condition : that of a popular vote, which shall give them to her, and that of paying ten million pesos/' (Appendix, p. 120.) In passing, attention may here be called to the agree- ment between the countries shown in this correspon- dence that a plebiscite is an absolute condition prece- dent under the Treaty of Ancon to the recovery of Tacna and Arica by Peru. It is well to keep this point of agreement as to the meaning of Article III in mind during this review of the negotiations and correspon- dence between the two Governments. It is well to re- call also that Article III is a mutual obligation of the parties to the Treaty of Ancon and that they can be released from that obligation only by a mutual agree- ment to that end. The parties, of course, are free to make proposals for such an agreement and to press for their acceptance on political, economic or other grounds but until a mutual understanding has been reached and an agreement concluded the old obligations subsist in full force and vigor. 1898 Negotiations. Although negotiations were started in Lima in the month of August, 1897, only one conference was held between the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru and the Minister of Chile and that resulted in no agreement with reference to the plebiscite. The Minister of For- eign Affairs, however, volunteered a declaration to the effect that, while Peru would with pleasure discuss a proposition for a direct settlement of the pending controversy, it must "always be based on the complete restitution of the said provinces to Peru. ' ' The Min- ister of Chile replied that he had no instructions to The First Question. 71 make any proposal for a direct settlement. (Appendix, p. 130.) In the following winter after personal and un- official conversations in Santiago with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Don Guillermo E. Billing- hurst, then Vice-Preisdent and later President of Peru, was appointed Minister Plenipotentiary of Peru on Special Mission to undertake negotiations with refer- ence to the plebiscitary procedure. After several pro- posals had been made by Chile and rejected by Peru looking to a direct settlement, the negotiators took up for consideration the bases of the plebiscite. As to the qualifications of voters, Chile maintained that "all the inhabitants of the territory that should meet certain requirements of age, residence, etc.,'' should be quali- fied to vote, whereas Peru contended that ' ' only Peru- vians born in the territory or that reside in it ought to be permitted to vote provided they possess certain personal qualifications. " The deliberations of the con- ferees resulted in the so-called Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol of April 9, 1898. The Protocol embodied for the first time an agreement as to the details relative to the plebi- scitary proceeding except that two questions, viz., the qualifications of the voters and the open or se- cret character of ballot, were to be submitted to the arbitration of the Government of Her Majesty the Queen Eegent of Spain. The other details covered by the Protocol included the composition, powers and duties of a Directive Board and of Registration and Election Boards, the method of registering the voters and publishing the lists, the manner of receiving and counting the ballots and announcing the result of the voting, the determination of the dates of registra- tion, publication, voting, etc., the method of defraying the expenses of the plebiscite and the terms of the pay- 72 The Case of Chile. ment of the ten million dollars. (Appendix, p. 131.) These details are enumerated merely to show the large number and varied character of the subjects which must be agreed upon in the special protocol under Arti- cle III before a plebiscite can be held. The chance for disagreement between the representatives of two coun- tries desirous for patriotic motives of obtaining by means of the plebiscite definitive sovereignty over Tacna and Arica is very great, and the possibility of complete accord is very slight, especially when the pro- tocol has also to receive the approval of the legislative bodies of the two countries. It ought not to be cause for wonder that, in the circumstances, Chile and Peru have never been able to conclude a protocol satisfac- tory to the legislatures of both countries. In this connection it is to be noted also that neither party to the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol intimated at any time during the negotiations of that instrument that the plebiscite should have been held at an earlier date or that it should not then be held on account of the lapse of several years since the end of the ten-year pe- riod. The fact that the parties entered into the proto- col shows conclusively that they regarded the date of holding the plebiscite to be purely a matter of agree- ment between the countries. 1900-1901 Negotiations and Correspondence. The Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol was laid be- fore the legislatures of Peru and Chile in 1898 but final action by the Congress of Chile was delayed on account of questions raised in the Chamber of Deputies. Although the Government of Chile repeatedly urged the approval of the Protocol upon the Congress {Ap- pendix, p. 148), the Chamber of Deputies never gave its consent to the same. Meanwhile, Peru was urging The Fiest Question. 73 upon Chile the desirability of its prompt approval. (Appendix, pp. 148, 155, 156.) In a statement pre- sented on May 10, 1900, the Peruvian Minister said : 1 ' He recalled minutely the history of the negotia- tions carried on from 1892, opened by the Senores Larrabure y Unanue and Vial Solar, until the con- clusion of the aforementioned one of the protocol, in the course of which not less than eight efforts at an arrangement on different bases had failed and in which an equal number of years had been em- ployed. The Billinghurst protocol, he said, is the result of a series of efforts, the result of a long and laborious diplomatic process, at the end of which the two Governments came to an agreement, after eliminating what each of them deemed incompati- ble with the fundamental interests of its country. If the protocol were put aside to-day, it would be necessary to go back to the beginning of an in- terminable and but little short of impossible labor. "He explained also that if the protocol were abandoned, in concerting new bases of arrange- ment, the Government of Peru would seek to ob- tain for its country more advantageous conditions than those that were assured in that compact, and that of Chile would attempt the same thing for its country. At all events, neither of the two Govern- ments would resign itself to accepting for its na- tion conditions more unfavorable than those in which the protocol placed it. The two Kepublics, in such a case, instead of drawing closer together, would become more widely separated from each other, and thus the impossibility of a new arrange- ment on different bases would become accentuated. "He said, further, that, although the protocol in question did not meet the extreme demands of either of the countries, it kept alive the expecta- tions of both, of the definitive acquisition of the territories of Tacna and Arica, and that it con- stituted, in conformity with the laws of modern 74 The Case of Chile. civilization, an impartial and just arbiter to settle the differences that had arisen as to the manner and conditions of the plebiscite. If by a stipulated arbitration Chile exposed herself to seeing disre- garded the rights and principles that she holds to be incontrovertible, the same would happen to Peru. What would be neither just nor acceptable in any case was that either of the two interested Governments should attempt to constitute itself an arbiter to determine by itself alone the manner and conditions of the plebiscite." (Appendix, pp. 150-152.) It is submitted that this statement on the part of Peru is in substance as applicable today to the present attempt to settle this irritating dispute as it was to the attempt of the negotiators of the Billinghurst- Latorre Protocol. In his note of June 12, 1900, giving a review of the preceding conferences, the Peruvian Minister indi- cates clearly the indentical views entertained by his Government and that of Chile as to the binding char- acter of the provisions of the Treaty of Ancon in re- spect of the plebiscite. The Minister stated: "In it (the conference of May 3rd), I began by saying that the natural and necessary basis of any convention relative to the plebiscitary pro- cedure that ought to be observed for the definitive settlement of the dominion and sovereignty of the territories of Tacna and Arica was to be found in the Treaty of Ancon, and, especially, in the rules prescribed in its Article III, the terms of which I recalled. Although Peru, I added, set her signature to this treaty under quite exceptional circumstances, she ought not to disregard its pro- visions, in the opinion of my Government, in estab- lishing the principles according to which the plebiscite should be carried into effect. I con- The Fikst Question. 75 eluded by saying that I should have omitted this declaration, if opinions had not recently been ad- vanced that tended to cause the application of that treaty, in the portion recalled, to be ignored. "In view of these declarations, Your Excellency (the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile) took occasion to explain that the opinions of his Gov- ernment were the same; and that, in his view, as was to be supposed, the treaty of Ancon ought to be carried out in all its parts in determining the bases of the plebiscite ; and you added that, on this point, there existed no difference of opinion between the chancelleries of Chile and Peru. (Ap- pendix, p. 159.) These views were substantially reiterated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile in his reply of July 12, 1900. (Appendix, pp. 173-174.) On January 14, 1901, the Chamber of Deputies failed to approve the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol and rec- ommended that the Governments of Chile and of Peru might settle directly the two questions proposed for arbitration by the Protocol. The reasons for this action are stated in the re- port of the Committee of the Chamber on the Pro- tocol which report was submitted to that body on January 14, 1901. The report states: "Many and lengthy sessions were devoted to the discussion of the said agreement, and it was only at the session of September 24th that the general idea of negotiating with Peru in order to resolve as to the conditions under which the plebiscite that is to decide as to the final nation- ality of Tacna and Arica is to be held, was ap- proved. But the intense opposition that some of the stipulations of the agreement merited, made impossible its ratification solicited by the Executive, without introducing modifications in it 76 The Case of Chile. that would have to be the subject of new nego- tiations. " Since that date, not any progress has been made in the discussion, which has remained sus- pended until the Minister of Foreign Relations again has asked for a decision upon the part of the Honorable Chamber. * * * "Besides, as the idea of negotiating with Peru regarding plebiscite conditions, already is ap- proved in general, the Committee believes that not any useful purpose would be accomplished in continuing the discussion of the Protocol, as any proposed modifications thereto could not be adopted without first being discussed and accepted by both Governments, in negotiations that are of the exclusive resort of the Department of Foreign Relations.' ' (Appendix, p. 208.)* *The reasons are more intimately given in Sefior Billinghurst 's secret message delivered to Congress on November 30, 1912, in behalf of the Hnneeus-Varela Protocol : "I will read the pertinent paragraphs of the private letter ad- dressed to me on December 7, 1898, by the President of the Republic of Chile, His Excellency don Federico Erraznuriz, and which reads as follows: 'I consider it almost useless to express to you my true regret because the protocol signed by you and Sefior Latorre, fixing the manner for the compliance with what has been stipulated in the Treaty of Ancon with respect to the provinces of Tacna and Arica, has not yet been passed in the Chamber of Deputies. ' This business has been made by some into a political ques- tion and others, interested in the payment of the Bolivian credits, objected thereto, believing that after an agreement with Peru had been made, they would lose all hopes of getting their money. ' Then, presented themselves the last complications of the Ar- gentine question which completely absorbed the attention of the Government, of the Congress, and of public opinion, and that has at last been solved in the manner known to you. ' These things have been overlooked in Peru, as also they have forgotten that our Chambers are governed by the most unfor- tunate of regulations, making it possible for a small minority to obstruct the passing of any project. *I overlooked to tell you that the Cabinet crisis in which I find myself at present, caused by the resignation of Sefior Latorre and his Balmacedista colleague began before the Ar- gentine question was ended, and it has been another obstacle The First Question. 77 After January 14, 1901, the diplomatic correspond- ence related almost entirely to the administration which, it was alleged by Peru, Chile was improperly imposing on Tacna and Arica. In the course of these exchanges incidental references were made to the fail- ure of the Protocol in the Chamber of Deputies. To the Peruvian protests at the delay in the ap- proval of the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol by the Chamber of Deputies, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile replied on January 19, 1901, as follows: "The Government of Chile has cherished no design of postponing indefinitely the solution of the problem of Tacna and Arica, nor may Your Excellency's Government justly charge it with having done so. to the prompt consideration of the Tacna- Arica problem imme- diately upon the closing of the Puna de Atacana question. 'In the belief that the pending pacts with Bolivia interfere in no way with your protocol, we have ordered the liquidation of the credits of that country so that both questions can be jointly discussed and approved. The said liquidation is almost concluded and I hope that before the close of the special ses- sions we shall approve both negotiations. 'You know my own ideas about the subject, and from what I have done you will believe that I wish for my country the most cordial friendship with Peru. ' ********** "Confirming the statements contained in the above letter, I quote in part the correspondence that I received on the same day from the Charge of the Legation of Peru in Santiago, don Manuel F. Bena- vides, and which says : * * * * * * * * * 'We (Sefiores Errazuriz and Benavides) talked after a few moments; he began by expressing his surprise at the course of events relative to the opposition that your candidacy has ex- cited. I answered him that in my opinion your triumph was very probable and that the passing of the protocol would com- pletely assure it, giving you great prestige. 'He told me that he insisted that our convention be approved as soon as possible, that he had just. read a note of mine ask- ing for a solving of this question, but that politics were in such an entanglement that I should be a little more patient, that in his opinion all the opposition to the proocol was caused by questions of private interests and that an agreement with the 78 The Case of Chile. 4 ' The agreement about the Billinghurst-Latorre protocol is the most conclusive proof that this Government has carried its good will in respect of Peru beyond what was possible within the con- stitutional limitations within which it would have exercised its action in order to arrive at an un- derstanding with the Government of Peru. "Your Excellency is aware that the proto- col mentioned encountered insuperable obstacles among the membership of the Honorable Chamber of Deputies, when it was submitted to its consi- deration in 1898, and that the efforts made by the Government to obtain its approval have been in- efficacious. "As the discussion of the protocol has been in- definitely postponed, different circumstances, in- dependent of the will of the Government, have de- layed a pronouncement by that branch of the legis- lative power, thus producing the consequent para- lyzation of the negotiations subject to the sanction- ing of that protocol by the Chilean Congress. creditors of Bolivia was a necessary formality; that all those accounts had been liquidated except that of an American con- cern, which was demanding an exorbitant amount of money, and. for the prompt close of this question cabled instructions, had. been sent to the Minister in Washington. 'He assured me that as soon as this question was closed the Government would ask preference to be given to the discussion of the Peruvian and Bolivian protocols and that both would be simultaneously passed without difficulty, which he assured me would take place before the close of the special session of Congress. * He assured me also, that he already knew, by letter of Matias Errazuriz, the judgment to be given by the Queen of Spain, who, the case having been placed before her, would decide that the vote only be given to those born in the Provinces of Tacna and Arica. 'He finished by saying that nothing would be more agreeable to him than the general solution of this problem with Peru. ' 1 * The preceding paragraphs of Sefior Benavides ' letter showed that his Excellency Sefior Errazuriz, at the end of the year 1898, knew that the judgment of the Queen of Spain, in case the plebiscite protocol had been submitted to Her Majesty, would have been en- tirely favorable to Peru. In spite of this the President of Chile, as may be inferred from the personal letter quoted by me, did not change his attitude of mind in regard to the fulfillment of the Bil- linghust-Latorre protocol." (Appendix, pp. 506-509.) The First Questiox. 79 "The recent motion adopted by the Chamber of Deputies, when it again took up the considera- tion of the Billinghurst-Latorre protocol, has put an end to this uncertain situation that hindered and delayed the efforts that should have been carried forward by both Governments with a view to settling the problem as to the territories of Tacna and Arica. "The Chamber of Deputies did not give its approval to the protocol of April 16, 1898, because it considers that it ought to be modified in some of its provisions, and it has voted to send the an- tecedents to the Government in order that it may take steps to introduce the necessary modi- fications, thus opening fresh negotiations to this effect with the Chancellery of Peru. "The question that so greatly interests and pre- occupies the Governments of Chile and Peru has remained at this stage. "It would be neither just nor in keeping with the truth to blame either of the Governments for not having arrived sooner at a definitive solution and one that would have consulted the interests of both countries." (Appendix, pp. 223-224.) In a subsequent note of February 19, 1901, the same Minister of Foreign Affairs reiterated these views. In the spring of 1901, the Minister of Foreign Af- fairs of Peru issued a circular, addressed to foreign governments, reviewing the course of events up to that time in relation to Tacna and Arica. After a lengthy discussion, he in conclusion makes, among other declarations, the following regarding the plebi- scite : "That Peru only desires the fulfillment of Clause III of the Treaty of Peace. That it thinks its rights, according to that clause, permit it to demand: * * * 80 The Case of Chile. "that the plebiscite should be held under the authority of a friendly power; that in the plebi- scite only the Peruvian natives of those provinces, who have their domicile there, shall vote; that the result of the plebiscite shall be singular, that is, it must decide as to the future nationality of all the territory which the said clause submitted to temporary occupation by Chile ; # * * "That, in spite of the stability of Peru's rights, she has always been disposed to submit any ques- tion relative to the plebiscite to arbitration." (Appendix, p. 277.) Thus the period of 1900-1901 closes with Peru urg- ing the holding of a plebiscite under the authority of a friendly power in which only Peruvian natives shall vote — a position less advanced than that already agreed to in the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol. The foregoing review of this period illustrates again the difficulty of overcoming the obstacles that lie in the path of negotiating a special protocol satisfactory to the Governments and Legislatures of the two coun- tries. 1905-1907 Negotiations and Correspondence. No negotiations regarding the execution of Article III were carried on between 1901 and 1905 for the rea- son that Peru suspended diplomatic relations with Chile during this period. Meantime, the Decree of May 4, 1904, had been issued by Chile with reference to the Chilcaya boundary question, and the Treaty of Peace between Chile and Bolivia had been signed on October 20, 1904, which Treaty superseded the Truce Agreement of April 4, 1884. (Appendix, pp. 327; 345; 681; 688.) This Decree and Treaty brought forth pro- tests on the part of Peru against the alleged effort of The Fiest Question. 81 Chile to fix the boundaries of Tacna and Arica without Peru's approval. Chile replied to these protests in due course. (Appendix, pp. 327-370, inclusive.) This correspondence related almost entirely to the ques- tion of boundaries but in the course of it Peru urged the desirability of immediate execution of the plebi- scite. (Appendix, p. 347.) Also, for the first time, Peru takes the position that the plebiscite was to have been held on the expiration of the ten years of occu- pation. The Peruvian Minister said in his note of April 25, 1905: "Your Excellency insinuates the idea that the date on which the plebiscite was to be effected was not peremptorily fixed in the Treaty of An- con; but there can be no doubt as to whether it was stipulated in it that the plebiscite was to be held on the expiration of the ten years of occupation, that is, on March 28, 1894, without its being materially necessary to indicate that date; for it would be justly determined by designating it by years, which began to be reckoned, accord- ing to the treaty, after it was ratified. "When the Treaty of Ancon was negotiated and approved, and afterward, at all times, the Chilean Chancellery understood it thus, invari- ably, without ever having maintained any con- trary opinion." (Appendix, p. 366.) In 1906, at the instance of Chile, Peru sent Seiior Alvarez Calderon to Santiago to continue the nego- tiations, thus renewing diplomatic intercourse be- tween the two countries. As these negotiations were without result, it is unnecessary to discuss them here. 1908-1910 Correspondence. After the failure of the negotiations of Seiior Cal- deron, Chile invited his successor, Seiior Seoane, to 82 The Case of Chile. open new negotiations. They began in March, 1908, and continued intermittently until March, 1910, when Peru again severed diplomatic relations with Chile, and these have never been restored. (Appendix, pp. 370-445.) In this period, details of the plebiscite were fully discussed by the representatives of the two Gov- ernments. In the beginning, Chile proposed that the discussion of the special protocol relative to the plebi- scite be joined with the discussion of the negotiation of certain commercial conventions and also a conven- tion in relation to the payment of the ten million dol- lars. As to the special protocol for the holding of the plebiscite, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made the following comment as to the plebiscitary provisions in Article III: "Your honor is well aware that the treaty of 1883, in leaving to the resolution of a plebiscite the determination of the definitive nationality of Tacna and Arica, did not make it clear what ought to be understood by this plebiscite, nor did it fix either the manner or the form of its execution. These omissions may not be reasonably attributed to an oversight on the part of the negotiators, but to an implicit recognition that the procedure adopted could be no other than that of the plebi- scites incorporated in the history of international law. "My Government, however, desiring now, as formerly, to arrive at an amicable solution, would be disposed not to adhere strictly to rights con- ferred upon it by the spirit and the law of clause III of the Treaty of Ancon, and not to keep, either, exactly to the realm in which publicists and diplo- matic precedents place plebiscitary conventions, when Peru, on her part, will facilitate understand- ing by renouncing extreme claims that would un- questionably frustrate it." (Appendix, p. P>77.) The Fikst Question. 83 The Minister then went on to discuss the qualifica- tions of the voters in the following language: "It will not escape the enlightened judgment of Your Excellency that the right to vote in this case does not possess the object and significance that the internal constitution and laws of every state attribute to political suffrage. Its character is eminently international, inasmuch as it is a question of determining to which country belongs definitive sovereignty over a portion of territory. There is no doubt then that all the qualified in- habitants of the territory ought to be called on to exercise the right of plebiscitary suffrage ; not alone the citizens of one or the other of the in- terested countries that may be residing in the territory and that are exempt from all inability or incapacity; but also all the foreign residents that meet the same requirements. 1 ' The wishes of foreigners ought to be consulted in the plebiscite, both because their right was explicitly recognized in the treaty, when the for- mula ' popular vote' was employed, and because it is not just or reasonable to deprive them of participation in a referendum as to the fate of the land in which they have established their in- terests or have brought up families, and to the prosperity of which they have contributed to a very considerable degree by their productive and persevering labor." (Appendix, pp. 377-378.) The Minister of Foreign Affairs then added that, owing to the fact that Chile was exercising sov- ereignty over Tacna and Arica, she should designate the personnel who were to preside over the plebi- scitary act and that he saw no reason why Chilean authorities in making up the election boards should not grant representation to citizens of Peruvian na- tionality and to citizens of other nationalities. (Ap- pendix, p. 379.) The Minister of Peru desired to dis- 84 The Case of Chile. associate the plebiscitary protocol from the other con- ventions proposed by Chile as his Government " de- sires to proceed at once, while avoiding complications, to the solution of the plebiscitary problem." (Appen- dix, p. 381.) The Minister reiterated his opinion that "to my Gov- ernment the plebiscitary protocol is of so much im- portance that in comparison with it all other questions assume a secondary place.' ' (Appendix, p. 385.) The Minister then takes issue with the Chilean position that the exercise of sovereignty and possession in re- spect of Tacna and Arica gives her the right to control the plebiscitary proceeding. He discussed at length certain precedents found in the history of European plebiscites, and concluded with the following statement : "Although the sincere promises of impartiality that Your Excellency is pleased to reiterate do not awaken doubts, I have the honor to remind you that expectations regarding Tacna and Arica exist not only in Chile, but also in Peru; there- fore, according to the fundamental precepts of justice, the only logical deduction of that right, in principle equal, is that the two republics should have an identical share and positive identical assurances, in order that the plebiscite may ex- press, with the testimony of both, the verdict of the people. "This was the basis accorded in the Billing- hurst-Latorre Protocol.' ' (Appendix, p. 400.) Then the Minister took up the question of the na- tionality of the voters, on this point he said: "Until foreigners shall become nationalized, they retain their juridical character of foreigners. In- asmuch as they do not loose the bonds of their own sovereignty, nor acquire those of another, The Fiest Question. 85 they are deprived of political rights in the place of their residence; and when a transfer of terri- tory occurs, without their being required to make any declaration, their personal status remains unchanged. * ' The plebiscitary vote in the present case is of a very peculiar character ; it not only makes effec- tive the participation of the citizen in the man- agement of public affairs, but particularly in the choice of a definite sovereignty for the territory. Its political character alone would be sufficient to exclude from it all foreigners, without excep- tion, since constitutional science dogmatically de- prives them of that right everywhere. "If suffrage is of such a nature that its exer- cise may not be granted to the other citizens of the interested countries, much less is it feasible to claim that it should be granted as a privilege to foreigners. Tacna and Arica are Peruvian provinces; and, although citizens of Peru, not born in them, would be denied the vote, the citi zens or subjects of other nations would have a right to it, they — that is, those who, juridically, it ought to be supposed, have no interest in the act — being thus in a more advantageous po- litical position than that of such Peruvian citi- zens. Your Excellency's enlightened judgment will spare me the necessity of pointing out the absurdity of such a conclusion. "If the plebiscite is an exclusive right of sov- ereignty, and if foreigners are not affected by its outcome, it is obvious that nothing would justify the intrusion of those guests in this act of trans- cendental consequence only to the political collec- tivity of which they do not form a part. i < rp g Tan t them the vote is to attribute to them condominion, equally with the owners, over a ter- ritory in which they temporarily reside ; seigniory over those that offered them hospitality, to the extreme of deciding as to their future, thus wound- ing the sacred love of the country ; is to authorize 86 The Case of Chile. them, by thus influencing the dispossession and denationalization of the native, to violate neutral- ity, which in every international dispute, is im- posed upon them by the most elemental rules of law." (Appendix, pp. 400-401.) The Minister then makes an effort to show that Chilean citizens resident in Tacna and Arica are to be ranked as foreigners. His discussion of the subject is exten- sive involving references to the Constitution and laws of Chile and to foreign plebiscite precedents, and there- fore only an extract will be given from his argument as follows : "Chilean citizens resident in the two provinces are as much f oreigners in them as others. "Without rights in Peruvian sovereignty, with- out the outcome of the plebiscite's affecting their personal status, the circumstance of their votes weighing in favor of Chile, not, indeed, as a viola- tion of neutrality, but as an effective contribution to the act of conquest, renders their disability even more evident. 1 * The third clause of the treaty provides that at the expiration of the period of ten years 'a plebi- scite will decide by popular vote' whether the ter- ritories of Tacna and Arica shall remain defini- tively under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile or whether it shall continue to be a part of the Peruvian territory. "Your Excellency deigns to suppose that the i popular vote' required is that of all the residents, including that of foreigners that have established their interests and have brought up families in the localities to the prosperity of which they have con- tributed to a very considerable degree by there persevering and productive labor. "If the consequence deduced from the last as- sertion were correct, it would be sufficient to serve The Fikst Question. 87 as a basis for the recognition of their political rights. " However, this theory is an infringement of Chilean legislation, which prevents their partici- pation even in municipal affairs. "In the case of the foreign resident, it is fair to assume instability: the desire to return to the country with which he has not severed his ties, to- gether with the new family and fortune acquired abroad. "For this reason it is not improper to assume that, in the event of a plebiscitary conflict, indo- lence would incline hi mto tranquillity at all costs. ' i Those that truly desire, whatsoever their place of domicile, in addition to peace, both the present and the future welfare of the region are the na- tives themselves, who in its defence, from a sense of obligation and patriotism, sacrifice their prop- erty, their families and their lives." {Appendix, pp. 403-404.) With this correspondence the discussion in Santiago closed for the time being. In August, 1908, the new Chilean Minister arrived at Lima to urge the Peruvian Government to con- tinue the discussion. The latter manifested its willingness to present its views as to the means of carrying out the Treaty of Ancon but for one rea- son or another not pertinent to this review the con- sideration of the manner of holding the plebiscite was not taken up in correspondence until late in the sum- mer of 1909. The correspondence for the remainder of this period consisted for the most part of denounce- ment by Peru and defense by Chile of the so-called 1 ' Chileanization ' ' measures which the southern Repub- lic was reputed to be carrying out in the territory of Tacna and Arica. {Appendix, pp. 414-492.) Incident- ally, however, both countries urged the desirability of 88 The Case of Chile. adhering to the Treaty of Ancon by holding the plebi- scite since it was the best means of restoring that good neighborliness which ought to mark the relations of continguous nations. Notwithstanding the general theme of the correspon- dence, Chile made a strong effort in October, 1909, to seek a basis of accord in regard to a plebiscite. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Senor Agustin Edwards, presented to Peru through the Chilean Legation in Lima a memorandum embodying a plan for holding the plebiscite patterned after the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol which had always been considered in Peru to be the ideal solution. The plan, however, did not in- clude the submission to arbitration, as did the Billing- hurst-Latorre Protocol, of the qualifications of the voters and the secrecy of the ballot. In these respects Senor Edwards endeavored to carry out the mandate of the Chamber of Deputies in which it returned the Protocol of 1898 to the Executive for further negotia- tion. (Appendix, p. 423.) On November 5, 1909, Peru suggested certain modifications in the Chilean plan which brought out clearly the points of difference be- tween the two countries. (Appendix, p. 424.) They dif- fered mainly in the following respects. Chile desired that the date of the plebiscite be postponed until the completion of the Arica-La Paz railroad which she estimated would be finished in 1911, whereas Peru suggested the organization of the Directive Board within three months after the date of the signature of the protocol. Chile proposed a secret ballot while Peru desired an open ballot. Chile stipulated that the voters should be Chileans, Peruvians and foreigners having a residence of six months in Tacna and Arica ; Peru, that they should be Chileans and Peruvians hav- ing a residence since July 1, 1907, and also those born The Fikst Question. 89 in Tacna and Arica. Chile insisted on the right to preside over the Plebiscitary Board and Peru con- tended that a neutral should preside. Thus on the mat- ters of date of holding the plebiscite, secrecy of the ballot, qualifications of voters, and the presidency of the Plebiscitary Board, the two countries were in dis- agreement. There were other minor points of differ- ence which have not been mentioned. Obviously the two countries were as far as ever from an agreement. And there seemed to be no effective means of bringing them together, although it appears that certain third powers were interesting themselves at this time in bringing about an accord. On March 3, 1910, Seiior Edwards, in a note dealing with the Peruvian protests against the Chilean meas- ures in Tacna and Arica, which he vigorously defended, again advanced his plan of October, 1909, in a much ex- panded and somewhat modified form, and replied in detail to the Peruvian objections to his plan. (Appen- dix, p. 426.) Peru, however, regarding her protests against the so-called repressive acts of Chile in Tacna and Arica as useless, ordered her Minister at Santiago to return home without answering Seiior Edwards proposals of March 3, 1910 (Appendix, pp. 445; 492) ; and so ended another vain attempt to reach an agreement in regard to the manner of carrying out the plebiscite. Since that date diplomatic relations between the two countries have remained severed up to the present day. 1912 Negotiations. Although diplomatic relations between Chile and Peru were severed, efforts were made through un- official channels to reach a basis of an agreement in regard to the manner of carrying out the plebiscite. 90 The Case of Chile. The result of these unofficial efforts, however, was an exchange of telegrams directly between the Min- isters of Foreign Affairs of Chile and Peru, dated November 10, 1912, and known as the Huneeus- Valera Protocol of that year — a protocol which, to use the words of President Billinghurst of Peru, "took into account as far as possible the interests of Peru/' (Appendix, pp. 495-500.) The arrange- ment arrived at in these telegrams was the result of a compromise of the positions which both countries as- sumed in the 1909-1910 exchange of views. For ex- ample, it provided for a postponement of the plebiscite to the year 1933; the directive committee was to be presided over by the President of the Supreme Court of Chile; persons born in Tacna and Arica as well as Chileans and Peruvians who have resided there for three years were to be entitled to vote; all voters must be able to read and write. This arrangement is of special importance in view of the motives of the countries that prompted the post- ponement of the plebiscite to 1933. These motives are nowhere better set forth than in the secret message de- livered by President Billinghurst to the Peruvian Congress, November 30, 1912, advocating the approval of this arrangement. The importance of the state- ments made by him at that time and in those circum- stances warrants a somewhat copious quotation from his message. President Billinghurst said: "In the light of truth, appreciating with up- right and serene mind the grave problem of Tacna and Arica, considering its antecedents and the ir- revocable character of the facts, which although it is possbile to appreciate them in different ways in regard to their form and meaning, it is impos- sible in any way to destroy them ; that problem can The First Question. 91 only be solved as it now stands, by the use of force, that is by war declared by Peru, or by the adop- tion of diplomatic methods that, without overlook- ing her rights, and without loss of honor, would allow our country in the course of time to solve the present difficulties and prepare, with all the energies of her patriotism for the coming of an epoch which would place her in a position to re- conquer, fairly and legally in peacetime that which, for different reasons, was unfortunately lost in war. * * * " My Government has decided, then, frankly and steadfastly, for the second alternative, sure that the chosen way, is in obedience to the same spirit that prevails in the Billinghurst-Latorre Treaty of 1898, that is to prepare the field for the exercis- ing of our rights, always under the protection of the national honor. * * * ' ' This circumstance implies, furthermore, a total change of tactics in the international policy of Chile, since it puts aside here its reiterated pre- hensions, in regard to the understanding not only of the text, but of the spirit of the Treaty of Ancon maintained in all its parts and in every possible way, with persistence and uniformity by her states- men during the course of thirty years, and accord- ing to which the above mentioned Treaty would not mean, so far as Tacna and Arica are concerned, but a carefully simulated territorial cession. * * * "The bases established in the agreement that is at present being discussed settled the way and the form for the carrying out of the plebiscite, deter- mining the date on which it shall take place, for the purpose of knowing, in the last instance, the will of the Provinces of Tacna and Arica with reference to the nationality they desired to adopt. The ab- sence of these bases, set forth as they are in a vague manner in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon has been one of the causes if not the pretext that Chile has had for continuing the occupation de facto of that part of our territory, thus exceeding the ten-year period of possession referred to in the same article. # * * 92 , The Case of Chile. "A period of twenty-one years has been agreed to for the carrying out of the plebiscite, too long a period if we consider it from the sentiment of na- tionality — a reasonable period if we consider it in the light of the present facts and the dictates of foresight. " Would the immediate carrying out of the plebiscite be suitable for Peru? To endorse this statement would mean taking the daringreso- lution of legalizing, without advantage and in a precipitate and inconceivable manner, the occupa- tion by Chile. To believe this it is only necessary to look at it with open eyes and a clear conscience. " After a long time has elapsed and after the events have taken place, caused first by disasters and then by the efforts and aimless attempts of our Chancellery; and considering the economic position of the Republic, some time must neces- sarily elapse before the consolidation of her public institutions, the strengthening of her finances, be- fore her energies are restored, and her morale raised so as at last to place our country in a condi- tion for fighting and victory. And in the lif e*of a nation this is certainly not the work of a moment. # • • "As far as time is concerned twenty-one years shall elapse, a period of time in which the Peru- vian element will enjoy in Tacna and Arica, as in any other part of Chile, all the rights and guaranties accorded to foreign residents by the Constitution and other laws of that country, a pe- riod of time in which, thanks to peaceful relations maintained by reciprocal interests, will surely allow, by reason of the good name of the two na- tions and as homage to the harmony and civiliza- tion of the country, the fulfillment of its designs, both countries being inspired by "the dictates of justice and fair dealing. * * * "Instead of the failure of the negotiations car- ried on in America for intervention or cooperation in the solution of the conflict, in the sense of Peru expressly resigning the most valuable part, from the industrial and economic point of view, of the The First Question. 93 occupied territory, this agreement offers the ex- pectation of its total reincorporation as there are grounds for hoping, if the Peruvian patriotism puts forth all its available resources during the twenty-one years that will elapse for the carrying out of the plebiscite. ' ' (Appendix, p. 503.) It is clear from the paragraphs quoted above that the controlling motive of Peru in postponing the plebiscite to 1933 was the opportunity which this interval offered her to recuperate her exhausted energies and to pre- pare to reclaim the lost provinces through a future plebiscite. It is fair also to conclude that by entering into this agreement Peru waived any contentions which she may have theretofore advanced that the plebiscite should have been held forthwith upon the expiration of the ten-year period or that' it was too late within the meaning of Article III to hold a plebiscite to deter- mine the definitive sovereignty of Tacna and Arica. After some twenty years of negotiations and corres- pondence this was only the second arrangement which it had been possible to negotiate in regard to the man- ner of carrying out the plebiscite. It was unfortunate- ly impossible to convert this telegraphic arrangement into a formal protocol and to submit the same to the respective legislatures of the two countries for their approval. 1921 Negotiations. Notwithstanding the fact that diplomatic relations between the two countries still remained interrupted, Chile again in 1921 endeavored to renew negotiations with reference to carrying out the plebiscite by intro- ducing a telegraphic correspondence directly between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries, Senor Ernesto Barros and Senor Alberto Salomon, 94 The Case of Chile. respectively. {Appendix, pp. 536-584.) Sefior Barros on behalf of Chile proposed that the negotiations should proceed on the basis of the arrangement reached in the so-called Huneeus-Valera Protocol of 1912, and indi- cated that an earlier date for holding the plebiscite than the date in that Protocol, viz., 1933, would be ac- ceptable to Chile. Sefior Barros said: ' ' The fact of our country exercising sovereignty over Tacna and Arica, as expressly stated in the Treaty of Ancon, makes the postponement of the plebiscite advantageous because of a possible natural increase of its interests during the course of years; but Chile, because of a high spirit of continental cordiality, is ready to accept an earlier date than that specified in the agreement of 1912 for the fulfillment of the plebiscite. "Inspired by these purposes, my Government invites Your Excellency's Government without loss of time, to carry out the agreement reached in No- vember of 1912 in order to verify in Tacna and Arica the plebiscite provided for in Clause 3d of the Treaty of Ancon." (Appendix, p. 538.) This proposal was not acceptable to Sefior Salomon who charged that Chile had "violated the greater part of the Articles of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of October 20, 1883," and proposed to submit jointly, under the auspices of the Government of the United States, to arbitration "the entire question of the South Pacific." (Appendix, p. 542.) Senor Barros in his answer of December 20, 1921, without declining arbitration asked to be advised more specifically as to the scope of the arbitration suggested by Sefior Salomon, and made the following reply to Senor Salomon's charge as to violations of the Treaty of Ancon : The First Question. 95 "Your Excellency has thought opportune to set forth strange statements, for which no proof is given, or could be given, to the effect that Chile has violated almost all the clauses of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1883. "I shall not exert myself to call Your Excel- lency's attention to the fact that it would be im- possible for Chile to commit such a violation, since the clauses referred to establish obligations not imposed on Chile in favor of Peru, but exactly the reverse. "However, permit me to avail myself of this op- portunity to state that the only provisions of the Treaty of Ancon which have not yet been fully complied with are the often mentioned Article III and Article XII, the latter prescribing the payment of certain indemnities by' the Government of Your Excellency, for the indemnification of certain Chilean citizens. Your Excellency well knows that the Chilean Government cannot in any way be made responsible for the non-fulfillment of those two provisions." (Appendix, p. 545.) On December 24, 1921, Sefior Salomon replied, spe- cifying certain alleged violations by Chile of the Treaty of Ancon and explaining the scope of his proposal to be a "full arbitration" (to be agreed upon in Wash- ington) of all pending questions, which phrase he in- terpreted to include all infractions of the Treaty of Ancon alleged by Peru against the Government of Chile . On December 26, 1921, Seiior Barros replied in part as follows : i i # # * m y Q- overnmen t w iH create in Washington a mission duly instructed to attempt, together with the mission which Your Excellency's Govern- ment may send, to reach a settlement of the pend- ing difficulties and fix, in agreements which will be 96 The Case of Chile. submitted for the approval of both Governments, the bases and matters for an arbitration to solve those differences which should prove impossible of solution through direct agreement and which may be indispensable for the exact and true fulfill- ment of the Treaty of 1883." (Appendix, pp. 577- 578.) On December 28, 1921, Senor Salomon telegraphed in part that : i < • • # m y Government has at no time intended nor expressed the purpose to negotiate directly in Washington for the purpose of reaching an agree- ment regarding the plebiscitary difficulties, but only for submitting to the decision of an arbitrator the differences which are impossible to remove and solve directly." (Appendix, p. 579.) The telegraphic correspondence was continued but the Governments could not come to an agreement as to whether the Chilean or the Peruvian basis was to be the subject of discussion in Washington. At this point the President of the United States invited both Govern- ments to send delegates to a conference in Washington, as has already been related. The Washington Conference. The invitation of the President of the United States to the Governments of Chile and Peru to participate in a conference in Washington had for its express pur- pose the settlement of "the existing difficulties." This phrase by reference to the context of the invitation re- lated to "the long standing controversy with respect to the unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of Ancon." (Appendix, p. 588.) The acceptance of this invitation by Chile and Peru committed them to a single subject of discussion at Washington, namely, the settlement of The First Question. 97 the controversy over the unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of Ancon through seeking a method of fulfill- ing those provisions. (Appendix, pp. 589, 595.) This idea of seeking a settlement of the pending con- troversy by seeking a method of fulfilling the treaty was reiterated in the first speech of the Chilean Dele- gate at the opening of the conference on May 15, 1922, and was the central theme of the Chilean argument throughout the conference to the date of the conclusion of the Protocol and Supplementary Agreement of July 20, 1922, in which the same idea is explicitly incorpo- rated. This idea, the Chilean Delegates contended was founded on the universal doctrine of respect for trea- ties and, therefore, necessarily meant the carrying out of the plebiscite as provided in the Treaty of Ancon; for that treaty set no date for the holding of the plebi- scite after the end of the ten-year period and fixed no period within which the Special Protocol required by Article III should be concluded. Accordingly, the Chilean Delegation made several proposals aimed to reaching an agreement by negotiation or arbitration as to the manner in which the plebiscitary proceeding should be held. (Appendix, pp. 609-633.) From this argument of Chile in the conference Peru endeavored in vain to disassociate herself. At first she completely reversed her attitude of thirty years in favor of a plebiscite and contended that "the only rea- sonable and just solution consisted in the complete res- toration of the provinces of Tacna and Arica to Peru ,, without a plebiscite (Appendix, p. 610), since the plebi- scite should have been held immediately upon the ex- piration of the ten-year period at which time the out- come would have been favorable to Peru. (Appendix, p. 611.) Failing to find a basis of accord in this contention, Peru proposed the submission to arbitration of the 98 The Case of Chile. question whether or not the plebiscite should be held, and if so under what conditions, and if not to which country Tacna and Arica should belong. This pro- posal, in so far as it intended to settle the disposition of Tacna and Arica without a plebiscite, amounted to submitting to arbitration the determination of terri- torial sovereignty which the Treaty of Ancon provided should be determined by plebiscite and to violating the scope of the Washington Conference which met to find means of carrying out the Treaty, not means of avoid- ing it. (Appendix, p. 615.) Both countries adhering to their views and being unable to find a common basis of accord, their Ambas- sadors in Washington informed Secretary of State Hughes, of the impasse in the negotiations. Owing to the good offices of Mr. Hughes, the delegations were at last able to reach an agreement as set forth in the Pro- tocol and Supplementary Agreement of July 20, 1922. One point is clear Chile stood for maintaining the sanctity of the Treaty of Ancon and Peru for breaking it down. The latter view, however, did not prevail, for the Protocol and Supplementary Agreement which concluded the conference instills new life and vigor into that Pact. Thus in the Supplementary Agreement, Clauses 1st, 2nd and 3rd, the question whether a plebi- scite shall be held is submitted to arbitration "for the purpose of determining the manner in which the stipu- lations of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon shall be fulfilled" — not for the purpose of avoiding the enforce- ment of that Article. Moreover, if the Arbitrator finds for a plebiscite, he is to fix the conditions thereof, which would carry out the intention and purpose of the spe- cial protocol provided for in Article III. On the other hand, if the Arbitrator finds against a plebiscite, the actual situation of the parties in respect of Tacna and The Fiest Question. 99 Arica created by the Treaty remains unchanged pend- ing an agreement as to the disposition of the territory. From the foregoing review of the negotiations and correspondence relating to the conclusion of a special protocol regarding the holding of a plebiscite, it is manifest that the difficulties inherent in reaching an agreement on the many points involved, which would be satisfactory in sentiment and dignity to the Govern- ments and legislatures of the two countries, caused the failure to conclude a special protocol ; that the idea of a plebiscite as the means of settling the definitive sov- ereignty of Tacna and Arica was never abandoned by the parties to the Treaty of Ancon; that they never contended that the time for holding the plebiscite had past, until this view was presented by Peru in the Washington Conference; and that the execution of Article III has always been the basis of the negotia- tions and correspondence in the past, was the founda- tion of the convocation of the Washington Conference, is the central thought of the Washington Protocol and Supplementary Agreement, and should be the motive of the Arbitrator in reaching a decision thereunder. (c) The Payment of the Ten Millions. Article III of the Treaty of Ancon provides in re- spect of the payment of the ten million dollars as fol- lows: "Either of the two countries to which the prov- inces of Tacna and Arica may remain annexed [as a result of the plebiscite], will pay to the other ten millions of Chile silver dollars or Peruvian soles of the same weight and fineness. "A special protocol, which shall be considered an integral portion of the present treaty will pre- 100 The Oase of Chile. scribe * * * the terms and time for the payment of the ten millions by the nation which may remain in possession of the provinces of Tacna and Arica." (Appendix, p. 678.) As has been pointed out, the payment of the ten millions is one of the conditions precedent to the re- cession by Chile of sovereignty and dominion over Tacna and Arica. The payment itself, as Article III shows is conditioned upon (1) a plebiscite being held so as to determine the country obligated to make the payment, and (2) a special protocol being concluded with reference to the terms and time of making the payment, that is, an agreement regarding the manner of payment. Such a protocol was, it seems clear, to set forth the " terms and time" of payment, even though it was to be made in cash, and certainly, if it was to be postponed and guaranteed by particular pledges as is frequent in financial arrangements with countries exhausted by the drains of .an unsuccessful war. These contingencies were no doubt in the minds of the negotiators of the Treaty of Peace when they made the provision, that they did for the payment of the ten million dollars. The negotiations and correspondence between Chile and Peru, with reference to the relation of the pay- ment to the duration of the sovereignty and dominion of Chile over Tacna and Arica, have already been dis- cussed. Likewise, the first condition preliminary to the payment, namely, the holding of the plebiscite, has been reviewed and need not be further treated here. With these two points eliminated, the only point left for consideration here is the second condition, namely, the special protocol to provide the manner of payment of the ten millions. The negotiations and correspon- dence in their bearing upon this point will now be re- viewed. The First Question. 101 1893-1894 Negotiations. In the year 1893 several conferences were held in Lima looking to the negotiation of the special protocol required by Article III. In the course of these confer- ences, Seiior Jimenez, on behalf of Peru, formulated' a memorandum, dated August 19, 1893, according to which the northern part of Tacna and Arica was to be returned to Peru before the plebiscite and the so-called "indemnity" of ten millions was to be paid in the fol- lowing manner : "If the vote should be favorable to Peru in both sections, she will pay to Chile the indemnity agreed in the Treaty in the following manner : "The natural and manufactured products of Chile and their respective containers will be brought in free of import duties through the cus- tom-houses of Peru for twenty-five years, and they will not pay in the territory of the latter country other consumption taxes than those actually in force for similar national products. "If the plebiscite should favor Peru in the zone from the Sama to the Vitor only, the proportionate idemnity will be paid in the same way, but with a reduction of the period of free entry to twenty years." (Appendix, p. 41.) This proposal was declined by Chile. (Appendix p. 46.) The conferences, however, were continued and finally resulted in the Jimenez-Vial Solar exchange of notes of January 26, 1894, in which the manner of the payment of the ten millions was agreed upon by the negotiators as follows : "II. Whichsoever of the two countries to which the said provinces shall be annexed will pay to the 102 The Case of Chile. other ten million soles stipulated in the afore- mentioned Article III, in bonds of the public debt, at four and one-half per cent interest and one per cent for amortization. The bonds of Chile will be quoted at the mean rate at which those of the same kind have stood during* the previous six months in the London market, and the bonds of Peru, at the rate that shall be agreed on between the two Governments, which must be at least sixty per cent. "The Government that shall issue the said bonds may, at any time, amortize them totally or parti- ally at the rate at which they were accepted at the time of their issuance. * ' III. Coupons for accrued interest and matured bonds will be received in payment of the customs duties of the country that may issue them. (Ap- pendix, p. 53.) The Jimenez-Vial Solar exchange of notes, however, was never reduced to a formal protocol, and the ques- tion of the payment of the ten millions did not come up again for discussion until the conferences of 1895. 1895-1896 Negotiations. In the series of conferences which began in August, 1895, and continued for several months, the question of the payment of the ten millions was thoroughly ex- amined in all its aspects. Peru's financial condition at the close of the war was one of practical insolvency and her internal instability during the latter part of the conflict and for several years after its termination, depreciated the value of her currency at home and de- stroyed her credit abroad. Her recovery during the ten-year period had not been as rapid as had been ex- pected. The bonds . of her foreign debt had become unsaleable and were not quoted in the money markets of the world. Consequently the The First Question. 103 issuance of bonds which had been the basis of the Jimenez- Vial Solar arrangement for the manner of payment, or even the promise to pay in cash at a future date was not regarded by Chile in 1895 and 1896 as a satisfactory compliance with Article III without some substantial guaranty of performance. Chile on her part was ready to give the same guaranties of .pay- ment as she asked of Peru, and, therefore, her request was reciprocal in nature. The minutes of the confer- ence of August 20, 1895, contains the following sum- mary of the discussion on this point : "The Minister of Foreign Relations re- plied that Peru would be able to pay the indemnity that might pertain to her, in bonds of the public debt or in money, within a period that would not exceed a year, reckoned from the date of the vote that would have restored to her the provinces of Tacna and Arica. "The Minister of Chile deemed these offers unacceptable; neither the payment in bonds, for this would be equivalent to an incomplete clearing up of the situation and would leave in ex- istence between Chile and Peru the relations of creditor and debtor, from which are wont to result difficulties or troubles; nor payment within a pe- riod, because Chile and Peru would still be placed in a false situation, if the former, as seems natural, should have to continue to occupy Tacna and Arica until the latter should complete the payment of the indemnity. In other respects, he added, the period indicated is unnecessary, because Peru, can, from this very moment, seek the sums she would owe to Chile and have them ready against the time when the plebiscite shall have been effected, which will take place probably within a year, more or less, reckoned from this date. "The Minister of Foreign Relations, re- quested the Plenipotentiary of Chile to make 104 ' The Case of Chile. his proposal more precise in this respect, and the latter said that an agreement might be made some- what like the following : a month after the promul- gation of the plebiscitary decision, Chile, if the de- cision were adverse to her, would return to Peru the provinces of Tacna and Arica and Peru would pay to Chile the sums in which she would become indebted to her. Chile, in turn, would contract an identical obligation. It is understood, of course, that this payment must be sufficiently guaranteed. ' ' (Appendix, p. 79.) The conversations then turned to the question of the period of payment — Chile proposing one month after the announcement of the result of the plebiscite and Peru making a counter proposal of six months. The Chilean Minister, in urging his proposal, pointed out that Peru had had twelve years since the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace to prepare for the financial means of fulfilling it, but she had taken no steps to that end. The Chilean Minister also made the following state- ment, which appears in the minutes of the meeting of August 23rd : "The Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile said, on his part, that he insisted on considering sufficient the period he had taken occasion to indi- cate at the previous conference, for these two rea- sons: first, because Peru may have been accumu- lating funds for the ransom of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, since she signed in Oc- tober, 1883, the Treaty of Ancon, in which was stipulated the payment of a sum of money by her ; and, second, because even now steps might be taken to obtain these funds, she thus having at her dis- posal, for this purpose, a period of more than a year, which would unquestionably be the one that would elapse between this date and that of the promulgation of the plebiscitary decision." {Ap- pendix, p. 81.) The Fikst Question. 105 It was finally agreed to fix the period at three months. (Appendix, p. 85.) After the proposal by Peru and the rejection by Chile of the mutual renunciation of the payments required by Article III, the negotiators took up the matter of guaranties, to which Peru was op- posed in principle, as the following extract from the minutes of the conference of October 8, 1895, shows : "The Minister of Foreign Relations [of Peru] denied that it was necessary to establish other guaranties than those that might be deduced from the very convention to which recourse should be had in fixing the conditions of the plebiscite and from the' signatures on which that treaty would depend; that, in respect of the obligation of the Government of Peru, Chile was amply guaranteed by the possession of the pledge, that is, the terri- tory of Tacna and Arica, and by the sentiment of nationality, which is the best possible stimulus and sufficient in any case to guarantee the payment of the indemnity." (Appendix, pp. 85-86.) The Chilean Minister replied that the guaranties mentioned were not in the opinion of his Government sufficient for the purpose: "The Government of Chile, he said, must have believed that the indefinite retention of the terri- tory would not be such a guaranty, since this would be equivalent to Peru's taking the longest possible period for the payment of the indemnity, and that what had been agreed on in reference to periods would have no effect." (Appendix, p. 88.) The Chilean position was in substance that, if the plebiscite should be decided in favor of Peru, it would be embarrassing for Chile to continue in pos- session and to exercise the rights of sovereignty over 106 The Case of Chile. Tacna and Arica, until the ten millions were paid, and that, therefore, the period for the payment ought to be as brief as possible consistent with the time required for evacuation, and that, furthermore, the guaranty of payment should be ample, for the reason that once Tacna and Arica were receded to Peru, Chile's secu- rity for payment through their possession would have disappeared. 1 The failure of these conferences to pro- duce results demonstrated the wisdom of the Chilean position. The discussion of this point was continued in the conference of October 30th, when the Minister of Chile said: "that he did not understand why the min- ister of foreign relations considered unaccepta- ble a request the object of which was to assure the efficacy of the plebiscite by eliminating the eventuality that, after being held, the decision might not be carried out because of a failure to fulfill the obligations contracted by one of the par- ties. This was not to press Peru, and to prove that no such purpose existed, if the minister of foreign relations desired to take time to pre- i In his note of February 10, 1896, the Minister of Chile expressed the same general ideas as follows: * ' * * * Indeed, the expediency of restricting the period as much as possible was not doubtful. We discussed the basis of this hypothesis — that the popular vote might be favorable to Peru — and I said that this would oblige our governments to carry out the plebiscitary decision without delay, in order not to prolong for a greater time than necessary an abnormal situation and one that would necessarily be disagreeable to both countries. If the reincor- poration of Tacna and Arica with Peru were decreed by the people, Chile would be under obligation to hasten to surrender that territory wherein her authority would no longer have dominion or prestige. Peru, in turn, ought also to feel moved irresistibly to hasten with- out delay to the call of her former provinces, carrying to them, as they demanded of her with the clamor of their votes, her banner, her authority and her laws. Ordinary expediency would counsel and impose disoccupation. " {Appendix, p. Ill; See also Appendix, p. 122.) / The First Question. 107 pare the guaranty and to ask for a period with this object in view, it was most certain that the Government of Chile would oppose no difficulty to agreeing on one. In this way the plebiscite could be effected with the assurance that all its conditions would be fulfilled, because, after being held and being favorable to Peru, in the period already agreed on — three months — or in another briefer one, Chile would have returned the terri- tory, and Peru would have paid the indemnity. ' 'The minister of foreign relations said that he could not agree to the last statement of the minister of Chile, because the plebiscitary decision would impose the obligation of an immediate delivery of the territory, that it might not be subordinated to the full payment of the ten millions, since the treaty mentioned periods and terms, which might be years, and since, by stipu- lating guaranties that would absolutely assure the Government of Chile, there would be no reason to exact any further guaranty, that is, the retention of the territory, as soon as the guaranty should answer the purpose of the security sought." (Ap- pendix, pp. 80-90.) The question of guaranty of payment continued to be the chief obstacle, to any agreement during the con- ferences. On December 31st, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru declared in the conference of that date that — "the Chambers had fully authorized the govern- ment to raise a loan of ten million soles; and that, by a special law to meet the respective interest, it had placed a tax on the salt monopoly, the prod- uct of which would be, the Government estimated, a million soles, annually, as a minimum. He added that this security could be duplicated, but that in any case, Peru would engage to effect the delivery of a million a year, encumbering the products of the custom house at Callao, which is the republic's 108 The Case of Chile. most reliable source of income, to that end. This is the security, the minister of foreign re- lations said, that the Government of Peru offers to the Government of Chile until she succeeds in placing the loan, the payment of which could not be better guaranteed; and all this without preju- dice to Chile's retaining the territories occupied and receiving the revenues from the custom hotises in them. " (Appendix, p. 96.) To this statement the Minister of Chile made the following reply : nm * * ft wag c } ear th^ tn e Government of Peru had occupied itself in devising means to se- cure as a loan the sum of the eventual ransom of Taena and Arica, but that had not demonstrated that it would be obtained with certainty. Indeed, it was conceivable that the capitalists to whom it might have to resort would not furnish the money because they might deem the security of the mo- nopoly on salt insufficient, and, in that case, since Peru would not have been able to meet the pay- ment of the indemnity, the plebiscitary decision would remain ineffective, which was precisely what the Government of Chile desired to avoid. So, therefore, as the security presented by the Min- ister of foreign relations would be limited to the offer he had made, to pay Chile annually a million soles, as a minimum, on account of the said in- demnity in the event of not having found a capi- talist that would lend the sum total of it, Chile, in reality, would have to serve as a money-lender, and this would be absolutely unacceptable." (Ap- pendix, pp. 96-97. Y i In his note of February 10, 1896, the Minister of Chile added this observation regarding the salt tax: i ' In any event, there would always remain the doubt as to whether the tax on the consumption of salt would be a sufficient guaranty in the eyes of a capitalist, and I note that this doubt is also enter- tained by the national press and even by functionaries of such lofty The First Question. 109 It was then decided to summarize the negotiations in an exchange of notes to which reference is made for an exposition of the views of the two Governments on the questions of the date of payment and the secur- ity for payment. (Appendix, pp. 97, 127.) With these ex- changes the negotiations ended without result, and the question of the payment of the ten million dollars did not come up again in the negotiations until the year 1898. 1898 and Succeeding Negotiations. The negotiations preceding the conclusion of the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol include a reference to the proposal by Chile for the mutual waiver of the pay- ment of the ten millions and for the division of the provinces between the two countries. (Appendix, p. 134.) Peru rejected the proposal, although in 1895 she had proposed to Chile the mutual renouncement of the payment. (Appendix, p. 84.) Subsequently, the subject of payment was discussed by the negotiators and an agreement was reached as set forth in Articles XV and XVI of the Billinghurst- Latorre Protocol, printed post, page 156. The possibility of obtaining the approval of the plan of payment in this protocol by the two countries, kept the subject out of the negotiations and correspondence until the protocol was returned to the Executive by the Chamber of Deputies of Chile in 1901. After that date the payment of the ten millions was only referred to in the voluminous correspondence on category as his excellency sefior Billinghurst, the first vice-president of the republic, who declared a short time ago, in an address deliv- ered in Tacna, that: 'the taxes planned by the executive, in the best of cases, will always be insufficient to constiute a fund for the interest and amortization required by the loan of a million pounds sterling, designed to pay for the liberation of Tacna and Arica. ' " {Appendix, p. 119.) 110 The Case of Chile. other phases of the Tacna-Arica Controversy, inci- dentally as a matter to be agreed upon in the special protocol mentioned in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon. (Appendix, pp. 277, 373, 385, 452, 515.) A pro- posal by Chile in 1908 to increase the amount by two or three million pounds sterling was promptly declined by Peru. (Appendix, pp. 379, 385.) The matter is merely mentioned in the final proposal of Chile in the correspondence exchanged in 1909-1910. (Appendix, p. 457.) After that period the payment of the ten millions plays little part in correspondence or negotiations, and is not mentioned directly in the Protocol and Supple- mentary Agreement of 1922. The cause for the abatement of interest in this sub- ject in the correspondence and negotiations after the failure of the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol in 1901 is to be found in the fact that, as time went on, the politi- cal stability and financial condition of Peru improved so that the matter of security was no longer a sine qua non to the acceptance of her formal promise to carry out her public obligations, such as that of the payment of the ten million dollars stipulated for in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon. This is the explanation why Peru was not asked after 1901 to furnish guaranties for the payment of this sum. The matter of the payment of the ten millions is, however, as explained elsewhere, necessarily involved in the Washington Arbitration, for it is not only one of the "questions arising out of the unfulfilled stipula- tions of Article m,*' but it is also one of the condi- tions laid down in that Article as precedent to the re- cession of Tacna and Arica by Chile to Peru, in the event that the latter succeeds in the plebiscite. In conclusion, therefore, it may be said that Article 111 provides for the payment of ten million dollars as The Fiest Question. Ill a condition to the recession of Tacna-Arica to Peru; that this obligation has never been questioned by the parties to the Treaty of Ancon, although both have in the course of negotiations proposed and rejected the renunciation of the payment; and that the manner of payment is one of the questions necessarily to be de- termined by the Arbitrator under the Washington Pro- tocol and Supplementary Agreement as a condition pertaining to the plebiscite. 4. The Present Circumstances. In the first question submitted to the Arbitrator for decision under the Washington Protocol and Supple- mentary Agreement of July 20, 1922, appears the phrase, "in the present circumstances ' ' (en las circum- stancias actuales). The text of the question is as follows : "For the purpose of determining the manner in which the stipulations of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon shall be fulfilled there shall be submitted to arbitration the question whether, in the present circumstances, the plebiscite shall or shall not be held." In the wording of this question, the introductory phrase, "For the purpose of determining the manner in which the stipulations of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon shall be fulfilled,' ' is significant. It shows that the question relates to the manner of fulfilling the treaty stipulations and not as to whether the stipula- tions can or cannot be fulfilled. It is assumed that they are to be fulfilled in some manner, and that the Arbitra- tor in determining that manner shall answer the specific question submitted to him which is above quoted. The 112 The Case of Chile. possibility of non-fulfillment is not in issue, but the manner of fulfillment is. It is with this understanding of the intent of the par- ties that the phrase, " in the present circumstances, ' ' should be considered as a factor in reaching a decision upon the question submitted. The limitation imposed by the phrase is this, whether or not will a plebiscite "in the present circumstances ' ' be expedient, will it be just to the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica, and will it be in conformity with the intent of the parties when they ratify the Treaty of Ancon as to the manner of fulfilling the stipulations of Article III. The word "circumstances" has a broader and' more comprehensive meaning that the word "conditions." The latter word is subject to the possible narrow in- terpretation that it refers to the existing political, so- cial and economic state of the disputed territory and its inhabitants and to the influences which have caused this state. While these facts are not to be ignored, they are only a part of "the present circumstances" which the Arbitrator is to consider in answering the first question. There are other ' ' circumstances, ' ' which are even more important and more compelling than the existing state of Tacna and Arica and of their popula- tion, and which should, iChile submits, be given special consideration by the Arbitrator. As to the existing state of the political, social and economic life of the people of Tacna and Arica Chile respectfully directs the attention of the Arbitrator to a general Memorandum appended to this Case (Appen- dix, p. 733), which contains geographic data, statistics as to resources, population and commerce, and a re- view of the development and progress which have taken place since Chilean administration supplanted that of Peru in these provinces. In the construction The Fibst Question. 113 of public works and in the measures taken to promote education and sanitary conditions, in the encourage- ment given to commerce and industry by improving means of transportation and in opening markets for the products of the territory, and in the constant en- deavor in behalf of the general welfare of the inhabi- tants of Tacna and Arica, Chile has spared neither effort nor money. The general Memorandum, here- with presented, is a record of achievement, inspired by a high sense of the obligation of a government to the people under its authority, to which Chile can and does point with satisfaction and pride. The people living under such conditions ought not to be deprived of the opportunity to declare by popular vote whether or not they desire to continue under the present sovereignty. Their "consent" should be sought through the means of a plebiscite such as is con- templated by the provisions of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon. It would, it is submitted, be an in- justice to deny them a right which was recognized by both Chile and Peru in the Treaty of Ancon and which has been repeatedly confirmed in the negotiations be- tween the two countries. But "the present circumstances," other than the conditions of development, progress and prosperity, which now prevail in Tacna and Arica, "circum- stances," which the Arbitrator ought, in the opinion of Chile, to consider in deciding the First Question, in- clude the international situation which now exists. The Tacna-Arica Controversy has continued for a third of a century and has been a barrier to the restoration of amity between Chile and Peru. It has perpetuated animosity and distrust between the peo- ples of the two nations and has caused years of diplo- matic non-intercourse between their Governments 114 The Case of Chile. which has resulted in a state of isolation between two neighboring countries, where there should prevail friendship and confidence. Efforts have been made by both Governments to settle the controversy. The repeated attempts to ne- gotiate the special protocol provided for in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon bear witness to the sincerity of those efforts. The failure to find acceptable terms for holding the contemplated plebiscite during these years of negotiation makes the renewal of negotiations a course to be avoided if any other way can be found to end for all time this unfortunate dispute. As a mat- ter of expediency, even if no other reason existed, the Arbitrator should decide the First Question in the affirmative and by his decision of that question and of the Second Question bring to an end in the near future a state of affairs which ought not to exist since it keeps Chile and Peru apart and arouses a measure of parti- sanship among other South American Republics which may in time endanger the tranquillity of the continent and prevent Pan-American solidarity. Another "circumstance" is that the Washington Protocol and Supplementary Agreement were negoti- ated and signed. The self-evident intention of the parties was to find a means of ending the Tacna-Arica Controversy since the negotiation of a special protocol seemed hopeless in view of past experiences. The arbitration agreed upon was the means which the parties mutually adopted. It seemed expedient and practical to submit the solution of the dif- ficulties to an impartial arbitrator and to leave to him the drafting of conditions which the parties had been unable to draft themselves because they failed to agree. This ' i circumstance ' ' like the previous one is to be considered from the standpoint of expediency, The Fiest Question. 115 and from this standpoint Chile contends that the politic and proper answer to the First Question is that a plebi- scite should be held in that such a decision will conform to the intent of the parties as shown by the execution and ratification of the Washington Protocol and satisfy not only the frequently expressed desire of both Chile and Peru but also the hope of the Government of the United States, whose solicitude in restoring harmony between the disputant nations was the motive which inspired its suggestion of the conference at Washing- ton which resulted in the negotiation of the Protocol and Supplementary Agreement of July 20, 1922, and in the present arbitration. The phrase, " in the present circumstances," thus interpreted, confers upon the Arbitrator a wide lati- tude in reviewing the facts, which surround the Tacna- Arica Controversy, and impose upon him, in the opinion of Chile, the obligation to take into account the expedient way as well as the just way ' ' of determining the manner in which the stipulations shall be fulfilled, ' ' which unfulfilled stipulations are declared in Article I of the Washington Protocol to be "the only difficulties arising out of the Treaty of Peace, regarding which the two countries have not been able to reach an agree- ment. ' ' Chile would consider it to be a misfortune for her- self, for Peru and for Pan-American concord, if the Washington Conference was without practical results which she considers that it would be if the Arbitrator failed to take a broad view of the purpose of the con- ference and of the mutual intent of the parties when they signed and ratified the Washington Protocol, a view, which he is warranted in taking by the phrase, "in the present circumstances." 116 The Case of Chile. PART III. The Second Question: Conditions foe Holding a Plebiscite. The Second Question submitted to the Arbitrator is conditional upon his answering the First Question in the affirmative. The section or clause of the Supple- mentary Agreement to the Washington Protocol of July 20, 1922, reads as follows : "Second. In case that it is decided that the plebiscite shall be held, the arbitrator is em- powered to determine the conditions under which it shall be held. Assuming that, in answering the First Question the Arbitrator decides that, in the present circumstances, a plebiscite shall be held in the territory embracing Tacna and Arica, the question as to the conditions for holding such plebiscite is presented. While the Arbitrator has full power to determine these condi- tions in accordance with his high sense of justice and Kis desire to be fair to both parties, it is deemed proper to aid him, in so far as possible, in answering this question as to the plebiscitary conditions by ad- verting to the subjects which, in the views of Chile, should be incorporated in or excluded from the deci- sion of the Arbitrator as to the conditions which he is empowered to formulate. The subjects which should, in the opinion of Chile, be considered by the Arbitrator in determining the conditions for carrying out the plebiscite, in accord- ance with the terms of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon and the intent of the signatory powers, may be conveniently treated under six heads, namely: 1. The Second Question. 117 Secrecy of the ballot; 2. Qualifications of voters; 3. Methods of registering voters : 4. Method of receiving the votes; 5. Time for holding the plebiscite; and, 6. Payment of the ten millions. Under these six heads the conditions to be deter- mined by the Arbitrator will be discussed. 1. Secrecy of the Ballot. The first condition to be determined is whether the plebiscitary vote is to be open or secret. It seems as if this condition would arouse little controversy although in 1909 Peru favored "a public vote" in place of the "secret ballot' ' proposed by Chile. In the exercise of the franchise under democratic institu- tions the secrecy of the ballot is universally recognized at the present time as the only certain means of se- curing a free and frank expression of the popular will. While it is manifest that, in the present circumstances, an open and public casting of the votes in the plebi- scite would in all probability be to the advantage of the nation now in possession of the dominion and sov- ereignty of the territory involved, Chile seeks no such advantage. She desires that the plebiscite shall give full and true expression to the collective will of the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica. She, therefore, de- clares herself in favor of a secret ballot, and earnestly urges the Arbitrator to make secrecy in the casting of the plebiscitary vote one of the principal conditions which he is called upon to determine. 2. Qualifications of Voters. The principles, which underlie a plebiscite dealing with the determination of the nationality of a territory and with the Government of its inhabitants, is, first, that of the well-known doctrine that all Government 118 The Case of Chile. should derive its just powers from "the consent of the governed," and, second, that this consent should be given under the rule of majorities which is funda- mental to the functioning of democratic institutions and \o any expression of the collective will of the in- dividuals composing a body politic. A plebiscite, which is intended to decide what state or person is to possess the rights of sovereignty over certain territory, is held for the purpose of determin- ing the will of the persons whose public and personal rights are directly affected by the exercise of sov- ereign authority. The will of the inhabitants of a territory, over which sovereignty is to extend, and who are the persons, whose rights are directly affected, is expressed by the majority of such inhabitants since unanimity among thousands of individuals is prac- tically impossible. The popular will, thus expressed, as to the choice of the possessor of the sovereignty, under which they live, becomes "the consent of the governed. ' ' The right of choice does not lie with those who are unaffected in their individual rights by the determina- tion of the sovereignty. It does not lie with former inhabitants of the territory which will be subject to the Government set up by the possessor of the sov- ereignty, if they no longer reside in the territory. It does not lie solely with persons owing allegiance to a particular nation. It lies with those, who may be properly classed as "the governed," and "the gov- erned' ' are those individuals who reside within the territory at the time when plebiscitary action is taken to decide as to the possession of the sovereignty and when the popular will is made known by a majority vote of such individuals. If any other rule were established as to the right to The Second Question. 119 participate in a plebiscite, the consequence would be that the sovereignty might pass to a nation or to a person opposed by the greater number of the inhabi- tants thus denying the principle of "consent of the governed ,, and creating a situation which would re- sult in continued international irritation and might possibly be the cause of future war. While the doctrine of "consent of the governed" is not usually applied to the transfer of territorial pos- sessions as the result of a war, and, while the wisdom of such application has been questioned, the agree- ment by the belligerents to hold a plebiscite in the territory in question is a mutual acceptance of the doctrine that to the inhabitants of the territory is con- fided the choice of the Government under whose au- thority they desire to live. It makes no difference, therefore, whether or not it was wise to invoke the doctrine of "consent of the governed" in the case of Tacna and Arica, the fact is that it was invoked and the principle was accepted when Chile and Peru agreed that "a plebiscitum will decide by popular vote" the possession of the permanent sovereignty over these provinces. It was manifestly the intention of the parties to the Treaty of Ancon to grant to "the governed" within that territory the power to choose freely who should be their governors and to commit to those chosen gover- nors the power to exercise dominion and sovereignty over them and over the territory inhabited by them. That being the intention of the parties, a plebiscite, if one is held pursuant to the terms of Article III, must proceed in accord with the doctrine of ' ' consent of the governed ' ' and ought not to be carried out under conditions which are arbitrarily imposed if such con- ditions are clearly at variance with that doctrine. 120 The Case of Chile. As was said by the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs in addressing the Chamber of Deputies on June 13, 1922 : "For a long time back the disposition of terri- tory has ceased to be made by the fanciful action of the Governments ; the will of the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica must be sought in order to decide the definite nationality which belongs to them." (Appendix, p. 603.) The individuals who are directly affected by the result of a plebiscite similar in nature to the one pro- vided for under the Treaty of Ancon, are those ac- tually living within the territory, the sovereign pos- session of which is to be determined. It is their private rights and public obligations which are at stake, rights and obligations dependent upon the sovereignty under which they live. It is not a question of their past or present nationality but of their future relations to a permanent sovereign which is to be settled by the plebiscite. To all intents and purposes the individuals, in the exercise of their right to vote in the plebiscite have an undetermined relationship to the sovereign power which will become permanently fixed and de- termined by the expression of the popular will through the medium of the plebiscite. The primary qualification, under the application of the doctrine of "consent of the governed/' is that a person to participate in the plebiscite and to share in the expression of the popular will, should be an actual resident within the territory comprising the Chilean departments of Tacna and Arica. As it may be urged with a measure of reason that non-resident persons holding title to lands within the territory should be permitted to vote in the plebiscite, Chile The Second Question. 121 does not raise serious objection to their inclusion among those entitled to vote, since their property rights would be directly affected by the plebiscitary decision. In addition to non-resident land-owners, there would be also those individuals, regardless of their present nationality, who are at the time of the plebiscite re- sidents of Tacna and Arica and whose residence is bona fide and not temporarily assumed for the pur- pose of taking part in the plebiscite and defeating the popular will of the actual residents of the territory. As to proof of actual and bona fide residence pro- vision should be made in the conditions governing the plebiscite for a definite period, not to exceed one year, of continual residence immediately prior to the plebiscite and also provision for registration with a proper declaration under oath as to residence, such registration to take place a sufficient time before the plebiscitary vote is received to permit an investigation as to the truth of the declaration in order that the name of any person making a false declaration may be expunged from the register of those permitted to vote at the plebiscite. It is only by provisions of this character that the will of the real residents of Tacna and Arica can be safeguarded from the partici- pation in the plebiscite of persons who, though inspired by patriotic motives, may descend to fraudulent prac- tices to attain their ends. It is the only way to obtain a true " consent of the governed" to the final deter- mination of the sovereignty over Tacna and Arica. While actual residence within the territory covered by the plebiscite or possibly land-ownership is, it is submitted, a first and essential qualification for a voter, there are certain other qualifications which are neces- sary and should receive consideration by the Arbitra- 122 The Case of Chile. tor in determining the conditions for holding the plebi- scite. The decision of the national character of territory by popular vote, like the election of public officials by popular vote or the determination of any public ques- tion by a popular referendum, in which the majority of the people control by exercising the electoral fran- chise, compels each individual depositing a ballot to make a choice. It is evident that in order to make a choice an individual ought to possess the ability to choose, which must be an intelligent act and, therefore, based on an intellectual process. In the exercise of public rights under a democratic system of Govern- ment certain qualifications are required of individuals who exercise such rights, it being presumed that a person possessing the qualifications required is capable of making an intelligent. choice. Unless a person has the intellectual qualities to choose intelligently he is held to be unfit to exercise the franchise. Consent as used in the phrase "consent of the governed" neces- sitates personal choice and should be subject to the same limitations. This fundamental necessity of an intelligent elec- torate to the success of a popular government, whether the state is a republic or a liberal monarchy, is rec- ognized in the organic or statutory laws of the coun- try by requiring voters to possess qualifications that have to do with age, intellectual attainments, and other personal qualities which vary in different nations and under different conditions of society. These election laws are intended to restrict the exercise of public rights to persons entitled by reason of residence and nationality and who possess sufficient intelligence to exercise them, that is, to residents mentally equipped to make a rational choice. The Second Question. 123 In determining npon the conditions for holding a plebiscite in Tacna and Arica, Chile contends that the same intellectual qualification should be applied to residents of the territory in order to entitle them to participate in the proceeding since the choice of a sov- ereign should be made intelligently and not ignorantly. To decide upon the qualifications necessary to secure this result the Arbitrator may, therefore, properly take into consideration the election laws now in force in Chile and Peru, which indicate the judgments of the respective Republics expressed by their national legis- latures as to the qualifications which ought to be re- quired of a person who seeks to exercise the public rights of a citizen. The Chilean Electoral Law of November 12, 1874, provided as to the qualification of voters the following : CHAPTER I. "Relative to the Registration of the Voters. "Article I. In the register of voters that shall be kept in conformity with the stipulations of this law, there shall be inscribed all Chileans, born and naturalized, who desire to exercise the right of suffrage and who are possessed of the following qualifiactions : "1. Twenty-five years of age, if single, and twenty-one if married. "2. To be able to read and write. "3. To own real estate or an invested capital of the value required by the law, or to exercise a trade, an industry or profession, or to hold a post, or to enjoy an income or usufruct, the value of each of these being in proportion to the value of the real estate or the invested capital just re- ferred to above. "The value of the real estate or the invested capital shall be determined for each province by 124 The Case of Chile. the law which is to be passed in conformity with the prescriptions of Article VIII of the Consti- tution. (Law of November 3, 1874.)" This law was superseded on February 21, 1914, by a new Electoral Law, the one now in force in Chile. The provisions of the present law as to the qualifica- tions entitling a person to registration as a voter are included in Article 23 of Section III, which reads: "Article 23. The registration committee shall inscribe in the voters register, of the respective sub-delegation, the male Chilean citizens who re- quest it and who possess the following qualifi- cations : "1. Twenty-one years of age. "2. Able to read and write; and "3. Residing in the respective sub-delegation. ' ' The Peruvian Electoral Law of April 4, 1861, has the following provisions as to the qualifications of voters : "Title I. The Right to Vote. "Article 1. Married citizens, or those over twenty-one years of age, who can read and write, or who are heads of shops, or who own some real property, or who are tax-payers, and whose names are found upon the civic register, shall have the right to vote." In 1919, after the revolution which resulted in the assumption of the presidential office by Senor Augusto Leguia, the Provisional Government of Peru deter- mined to ascertain the popular will concerning certain constitutional amendments through the medium of a plebiscite. In order to carry out this purpose Pro- visional President Leguia issued, on July 14, 1919, a The Second Question. 125 decree which possessed the force of enacted law. In this decree the following appears: ' ' Considering that a plebiscite and a call to gen- eral elections has been decided upon, it is neces- sary to that effect to find, in the present circums- tances, a simple and rapid means of procedure that will, at the same time, guarantee the true expres- sion of the popular will. Therefore, and with the unanimous approval of the Council of Ministers, I decree : "Article 1. All Peruvians over twenty-one years of age, or married, who can read and write, shall vote in the elections and in the plebiscite. Army and navy officers also shall vote in the plebi- scite. All other prohibitions of the electoral law shall remain in effect." Comparison of the provisions in the present Chilean and Peruvian Electoral Laws, which have to do with the qualifications of persons entitled to registration and to cast a ballot shows that the following qualifi- cations are common to both laws. 1. Citizens, who are 2. 21 years of age 3. Able to read and write. It should be noted that in the Chilean law "male Chilean citizens' ' are the persons entitled to registra- tion. While the Peruvian law does not mention the sex of voters, it is a matter of common knowledge that women's suffrage does not exist in that Republic, the franchise being exercised solely by citizens of the male sex. It may, therefore, be properly assumed that, so far as the laws and practice of the two countries are con- cerned, a qualification common to both is — 4. Persons of the male sex. 126 The Case of Chile. In the Chilean Electoral Law of 1914, above quoted, residence within a sub-delegation is made necessary "qualification for the exercise of the franchise. The Peruvian Electoral Law makes no direct pro- vision as to a residential qualification for voters. It however, does so indirectly by a limiting phrase in reference to voters which reads ''whose names are found upon the civic register.' ' The civic register which is referred to was established by the Census and Civic Register Law of May 22, 1861. The pertinent provision of that law reads : "Article 1. The general population register is the book upon which are inscribed the names of all the inhabitants of each one of the provinces into which the Republic is divided, with the re- spective place of birth, sex, age, condition, profes- sion or trade, and the qualifications specified in Article 38 of the Constitution. ' ' Thus in the Chilean Electoral Law residence within a sub-delegation is laid down as a necessary requisite to the exercise of the franchise, while in the Peruvian Electoral Law residence within a province of the Re- public is required. A qualification for voters, common to the laws of both countries may be added to those already set forth, namely: 5. Residence within a defined territory.- In the following five particulars, therefore, the two countries by their independent legislation and by prac- tice are in agreement as to the proper qualifications of voters : 1. Citizenship 2. Age of 21 years 3. Ability to read and write 4. Persons of the male sex 5. Residence within a defined territory. The Second Question. 127 It should be added that by Peruvian law the quali- fication as to age is modified by including married persons, irrespective of age, in the list of voters pro- vided that they possess the other qualifications re- quired by law. This provision as to marriage is, how- ever, not found in the laws of Chile except in Clause 1 of Article I of Chapter I of the Electoral law of 1874, which reads: •*1, Twenty-five years of age, if single, and twenty-one if married." This law was superseded by the Electoral Law of 1914, which makes no exception as to married men but declares that all "male Chilean citizens" who are 21 years of age may be inscribed in the "voters re- gister" provided that they have the necessary intel- lectual and residential qualifications. The distinction between married and unmarried men thus disappears from the Chilean Law, but even un- der the Law of 1874 no man under 21 years of age was entitled to the franchise, so that no exception was made in favor of married men who had not at- tained the age of 21 years. It is, therefore, submit- ted that no qualification as to marriage should be con- sidered. In formulating the conditions for holding the plebi- scite in compliance with Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, the foregoing five qualifications for voters, which are common to the legislation of both Chile and Peru, should be considered as indicative of their mutual agreement as to the persons entitled to parti- cipate in that proceeding. There is also another branch of this subject, which ought to be considered by the Arbitrator in determin- ing the qualifications of voters in the plebiscite, and 128 The Case of Chile. that is the conditions which disqualify a person from casting a ballot even though he possesses the general qualifications laid down by the Arbitrator. A brief statement of the provisions relative to the disquali- fication of voters as set forth in the respective Elec- toral Laws of Chile and Peru now in force will be of aid to the Arbitrator in deciding upon the conditions for holding the plebiscite. The portion of the Chilean Law of 1914 dealing with this subject is as follows: The Second Question. 129 CHAPTEK III. " Article 24. There shall not be registered, even though possessing the requisites enumerated in Article 23, those who have lost their citizenship because of. "I. Corporal or degrading penalty. 44 2. Fraudulent bankruptcy. "3. Accepted posts, performed services or pen- sions received from a foreign Government with- out special permit from Congress; and • "4. Naturalization by a foreign country. " Those who have lost their citizenship and have been rehabilitated by the Senate may, neverthe- less, be registered. "Nor shall there be registered those whose cit- izenship has been suspended by reason of "1. Physical or moral incapacity, hindering their free and conscious behavior. "2. Domestic service. "3. Trial for crime and misdemeanor, subject to corporal or degrading penalty. "There shall not be registered, furthermore, "1. The individuals serving on the city and rural police forces, or performing any duties therefor. "2. The conscripts and soldiers of the stand- ing army and the navy; and "3. The regular clergy.' ' The Peruvian Law of 1861, which disqualifies cer- tain persons from exercising the franchise, reads: "Article 2. The following cannot vote: "1. Those who have lost the right of citizen- ship or whose exercise of such right is suspended, in accordance with articles 40 and 41 of the Con- stitution. "2. Ministers of state, prefects, sub-prefects, governors, and police agents. "3. Officers of the national army or navy and of the constabulary. 130 The Case of Chile. "4. The enlisted men of the constabulary or of the army and the members of the crews of the ships of the national navy. "5. Beggars and domestic servants. "Article 3. Officers of the army and of the navy, who are not exercising any command, may vote in the parish in which they are residing." It should be noted, however, that in President Le- guia's decree of 1919 for the holding of a plebiscite the following occurs: "Army and navy officers also shall vote in the plebiscite. All other prohibitions of the electoral law shall remain in effect." A comparison of the provisions of the laws of the two countries shows that the grounds for disqualifi- cation of voters are stated in much more detail in the Chilean Law of 1914 than in the Peruvian Law of 1861 and the Presidential Decree of 1919. Neverthe- less there are certain conditions working disqualifi- cation which are common to the laws of both countries. Avoiding the details appearing in the Chilean Law of 1914, the following conditions, which disqualify a per- son from the franchise, are adopted by both countries in their legislation: 1. Loss of the right of citizenship 2. Individuals serving in the constabulary 3. Enlisted men in the army and navy. 4. Domestic servants. The Chilean Law also disqualifies persons for "phys- ical or moral incapacity, hindering their free and con- scious behavior' ' and also those held for trial for a crime or misdemeanor. The Second Question. 131 The Peruvian Law of 1861, which makes no re- ference to physical or moral incapacity as a gronnd for disqualification, excludes from the franchise min- isters of state, prefects, sub-prefects, governors, offi- cers of the national army and navy in active service, and the enlisted men in the army and members of the crews of the navy. The disqualification of army and navy officers was, however, rescinded by the Presiden- tial Decree of 1919. While the Peruvian disqualification of certain per- sons engaged in the public service is clearly based upon considerations applicable to the domestic poli- tical situation existing in the Kepublic of Peru and, therefore, without analogy to the holding of a plebi- scite in Tacna and Arica, the Chilean disqualification of persons physically or morally incapacitated and persons held for a criminal trial are limitations, which are rational and right, and which it is submitted, should be incorporated in the conditions for holding the plebiscite, when they are drafted by the Arbitrator. Chile, therefore, contends that the following con- dition or state of an individual should disqualify him from participating in the plebiscite: 1. Loss of the rights of citizenship 2. Service in the constabulary 3. Enlisted men in the army and navy 4. Domestic service 5. Physical or moral incapacity 6. Arrest for a criminal offense. The several negotiations between Chile and Peru, in the vain endeavor to agree upon the terms of the special protocol providing for the holding of the plebi- scite and the payment of the ten millions, furnish to a certain extent the views of the two Governments as 132 The Case of Chile. to the qualifications which they considered at the time necessary for persons to entitle them to vote in the plebiscite. They are worthy of consideration by the Arbitrator in connection with the election laws of the two countries. In the memorandum of the Minister of Peru at San- tiago, which was delivered to the Chilean Govern- ment during the progress of the negotiations in 1894, it was provided in Article IV of the memorandum: "IV. Only those who fulfill the following con- ditions will be accepted for inscription in the reg- isters as voters: "1. Peruvians [males], married or more than twenty-one years of age, who reside at present in the provinces of Tacna and Arica. u 2. Chileans [males], married or more than twenty-one years of age, who can establish a con- tinuous residence of two years in the said prov- inces of Tacna and Arica and who live there at present. "Persons in the public military service, em- ployees of the administration or those that may have lost or have had suspended the rights of cit- izenship, in conformity, without distinction, with the laws of Chile or Peru, may not vote." (Appen- dix, p. 57.) In the so-called Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol which was signed by the representatives of the two Governments on April 9, 1898, "the requi- sites of nationality, sex, age, civil state, residence, or any other that must be possessed by the voters" is a question left to the decision of the Government of Her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain, designated as arbiter. The signed protocol, therefore does not deal with the qualifications of the persons entitled to take part in the plebiscite. It only shows that the The Second Question. 133 matter was one as to which the negotiators could not reach an agreement. It, therefore, in no way contrib- utes to the subject under discussion. In 1909 the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile prepared a statement of the bases for settlement of the Tacna-Arica Question, a copy of which was trans- mitted to the Secretary of State of the United States by the American Minister to Chile under date of No- vember 1, 1909. Section 2 of that statement deals with the qualifi- cations of the persons entitled to take part in the plebi- scite. The section reads as follows: "•(2) The voting shall be by secret ballot and in it shall be entitled to take part all the inhabi- tants — Chileans, Peruvians and foreigners— who shall have the following qualifications: "(a) Citizenship with right to vote in Chile or Peru. Note: the same qualifications are required in both countries. "(b) Minimum residence of six months (in the disputed provinces). ,, (Appendix, p. 423.) On November 5, 1909, the Peruvian Minister of For- eign Affairs, who had received from the Chilean Charge d 'Affaires, a memorandum containing the Chilean statement above referred to, submitted cer- tain modifications to the terms therein suggested. The section relative to qualifications of voters, as modified by the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs, reads as follows: "2. In the vote, which shall be public, may take part all the Peruvians and Chileans that meet the following requirements: "a Twenty-one years of age; 134 The Case oe Chile. "b Eesidence in the territory at least from July 1, 1907. " Those also may take part who, born in the territory of Tacna and Arica, may be present at the moment of the vote, if they shall have been registered previously for that purpose. "Public employees and members of the army or of the police that may be in service in the pro- vinces may not vote." {Appendix, p. 425.) These modifications were so essentially at variance with the Chilean proposal that they were inacceptable to the Santiago Government. However, a few months later, on March 3, 1910, it attempted to renew the negotiation of a special protocol by another proposal. While in this proposal, which was made directly to the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs by the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs, the qualifications of voters set forth in the previous statement of 1909 were modified in terms, they were in substance the same. Section 6 of that proposal is as follows: "6. Chileans, Peruvians and foreigners [males] that fulfill the following conditions will have the right to vote : "a. Twenty-one years of age; i( b. .Ability to read and write; "c. Residence of six months in the province." (Appendix, p. 458.) Two years and a half after this proposal was deliv- ered to the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peru submitted by telegraph a new proposal of set- lement, in which it was suggested as qualifications for voters the following: "Persons born in Tacna and Arica and Chileans and Peruvians that may have resided for three years in the territory will be entitled to vote. All The Second Question. 135 the voters must be able to read and write.' ' (Ap- pendix, p. 496.) The Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs on the same day, to wit, November 10, 1912, made by telegraph a similar proposal to Peru. The language of the sen- tences relating to the qualifications of voters was in fact identical in the two telegrams. It should be noted, however, that the inclusion of persons born in Tacna and Arica, which had been previously resisted by Chile, was of little importance since in both proposals it was proposed that the holding of the plebiscite should be postponed until 1933, that is, fifty years after the territory had been ceded to Chile and had come under her dominion and sovereignty, when it was to be presumed that Peruvians born in Tacna and Arica but no longer resident there would be few in number and a negligible factor in the result of the plebiscite. While today the right to vote because of birth in the territory is an unimportant mat- ter, the fact that it is not in conformity with the doctrine of "consent of the governed ,, ought to be considered by the Arbitrator. In reply to the telegram of the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Af- fairs telegraphed on the same date, November 10th, confirming his previous telegram containing the pro- posal which he had made and repeating the same terms used in his first telegram, in which the qualifications of voters are identical with the ones which are quoted above. In summarizing the proposals in the negotiations as to the qualifications of the persons entitled to take part in the plebiscite the following seem to have been approved by both Governments in their negotia- tions subsequent to the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol, 136 The Case of Chile. wherein arbitration of the qualifications was provided, to wit : Male persons of Chilean and Peruvian nation- ality who are 21 years of age provided that they are able to read and write and are residents of Tacna or Arica and have been for a period varying from six months to three years, the latter period being based on the postponement of the plebiscite to the year 1933. In the earlier negotiation Peru sought to confine the right of balloting to persons of Peruvian nation- ality, but this limitation on the elecforate was aban- doned in the later negotiations. It should also be noted that Chile sought to have included in the persons eligible to participate in the plebiscite "foreigners" who possessed the qualifica- tions of age, residence and education, while Peru de- sired that persons born in the territory should be permitted to vote regardless of present residence. It is needless to review the arguments advanced by both parties in urging the inclusion in the registry of plebiscitary voters the particular group proposed by each. It may be observed, however, that, under the applied doctrine of "consent of the governed,' ' actual residence in the territory is far more important than place of birth or even citizenship. If this ob- servation is true, and Chile submits that it cannot be successfuly denied, then the exclusion from the reg- istry of non-residents born in Tacna and Arica and not land-owners there, would seem to follow as a mat- ter of course and the inclusion of all persons regard- less of nationality, who are resident in the territory for a given period, would seem justified. 3. Method of Registering Voters. Having decided upon the qualifications of persons entitled to cast their votes in the plebiscite to be held The Second Question. 137 in Tacna and Arica, the next condition to receive con- sideration should be the registration or inscription of the names of such persons by a competent official agency in order to prevent persons other than those qualified from participating in the plebiscitary pro- ceeding. The primary question to be decided is the constitu- tion of the agency or agencies to register voters, a question which has been the subject of discussion and disagreement between Chile and Peru during the vari- ous efforts made by them to agree upon the special protocol provided for in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon. It will, therefore, be appropriate and helpful to review in brief the negotiations dealing with regis- tration of the plebiscitary voters. The Peruvian proposal in 1894 as to the constitution of the agency for registration was as follows : " There will be formed in the city of Tacna, when the registration of those that have a right to vote is begun, a superior committee or board composed of one delegate appointed by the Government of Chile another, by the Government of Peru and an umpire, who will be designated by the of- ." (Appendix, p. 55.) In the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol of 1898, the fol- lowing provision is made : " Article II. A directive board, composed of one representative of the Government of Chile, one representative of the Government of Peru and a third party designated by the Government of Spain, will preside over the acts and take the necessary steps to carry the plebiscite into effect. The third party designated will serve in the ca- pacity of chairman of the board. "This board will have authority: 138 The Case of Chile. "1. To make up and publish a general register of all those that may have a right to vote ; * * * ' ' (Appendix, p. 141.) In the proposal of the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs under date of October 15, 1909, as to the terms of a special protocol, no direct reference is made to an agency in control of the registering of voters, but the necessity of registration and the modifications pro- posed by Peru indicate that the so-called "Electoral Commission" having a general control of the plebiscite was to have control of the registration of voters. The constitution of the Commission is thus provided for in the Chilean statement: "(3) Chile shall preside over the acts connected with the plebiscite and the Electoral Commission shall be composed of three members : a Chilean, who shall be President, a Peruvian, and a neu- tral.' ' (Appendix, p. 423.) In a note included in the statement and commenting on the above proposal there appears the following : "She [Chile] would even be disposed to consent that the Electoral Commission be composed of four members ; a Chilean, who would preside ; a Peru- vian, and two neutrals of differing nationalities, with the condition that in case of a tie the opinion of the President shall prevail, but this is the far- thest concession she could make.'' (Appendix, p. 424.) To the foregoing proposal of Chile the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs on November 5, 1909, offered as a modification or counterproposal : "3. The Directive Board will be composed of three members, namely: one Peruvian, one Chil- The Second Question. 139 ean, and one neutral designated by a friendly nation. The chairmanship shall be held by the neutral. The boards for the registration and re- ception of the votes will also be composed of one Peruvian, one Chilean and one neutral. The chair- manship of these boards shall also be held by the neutral delegate.' ' (Appendix, p. 425.) In the revised Chilean proposal of March 3, 1910, the constitution of the registering agency is defined in the following terms : "3. Both the Directive Board, which will func- tion in the city of Tacna, and the registration and receiving committees, which will function in Tacna and Arica, will be composed of three members, namely: One member appointed by the Govern- ment of Chile, another designated by the Govern- ment of Peru, and a third elected by the Consular Corps resident in Tacna or in Arica by a ma- jority of votes. "The chairmanship of the Directive Board and of the registration and receiving committees will belong to the member appointed by the Govern- ment of Chile.' ' (Appendix, p. 458.) In the telegrams exchanged between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries on November 10, 1912, both officials used identical language and were manifestly of one mind as to the composition of the official body which was to have direction of the plebi- scite and the necessary act of registration. The lan- guage is as follows : <<# • • j p rO p g ei as to the plebiscite of Tacna and Arica, its postponement until 1933 and its celebration under boards formed by a commit- tee that will be composed of five delegates, namely : two Chileans appointed by Chile, two Peruvians, 140 The Case of Chile. appointed by Peru and the President of the Su- preme Court of Justice of Chile, who will serve as chairman. ,, (Appendix, p. 498.) In this negotiation of 1912, which was the only one, that resulted in a full agreement regarding the terms for the plebiscite between the Executives of the two Governments and which only an untimely and unfor- tunate political change in the Peruvian Government prevented from going into effect, the parties agreed that the commission controlling the holding of the pleb- iscite, an essential factor of which was the registra- tion of voters, should be composed of three Chileans and two Peruvians. While Chile might with propriety insist that there had been a "meeting of the minds" of the two Govern- ments as to the nationality of the Commissioners, it is not her purpose to urge this agreement upon the Arbi- trator, who possesses, under the provisions of the Sup- plementary Agreement, the power to determine the conditions for the holding of such plebiscite. While such an arrangement has advantages, which will sug- gest themselves, particularly if the holding of the pleb- iscite is postponed for a period of years as was the case in the agreement of 1912, the Arbitrator may deem it to be more in accord with international prac- tice and more liable to avoid future controversy to have the control of the plebiscite in the hands of a mixed commission composed of an equal number of Chileans and Peruvians and a commissioner of neu- tral nationality. Chile in 1909 and 1910 was agreeable to a commission so constituted and does not seriously object to such a mixed commission. The presidency or chairmanship of the commission, however, which by the exchanges of 1912 was confided to a Chilean member of the Commission, stands upon The Second Question. 141 an entirely different footing since throughout the re- cent negotiations the right of Chile to name the presi- dent has been insisted upon by the Chilean Govern- ment. In the statement of the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs of 1909, above referred to, a note on this subject appears : "Note: As to this point Chile thinks that the right to preside over the plebiscite can not be con- ceded by her seeing that her sovereign rights con- tinue until the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica may determine to return to the dominion of 'Peru. This does not permit her to act otherwise without vio- lating her own national decorum and dignity. Chile is disposed to accept whatever method Peru may propose in order to assure the correctness and fairness of the plebiscite, but she can not give up the presidency thereof. In her opinion the giv- ing up of the presidency would not tend to this end, because she does not insist upon it with the purpose of making the plebiscite unfair and incor- rect, but rather because the existing legal situation requires it, and because of the rights conferred upon her by the Treaty of Ancon." (Appendix, p. 424.) Particular attention is directed to the phrase "the existing legal situation requires it," and in conjunc- tion with that assertion should be read the following provision in the Supplementary Agreement of July 20, 1922: "It is understood, in the interest of peace and good order, that in this event and pending an agreement as to the disposition of the territory, the administrative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed.' ' It is to be presumed that in the matter of the regis- tration of voters and the casting of ballots at the pleb- 142 The Case of Chile. iscite the commission or agency charged with con- ducting it will mid it necessary to exercise, at least in- directly, a certain measure of police power in the dis- charge of its duties. The preservation of order and the enforcement of the rulings of the commission in an effi- cient manner will require that the constabulary and other police shall come into direct contact with the president of the commission. If this is not so, popular disorders and interference with the registration and balloting may be anticipated in view of the intense feel- ings and patriotic rivalry existing among the inhabi- tants of Tacna and Area belonging to different nation- alities. The police power in the territory is Chilean and it is exercised by Chilean officers and officials. It is evi- dently impracticable for them to act upon ap- peals received from any other than an official of the Chilean Government, as the president of the com- mission would be if he were of Chilean nationality. If the president' of the commission were of other na- tionality than Chilean, when police assistance was re- quired to enforce an order of the commission, the pro- cedure would necessarily be less simple and less effi- cient. It w^ould unquestionably cause delay and pos- sibly friction and confusion and would, as a conse- quence, prevent that promptness of action which, it would seem, is desirable, if not essential, to the ef- fective exercise of the functions which may devolve upon a plebiscitary commission. Regardless, therefore, of the arguments which might with propriety and force be urged by Chile on the grounds of national dignity, of the rights which be- long to the possessor of the dominion and sovereignty of the territory and of the power to exercise them, all of which are favorable to the designation of a Chil- The Second Questioh. 143 ean president for the commission, considerations of practicability and efficiency in the functioning of the commission are wholly in favor of the Chilean con- tention that the presidency should be held by a Chilean commissioner. To avoid making the agency or agencies for carrying out the plebiscite too cumbersome Chile would re- spectfully suggest, in accordance with her proposals of 1909 and 1910, that there be a Plebiscitary Commis- sion created, which shall be constituted of one Chilean commissioner, one Peruvian commissioner and one commissioner of American nationality named by the President of the United States ; and, in order that the duties of the commissioners may be performed with efficiency and despatch, that the President of the Pleb- iscitary Commission be the commissioner appointed by the Government of Chile. Chile further suggests that there be created two Boards of Registration, subordinate to and subject to the direction of the Plebiscitary Commission, each of such Boards being composed of a Chilean member and a Peruvian member to be named by their respective Governments and a member of American nationality named by the American Commissioner of the Plebisci- tary Commission. In the Peruvian memorandum of 1894 for the hold- ing of the plebiscite the powers of the " superior com- mittee or board, ' ' which was to control the proceeding, were denned as follows : "This board will have exclusive powers of its own to make up the general register of voters whose names are listed in the partial registers of the localities designated in a later- article ; to order . the publication of this general register; and'* to make the scrutiny and the general regulations of 144 The Case of Chile. the suffrage, announcing the result of the vote, which it will communicate immediately to both governments. 1 ' Also it will settle, without appeal, by a ma- jority of votes, all the difficulties, doubts and ques- tions that arise in respect of registration and dur- ing the voting, which shall be made to appear in the respective minutes, or in written reports of the commissaries of each locality." (Appendix, p. 56.) In this plan there were also provisions for "regis- tration committees' ' to sit in the city of Tacna and the city of Arica to make up the register of voters in the provinces of Tacna and Arica respectively. In the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol of 1898, Arti- cles IV and V read as follows : "Article IV. There will be four registration committees or boards : one in Tacna, one in Tara- ta, one in Arica and the other in Lluta. "These committees will be composed of: * 1 1. One appointee of the Government of Chile ; "2. One appointee of the Government of Peru; "3. One commissary, appointed by the directive board of the plebiscite, who will serve in the capacity of chairman. "The aforementioned committees will establish quarters, not later than eight days aft^r the instal- lation of the directive board in Tacna, and they will function for forty consecutive days, from ten in the forenoon until four in the afternoon. Daily, when they cease their labors, they will place at the bottom of the last name inscribed a note signed by all their members, in which shall be given the number of persons listed during the day. The pages of the register in which the inscriptions shall be made will also be signed by all the mem- bers of the committees. "The resolutions of the inspecting committees will be adopted bv a majority vote, and their reso- The Second Question. 145 lutions will be appealable to the directive board. "The Committees will inscribe in the registers all persons that shall so request and that shall have a right to vote, according to the decision of the arbiter designated in Article I, and they will issue to them registration certificates, which those registered must show in the act of voting. "Whenever the board shall refuse to inscribe the name of a person, it must note in the minutes of the session of the day the name of the person rejected and the cause of his rejection. The per- son to whom registration shall be denied will have a right to require a copy of that part of the min- utes, authorized by the members of the committee. ' ' Not later than forty-eight hours after the con- clusion of their functions, registration committees will deliver the registers and other original docu- ments to the directive board. "Article V. The directive board will determine, on the basis of the arbitral decision, the means whereby shall be proven the possession of the qualifications which, according to the said decision, voters must have." (Appendix, pp. 142-143.) The provisions as to the registration of voters in the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol were practically adopted in the statement of the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1909, and were accepted in the modifications proposed by the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs on November 5, 1909. In the substituted proposal of Chile delivered to the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs on March 3, 1910, the duty of the commission directing the plebi- scite is denned thus : "4. It will be the duty of the directive board: 11 a. To make up and publish the general list of all the voters, in conformity with the partial lists of the registration committees; 146 The Case of Chile. "b. To exercise the general scrutiny, to an- nounce the result of the plebiscite and to commu- nicate it to the Governments of Peru and Chile; "c. To settle all doubts and questions that may arise in the registrations, votes and other plebi- scitary acts ; "d. To adopt all the measures that shall assure the correctness and seriousness of the plebiscitary proceedings and public order during their accom- plishment. (Appendix, p. 458.) It also provided for two registration committees in the following: "5. The registration committees will be installed, one in Tacna and the other in Arica, within eight days after the constitution of the directive board, and they will function for twenty consecutive days, from ten in the forenoon until four in the after- noon, inscribing in the lists the names of persons that request registration and meet the require- ments indicated in the following section." (Ap- pendix, p. 458:) To the foregoing should be added : "7. The registration committees will deliver to each person a registration ticket, which the latter must present afterward to the receiving commit- tee. "8. In case the registration committee shall re- fuse to register a person, it must note in the min- utes of the session of the day the name of the per- son rejected and the reason of his exclusion, and he will have the right to demand'a copy of the part of the minutes that pertain to him. "9. Following the last registration, the members of the registration committee will daily stamp their signatures, and they will place above them, in letters, the number of persons registered dur- ing the day. ThI: Second Question. 147 ' ' 10. When the period for registration shall ter- minate, the directive board will cause the lists to be published within the next eight days following, in the newspapers of Tacna and Arica, and on placards that will be displayed in the public build- ings." (Appendix, p. 459.) In the negotiations of 1912, the method'* of registra- tion, the duties of the boards provided for and the powers of the general committee proposed are not set forth in the exchange of telegrams between the two Governments. In the opinion of Chile the details of the manner in which registration should take place and the registries of plebiscitary voters made up, together with right of appeal from the decision of a Registration Board and of the procedure on appeal should be confided to the Plebiscitary Commission. The Commission should be empowered to draft and promulgate such directions and rules concerning the Registration Boards, the registration lists, appeals from the decisions of the Boards and correction of the lists as it shall deem proper to insure a full, free and honest expression of the popular will, it being provided as a condition that the lists of registered voters made up by the Registra- tion Boards be opened to public scrutiny a sufficient period before the plebiscite is held to furnish oppor- tunity for investigation of cases and correction of the lists. For the purpose of formulating its directions and rules and promulgating them, the Plebiscitary Com- mission should meet, preferably in the city of Arica, prior to the appointment of the Registration Boards and the opening of the official registries. All directions, rules, decisions and orders of the Plebiscitary Commission should be adopted by a ma- 148 The Case of Chile. jority vote of the commissioners; and every proceed- ing of a Registration Board and every exercise of au- thority confided to it by the Commission should be per- formed or taken only by a majority vote of its mem- bers, all such proceedings and exercise of authority by , a Registration Board to be subject to review upon ap- peal or at its own instance by the Plebiscitary Commis- sion. Directly connected with the powers and duties of the Plebiscitary Commission the Arbitrator should, it is respectfully submitted, impose as a condition of the plebiscite that prior to the assembling of the com- mission provision should be made for the apprehension and arrest of persons charged with fraud or perjury in connection with the registration and voting in the plebiscite, or with interference with the commission in the performance of its duties, for compelling at- tendance of witnesses before the commission, for the punishment of witnesses who refuse to answer, and also for the punishment of those found guilty of fraudulent practices or perjury and also those found guilty of interference with the commission. 4. Method of Receiving the Votes. If the suggestion that a Plebiscitary Commission with general powers be given control of all the pro- ceedings relating to the plebiscite and also authority to issue directions and promulgate rules governing such proceedings, it would seem proper that it should also determine the manner of receiving the ballots of the registered voters, the place of receiving them, the number of days during which the ballots might be re- ceived, the formalities of voting, and all other steps necessary to meet the conditions laid down by the Ar- bitrator in his decision. The Second Question. ' 149 The power should also be given the Commission to employ the necessary clerical and other assistants as it may require for the proper performance of its du- ties and of the duties of the Registration Board. In order to avoid undue multiplication of plebisci- tary officials, it would appear wise to provide that the Registration Boards, after they have completed their duties in making up the lists of qualified voters and after the registeries have been closed, should auto- matically and without reorganization become Election Boards for the receipt of the votes in accordance with the directions and rules governing the voting as the Plebiscitary Commission may promulgate, being sub- ject to the complete control of the Commission as when they sat as Registration Boards. It is needless in this connection to review the nego- tiations between Chile and Peru, as there was appar- ently a common agreement that the same official bodies, which made up the lists of voters, should also be the ones to receive the ballots. As to that feature of the proceedings there has been no controversy. If, however, the Arbitrator should decide that it is his duty under the Washington Protocol and Supple- mentary Agreement, in determining the conditions; for carrying out the plebiscite, to draft the rules of procedure as to the receipt of the votes, as well as those relating to the registration of voters, and con- siders that he ought in the circumstances to go further than direct the Plebiscitary Commission to draft such rules, Chile makes no suggestions, preferring to leave these matters to the judgment of the Arbitrator. Confident that the proposal to confide this power to the Plebiscitary Commission and to make the ex- ercise of that power a condition of the plebiscite, will 150- The Case of Chile. be accepted as the most practical method of determin- ing the procedure, Chile deems that, in any event, it would serve no good purpose to consider at this place the formalities of registration and balloting or to bur- den the Case with comment and discussion concerning details which she believes will not be specifically dealt with by the Arbitrator. 5. Time for Holding the Plebiscite. The time for holding the plebiscite is one of the con- ditions which should be determined by the Arbitrator, who in fixing the time should take into consideration the delays which seem to be unavoidable when a pro- ceeding is dependent upon joint or identical action by governments. In the present case the appointment of a member of a plebiscitary commission and of members of regis- tration boards by the executive power in each Repub- lic, the appropriation of funds for the service of the commission and the making of provision for the func- tioning of the commission' are necessary preliminaries to the effective carrying out of the plebiscite. In lay- ing down the condition as to the time of holding the plebiscite the Arbitrator ought, therefore, to take into account the time that will elapse before these neces- sary acts can be performed after he has rendered his decision. In the negotiations relative to the special protocol contemplated by the parties under Article III of the Treaty of Ancon the time for holding the plebscite was a subject of discussion. The Peruvian memorandum of 1894 fixes no time for the assembling of the proposed "superior commit- tee or board,' ' but it is provided in section III of the memorandum that: The Second Question. ■ 151 "The registration committees will establish quarters a month after the ratification of the. present protocol and they will function for an- other month, beginning with the date on which 'their installation shall be announced." (Appen- dix, p. 56.) In the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol of 1898, which provided for the submission to the arbitration of the Spanish Government two questions, the following pro- vision as to the time of holding the plebiscite is made: "Art. III. Not later than forty days after the announcement of the decision of the arbiter to whom Article I refers, the Governments of Chile and Peru will proceed to appoint their representa- tives. The directive board will establish quarters in the city of Tacna and it will begin to function within a period of ten days reckoned after the third party, who shall be designated by the Gov- ernment of Spain, shall be present in that city." (Appendix, p. 142.) The statement of the Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1909 begins with the following: "(1) The plebiscite will be held on a date that will allow Chile to fulfill her undertakings with Bolivia as to the construction of the Arica-La Paz railroad. Note: It is calculated that the section in Chile will be finished in 1911." (Appendix p. 423.) The proposed time for holding the plebiscite, which was in a measure indefinite, dependent as it was upon a contingency, was subsequently, on March 3, 1910, changed by the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs to a definite time, the provision being: • 152 The Case of Chile. "1. The plebiscite will take place six months after the exchange of the ratifications of the pro- tocol." In the exchange of identic telegrams between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries, which constituted the understanding of 1912, the mu- tual arrangement was that the plebiscite should not be held until the year 1933. The reasons for this post- ponement were cogently stated by President Billing- hurst in his secret message to the Peruvian Congress submitted on November 30, 1912. While Chile does not deny the soundness of these reasons or desire to controvert the convincing arguments which were ad- vanced by President Billinghurst, and while a post- ponement of the plebiscite to the year 1933 would un- doubtedly work to the benefit of Chile as she would, ac- cording to the Supplementary Agreement of July 20, 1922, continue in undisputed possession of the do- minion and sovereignty over the territory of Tacna and Arica for the period between the rendition of the arbitral award and the holding of the plebiscite, it is not the purpose in this Case to urge upon the Arbitra- tor that a condition of holding the plebiscite should be that it is not to take place until the year 1933. What- ever advantage might accrue to Chile by reason of such postponement she unhesitatingly relinquishes for the sake of bringing to an end, as soon as the circum- stances permit, a situation in the relations between Chile and Peru which is a constant source of irritation and will continue to disturb their intercourse until the Tacna-Arica Question is finally settled beyond the possibility of revival. In the opinion of Chile the postponement of the plebiscite for a period of years would create almost as undesirable a state of affairs in the relations between The Second Question. 153 Chile and Peru as would a decision by the Arbitrator that no plebiscite should be held, which would amount to referring the question back to the parties for a new diplomatic negotiation and compel a postponement of a final settlement which presumably would not be for a short period if the past thirty years of controversy can be taken as a criterion of the duration of such a negotiation. It is the earnest desire and hope of Chile that the present arbitration will forever end this unfortunate dispute and that the time of settlement through the medium of a plebiscite may be in the near future. With that dominant purpose in mind Chile respect- fully suggests that a year after the rendition of the award by the Arbitrator would furnish ample time for the parties to comply with any conditions precedent imposed by the Arbitrator and that at the end of that term the Plebiscitary Commission, if the constitution of such a supervisory and directive body is decided upon by the Arbitrator as a condition for holding the plebiscite, should forthwith assemble and enter upon its duties,- the time for registration and balloting to be determined by that Commission. In view of the possibility that the needful prelim- inary acts may be performed within a shorter term than one year, a further condition might appropriately provide that in such an event the parties may by an exchange of notes shorten the term so that the Com- mission should assemble within less than a year after the decision of the Arbitrator has been communicated to the two Governments. 6. Payment of the Ten Millions. Article III of the Treaty of Ancon makes the pay- ment of ten million Chilean pesos or ten million Peru- 154 The Case of Chile. vian soles an obligation to be performed by the coun- try successful in the plebiscite. It is as much an in- tegral part of the Treaty as the holding of the plebi- scite. It was also provided in the Article, as has been stated, that the terms and time of payment should be included in the special protocol prescribing "the manner in which the plebiscitum is to be carried out. ' ' By the joinder of these two subjects in the proposed protocol they are made interdependent and insepa- rable, and consequently the fixing of the terms and time of payment by the successful party becomes an essential and unavoidable condition to the carrying out of the plebiscite; a condition which should, in the opinion of Chile, be laid down by the Arbitrator under the jurisdictional authority conferred upon him by the Washington Protocol and the Supplementary Agreement of July 20, 1922, and because his arbitral award takes the place of and is as binding upon Chile and Peru as would be a special protocol if one had been negotiated in accordance with the provisions of Ar- ticle III. In considering this condition it is not the purpose to refer again to the correspondence and negotiations which in the past have taken place between Chile and Peru as to the terms and time of payment of the ten millions. They have already been touched upon in con- sidering the First Question. While Chile asserts that the positions, which she previously assumed in regard to the terms and time of payment, were reasonable and justified in the circumstances and might be urged with propriety in the present case as conditions which should be laid down by the Arbitrator, it seems more advisable to suggest new terms rather than to reopen a discussion of the subject and to repeat arguments which were advanced while the negotiations were in progress. The Second Question. 155 To the end, therefore, of avoiding further contro- versy and the tedious process of reviewing the argu- ments previously advanced, and also of providing a simple formula for the payment of the sum, which the successful party in the plebiscite is obligated to paiy to the other party, Chile respectfully requests the Arbi- trator to consider the following suggested condition as practical and fair to both parties. The suggestion of Chile is : (1) That a financial institution be selected and named by the Arbitrator as the official depository of a sum to be known as the "Tacna-Arica Fund;" (2) That prior to the constitution and assembling of a plebiscitary commission, if one is decided upon, Chile shall deposit with the official depository the sum of ten millions of Chilean silver pesos, and that Peru shall also deposit with such depository the sum of ten mil- lions of Peruvian soles of equal weight and fineness, which deposits shall constitute the so-called "Tacna- Arica Fund;" (3) That, after the plebiscite has been held and the result thereof officially proclaimed, and upon the pre- sentation of a certified copy of the result and of a formal document signed by a majority of the members of the Plebiscitary Commission declaring which coun- try is defeated in the plebiscite and by reason of such defeat entitled to receive the ten millions, the official depository shall forthwith, on such authority, deliver the entire ' ' Tacna-Arica Fund" to the properly ac- credited officer of such country, who shall in his cre- dentials be empowered to receive the same and to re- ceipt therefor on behalf of his Government; and (4) That upon the proclamation and promulgation of the result of the plebiscite and the issuance of the formal document for presentation to the official de- 156 The Case of Chile. pository holding the ' ' Tacna-Arica Fund," the title to the permanent dominion and sovereignty of the ter- ritory comprising Tacna and Arica shall be vested permanently in the nation successful in the plebiscite, which shall forthwith assume actual possession under such title. In the event that the Arbitrator does not approve the foregoing suggestion as to the terms and time of pay- ment of the ten millions provided for in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, Chile respectfully directs his at- tention to Articles XV and XVI of the Billinghurst- Latorre Protocol of 1898 as suitable bases for the formulation of the condition relative to the terms and time of payment of the moneys due to the party unsuc- cessful in the plebiscite. The articles referred to read as follows: "Article XV. The indemnity of ten million pesos prescribed by Article III of the Treaty of October 20, 1883, will be paid by the country that shall become the owner of the provinces of Tacna and Arica on the following terms : one million within the period of ten days, reckoned from the proclamation of the general result of the plebi- scite; another million within the following year; and two millions at the end of each year of the sub- sequent four years. "The sums referred to will be paid in Peruvian silver soles or in Chilean silver coin of the kind that circulated at the time when the Treaty of October 20, 1883, was signed. "Article XVI. The total products of the cus- tom-house at Arica are assigned for the payment of the indemnity mentioned in the preceding ar- ticle." (Appendix, p. 146.) In order to meet any possible contingency which may arise, as a consequence of the result of the plebiscite, The 'Second Question. 157 Chile respectfully calls the Arbitrator's attention to a question which would be presented in the event that Peru should obtain a recession of Tacna and Arica by virtue of the plebiscite resulting in her favor. Chile has during the past forty years expended large sums of money in Tacna and Arica in railway and road construction, irrigation systems, sanitation, port facili- ties, public buildings, schools and other public works and utilities. As a matter of justice, such expenditures for permanent public improvements should be reim- bursed to the ceding nation. A condition precedent to the vesting of the title to the territory in Peru, in the event that the plebiscite declares in her favor, should be that Peru reimburse or arrange to reimburse Chile for the expenditures which she has made for such improvements. In order to determine the value of the public im- provements, for which Peru ought to pay, provided it succeeds in the plebiscite, Chile proposes as a practical method, that a Chilean-Peruvian Commission of Ex- perts, with a neutral umpire, be established immedi- ately after the formal announcement that the result of the plebiscite is favorable to Peru, which Commission shall be empowered to fix the valuation of such public properties now owned by Chile in Tacna and Arica, and also the terms of payment by Peru of the sum so found, the decision of the Commission as to valuation and as to terms of payment to be final. Furthermore, Chile considers that all expenses in- curred in holding the plebiscite should be borne equally by Chile and Peru, and that a provision to this effect should be a condition of carrying out the plebiscite. Chile, therefore, respectfully requests that such a con- dition be included in the determination of the Arbi- trator as to the conditions provided in Clause Third of the Supplementary Agreement of July 20, 1922. 158 The Case of Chile. PAST IV. The Thied Question: Tarata and Chilcaya. Chile believes, as has been stated, that regardless of the decision of the Arbitrator as to the holding of a plebiscite, it would be proper for him to decide the dis- puted questions as to the eastern portion of the north- ern and southern boundaries of Tacna and Arica, de- nominated in Article Fifth of the Supplementary Agreement of July 20, 1922, as "the pending claims relative to Tarata and Chilcaya. " These questions arise out of the different interpretations placed by Chile and Peru upon the language of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon describing the boundaries of Tacna and Arica. It is recognized that these boundary questions are of a technical geographic nature and will probably re- quire for their determination by the Arbitrator an ex- amination by an expert under his direction. Chile, therefore, respectfully suggests that a Special Com- missioner be appointed by the Arbitrator for the pur- pose of making an actual investigation on the ground, and collecting the necessary data, to aid the Arbitrator in determining these boundary questions, and that the Arbitrator's decision upon this question be delayed until he has received' the report of the Special Commis- sioner though such delay should not postpone the de- livery of an arbitral award as to the other questions submitted to him. It is also suggested that the costs of this examination by the Special Commissioner be defrayed equally by Chile and Peru. As these two boundary questions relating to the eastern part of the northern boundary of Tacna, and the eastern part of the southern boundary of Arica are distinct matters, they will be discussed separately in the following pages, under the heading — Tarata and Chilcaya. The Thikd Question. 159 1. Tarata. Article III of the Treaty of Ancon states that the territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica is — "bounded on the north by the Eiver Sama from its source in the Cordilleras on the frontier of Bolivia to its mouth at the sea." The main course of the Eiver Sama from the junc- tion of the River Tala and the River Chaspaya to the mouth of the Sama is undisputed. .From this junction eastward, it is a question which tributary of the Sama is to be regarded as the main channel of that river and consequently the boundary between Tacna and Peru. The claims of the two countries in regard to this boundary as stated in the diplomatic correspondence, win be briefly reviewed. The question as to the location of the boundary first arose as a result of a tax imposed upon the inhabitants of Tarata by the Governor of Tacna. In a note of November 10, 1884, the Peruvian Minister to Chile called the matter of this tax to the attention of the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs, pointing out that Tarata is not included as a part of the province of Tacna by Article III which fixes the River Sama as the northern boundary line of that province, and asking, therefore, for a revocation of the tax decree and a re- turn of the tax collected. (Appendix, p. 3.) The Chilean Government replied on November 13, 1884, that it did not possess accurate maps of the ter- ritory in question and that the Governor of Tacna had been directed to forward to the Government all the facts in the case. (Appendix, pp. 4-5.) On January 20, 1885, the Chilean Government issued a decree creating the subdelegation of Tarata in the 160 The Case of Chile. province of Tacna and fixing as the northern boundary of Tarata "The Chaspaya River and ravine, which is the continuation of the River Sama. ' ' A diplomatic protest was made to this decree by Peru on February 16, 1885. In order to avoid further difficulties Chile designated the Ticalaco River as the limit of occupation and this river has remained the administrative boundary to the present day, although Chile has never abandoned her claim that the Chas- paya was the true boundary laid down in the Treaty of Ancon. (Appendix,. pp. 520; 542.) The Chilean Minister to Peru, Sefior Novoa, on March 17, 1886, proposed to the Government of Peru that the boundary in dispute be fixed by a joint com- mission of experts. He said: "To offer Your Excellency an unequivocal proof that it desires to solve all difficulties, my Govern- ment proposes a means of simple and correct so- lution, that is, that a commission of experts, one appointed by Chile and another by Peru, shall come together and study the data that they may deem necessary by inspecting the course of the Sama River from its sources to its outlet. The boundary line thus fixed, in a clear and unequivo- cal manner, a friendly and definite solution will have been reached, and all doubts will be settled. ' ' (signed) Jovino Novoa. (Appendix, p. 560.) The Peruvian Government, on April 2, 1886, declined this proposal, saying: "The commission which Your Excellency pro- poses, besides being liable to incur in an error because of the lack of exactness of Article III of the Treaty in speaking of the Sama River, also has the disadvantage that if the opinions of the two commissioners do not concur, it will be difficult to adjust this difference." (Appendix, p. 560.) The Third Question. 161 In a despatch of July 14, 1886, the Peruvian Consul at Iquique, Guillermo E. Billinghurst, who was in 1898 Vice-President and later President of Peru, reported that the Government of Chile had taken the River Tarata, which is only a tributary, as the continuation of the River Sama, thus add- ing the districts of Tarata, Tarucachi and Estique to the territory of Tacna, instead of taking the River Estique as the continuation of the River Sama. He states that the River Estique rises in the mountains bordering upon Bolivia called Great and Small Barr- oso — mountains that have an elevation exceeding 20,000 feet, and after it meets the River Tarata bears the name Sama thence to the sea. He adds : "The volume of water of the Estique River, its course, the hydrographic system it obeys and the fact that it has its source in the highest Cordilleras of the Bolivian frontier in that section of the coun- try's geography, demonstrate, clearly and con- vincingly, that that river, and no other, is the source of the river that waters the valley of Sama and that empties in the ocean. 1 * The Tarata River, the fanciful boundary fixed by Chile, is a river with a much inferior volume of water; that river has its source in the heights of that name that rise above the sea some 15,000 feet and that are located in the northern extremity of the province of Tarata. ' ' He concludes by stating that : "the strict and only acceptable interpretation of Article III of the Treaty, would leave within Chile's jurisdiction only the district of Estique, the population of which is about 700 inhabitant s." (Appendix, p. 9.) 162 The Case of Chile. On October 13, 1886, the Peruvian Minister, Senor Elias, made a formal request of the Chilean Govern- ment for the return of the districts of the province of Tarata which had been, he asserted, occupied by Chilean forces by reason of the fact that the Govern- ment of Chile had fallen into an error in taking the Tarata tributary, as the continuation of the River Sama. (Appendix, p. 11.) This request was repeated on March 5, 1887, when a special memorandum and map on the subject were laid before the Foreign Office of Chile in support of the request. The description in the memorandum of the Estique and Tarata Rivers follows in general that of the Billinghurst report above mentioned. (Appen- dix, p. 13.) On April 14, 1887, the Chilean Government replied to the request of the Peruvian Minister to the effect that a study had been made of the memorandum and map submitted to it, and that, the Government was persuaded that the question involved was a geographi- cal one calling for exact topographic knowledge of the region. Therefore, it again proposed that a Chilean- Peruvian commission of experts be appointed and sent to the points in question for the purpose of investiga- ting and of fixing, in accordance with scientific princi- ples, the true source and course of the River Sama, for the effects contemplated in the Treaty of 1883. (Appen- dix, p. 17.) Again in 1890, although Peru had not replied to the last Chilean proposal for a joint commission of ex- perts, the Peruvian Minister, in connection with legis- lation then pending in the Chilean Congress, which had to do with the organization of departments in the area over which Chile held dominion and sovereignty, called the attention of the Chilean Government to what he The Third Question. 163 termed the unwarranted occupation of a part of Ta- rata. (Appendix, pp. 21; 562.) Nevertheless the Chilean Government maintained its position, and finally, on October 1, 1890, the Peru- vian Government declined to participate in the pro- posed joint commission. (Appendix , p. 562.) In a cir- cular of September 20, 1921, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru referred to this action of his Govern- ment as follows : "My Government which knew this perfectly since long ago, and which feared to further the policy of calculated delay that Chile pursued in this affair, refused to concur in the formation of the proposed commission insinuating that the Gov- ernment of Chile should obtain alone the infor- mation which it lacked to resolve the just Peru- vian reclamation. This insinuation was accepted by the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations, on October 23, 1890, but never was put into practice for the specious reasons given fifty days later. m ( Appendix , pp. 527; 562.) In the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol of 1898, it is stipulated that one of the registration boards should function in the town of Tarata, and it added : "Article XIV. The fact that the registration and receiving committees mentioned in the fore- i In his communication of December 20, 1921, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Ernesto Barros, answered this statement as follows: "The capricious statement that Chile never carried out the inves- tigation is so evidently false, that proofs to the contrary are almost unnecessary; it would be sufficient to exhibit all the maps and docu- ments which gwe evidence as to the work of Chilean geographers. "We can cite among many others, the reports of the engineer Sr. Bertrand, Director of the Boundary Office, respecting the fron- tiers with Bolivia and with Peru; the reports of the engineers who worked in the Land Survey Office and, lastly, the large map of Chile published in 1910 by this same office.' ' (Appendix, p. 563.) 164 The Case of Chile. going articles function in Tarata does not imply a renouncement on the part of Peru of the pend- ing claim in respect of a part of that region, al- though this does not signify a design of claiming any indemnity for the time that Chile has occu- pied it." {Appendix, p. 146.) It is to be noted that, up to the date of this protocol, the Peruvian claim has been based exclusively upon the question as to which one of the tributaries of the River Sama complied with the condition of the Treaty of being the continuation of the boundary river to the mountains bordering upon Bolivia. Peruvian states- men and diplomats had advocated the River Estique line, thus admitting, some expressly and others tacitly, that a part of the old Peruvian province of Tarata had been placed in Chile's possession by the Treaty stipu- lations. On May 26, 1901, in a circular to foreign Govern- ments in regard to the Tacna-Arica Question, the Government of Peru stated: " there was incorporated in the territory, subject to the temporary occupation of Chile, a part of the province of Tarata, adjoining Tacna, with its towns and villages situated north of the Sama River, which is the boundary pointed out in Arti- cle III. "In order to explain the transgression it was shown that the ravine by the same name did not belong to the real Sama River, but to another farther north, which the demarcation established by Peruvian law, which must be applied solely in this case, left very far from the territory given up to the ten year's occupation. ' ' (Appendix p. 261.) In the same document Peru again demanded that the occupied part of Tarata be returned to her. The Thied Question. 165 When Chile and Bolivia in the Treaty of 1904 fixed the boundary between the latter country and the terri- tory possessed by the former by virtue of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, the Peruvian Government through its Minister, Senor Prado, saw fit to notify Chile, on February 18, 1905, that such demarcation would not be recognized by Peru, as it referred to "a territory that, by its political and geographical limits, constituted the province of Tarata, to which the Treaty of Ancon did not in any manner apply.' ' (Appendix p. 347.) Thus Peru abandoned its contention that a part of Tarata was included in the territory that had been ceded to Chile by Article III, in order to adopt a new theory, namely that the political boundaries that were in effect so far as they affected Peru's domestic ad- ministration before the Treaty of Ancon were control- ling; and that since the Treaty does not mention Ta- rata, no part of Tarata is included in the surrendered territory. It should be noted in connection with this theory that the Treaty mentions Tacna, so that Chile might argue, on the same principle and with the same force, that the districts of Ilabaya, Sama, and Locumba of the old province of Tacna, were included in the ces- sion. (Appendix, p. 347.) In 1911, Peru protested against the formation by the Chilean Government of the occupied Tarata districts into a department of the same rank as the depart- ments of Tacna and Arica. (Appendix, p. 556.) Subsequently in a circular note of September 20, 1921, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru pro- tested against the reduction of Tarata from the rank of a department to a subdelegation of the department of Tacna, just as she had protested against its eleva- tion to a department. In this protest the Minister dis- cussed the question of boundary as follows : 166 The Case of Chile. "As it is clearly deduced from the terms of- that Article III, only the two Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica, bounded by the Sama River, passed into the temporary possession of Chile. That this was so, is proven by the significant fact that one of the first acts of the Peruvian Govern- ment of General Iglesias, who negotiated and signed the Treaty with Chile, was to proclaim the law of March 31, 1884, three days after the ratifi- cations of the Treaty of Peace were exchanged, to create the department of Moquegua, in which the province of Tarata was included, ' whose capital, it stated, shall be the town of that same name (since then and until now occupied by Chile) and shall include the districts of which it consists at present with their same capitals ; ' this law is the authentic interpretation of what the Treaty of Peace prescribed about the boundary line of the Sama River, as it was proclaimed immediately after the perfecting of the said Treaty, by one of the parties to it, and without the least attention thereto on the part of the Chilean Government. This law having been abrogated in October 25, 1886, together with all the internal governmental acts of the Government of General Iglesias, was substituted by that of October 12 of the same year, which kept the same interpretation of two and half years before, respecting Tarata. * * * "According to Article III of the Treaty of Peace, Chile must occupy only the territory of the Peruvian province of Arica and that part of Tacna to the south of the Sama River ; therefore, she did not have any right to retain any part of the prov- ince of Tarata, all of it situated to the north of that river, with an area of 4979 square kilo- metres, and that was not mentioned even, by the Treaty, which fixed the northern limits of the terri- tory that would continue to be occupied in the province of Tacna, expressing that it was the Sama River, from its source in the mountains limiting with Bolivia to its outlet into the sea. The Thied Question. 167 Thus the territories, the occupation of which by Chile for a period of ten years was consented to by Peru, were set out doubly; by the denomina- tions of the Peruvian territorial demarcation, which upon expressly including the provinces of Tacna and Arica, excluded tacitly but undoubtedly, the territories of the province of Tarata, which was not mentioned, and by the fixing of the Sama River as the provisional border, thus excluding implicitly the entire zone that extended to the north of that river, from its true source down to the sea. If, then, any doubt could be possible, and honestly it could not be, about the course of the Sama, all that it was necessary to do was to appeal to the prompt resort of establishing what the ter- ritorial comprisal was, according to the Peruvian laws of the provinces of Tacna and Arica. ? ' (Ap- pendix, pp. 521, 522.) On December 20, 1921, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Senor Ernesto Barros, made the fol- lowing reply : "The circular note of September 20 is devoted wholly to proving that Chile occupies that terri- tory unlawfully. "We have seen already that Peru refused to appoint a commission of experts to study the frontier line; that it insinuated afterwards to my Government that the latter should make, on its own account, the investigations necessary, and lastly, that when Chilean engineers went to the limiting mountains to carry out topographic studies, the Peruvian forces placed all sorts of ob- stacles in their way and prevented them from crossing the de facto frontier which they them- selves had established, and which was tolerated by the' Chilean Government in order to prevent greater difficulties." (Appendix, p. 565.) 168 The Case of Chile. The question, therefore, resolves itself to this: Which tributary of the River Sama above the junction of the Tala and Chaspaya is the true boundary of Tac- na. Furthermore, in answering this question it should be noted that, according to the reports of Chilean engi- neers, none of the tributaries of the River Sama have their source "in the Cordillera on tlie frontier of Bo- livia/ ! In view of these reports, a further question arises as to the location of the boundary between the head of the " River Sama" and the " Cordillera on the frontier of Bolivia." The bases for the foregoing statements on the part of Chile are the following : In the first place, the strategic importance of this territory was in the minds of the negotiators of the Treaty of Ancon when they agreed upon the River Sama as the boundary laid down in Article III. In the war, which was brought to an end by the Treaty of Ancon, Chilean military experience in this region showed clearly that this mountainous district was the resort for irregular forces and guerilla bands of the enemy which more than once threatened the city of Tacna. It was found necessary at that time to occupy the entire district in order to prevent the use of it as a rendezvous for guerilla chieftains and their forces. (Appendix, p. 547.) Colonel Arriagada then in command of the Chilean forces in this region fixed upon the River Chaspaya as the appropriate military line. Referring to this oc- cupation, the Governor of Tacna states in a memoran- dum of November 5, 1897, as follows : "It was then in 1883-1884 that Colonel Ricardo Silva Arriagada fixed the general boundaries of the Province of Tacna on the north, occupying The Third Question. 169 Ticalaco, Sitajara and Yabroco, and designating as the boundary line the course of the River Chas- paya or Salado, from its rise in the Yabroco Mountains, the nearest to the Peruvian-Bolivian border.' ' Moreover, Consul Billinghurst, in his report of July 14, 1886, referred to above, points out the "geographic importance and strategic value of Tarata." (Appendix P. 7.) It is said that the valley of Tacna cannot be invaded by an enemy army so long as a division of troops oc- cupies Tarata and holds the line of the River Sama. If Tarata were in the hands of enemy forces capable of using it as a base of operations, it would be impos- sible to protect the railroad from Arica to La Paz from surprise attacks. (Appendix, p. 571.) It was on account of its strategic importance that Chile origi- nally demanded that the River Locumba (farther north than the Sama) be the northern boundary of the territory to be assigned to her in the Treaty of Peace. (Appendix, p. 557.) It appears also that the foregoing reasons served as the basis for the description of the northern boundary of Tacna as set forth in the Treaty of Ancon, it being the desire of Chile to control the entire mountain re- gion which is intersected by the deep valleys or ravines of the tributaries of the River Sama. After the Treaty of Peace, however, the Chilean troops aban- doned the more northern part of this district and es- tablished the line of military occupation, the strategic line of defense, along the River Tacalaco, although Chile never gave up her contention that the Chaspaya was the true boundary described in Article III. In the second place, the old provincial boundary be- tween Tarata and Tacna established by Peru was not 170 The Case of Chile. the boundary laid down in Article III, and, therefore, the provincial boundary furnishes no ground for a territorial claim under that Article. After the Treaty of Peace, the Peruvian Government in its correspondence with Chile claimed that the Eiver Estique was the continuation of the River Sama and should be regarded as the boundary line under Article III. As will be seen from the maps, the River Estique does not follow the line between Tarata and Tacna but runs considerably to the north of that line. This appears also to have been the opinion of Consul Billinghurst, subsequently President of Peru. The position of Chile, as indicated above, is that the old provinical boundary was not followed in Article III and ought not be followed in the present settlement of the international frontiers.* It is clear, therefore, that the ancient boundary be- tween Tarata and Tacna is not to be regarded as the boundary laid down in Article III. In the third place, the Peruvian geographers of the period declared that the valley of the Sama River was continued in that of the Chaspaya tributary. The geographer, Antonio Raimondi, in his work en- titled "Peru," which was published by the Peruvian Government in 1869, states : "I continued my journey along the Cordilleria (Andes) until I came to the Tutupaca Volcano, and then I returned to Candarave, from where I went to the town of Ticaco in order to arrive at the source of the Sama ravine, which is south of that of Locumba." (Vol I, p. 171.) *The Tarata-Tacna boundary changed several times before the war, and even after the signing of the peace by the creation of the Depart- ment of Moquegua which includes "Free Tacna." (Appendix, p. 556.) The Third Question. 171 It appears from the maps that Raimondi, in coming from Candarave in search of the Sama ravine, mnst have descended along the Chaspaya. Besides, he does not mention any other tributary of the Sama. The Peruvian Boundary Commission of 1878, of which the geographer, Felipe Paz Soldan was the head, made a report on the southern boundary of Tarata in which, in describing the boundary, he spoke of the "confluence of the river that flows down from Tarata with the Chaspaya, which farther on is called the Sama." The Peruvian geographical dictionary entitled "La Cronica," published in Lima in 1918, contains a ref- erence to Tarata, as follows : "Tarata. This province, until the enactment of the law of November 12, 1874, was a part of the province of Tacna. The said law made up the province of Tarata from some of the districts of Tacua. The Treaty of Ancon, in pointing to the River Sama as the boundary line between Peru and Chile until the fate of the captive provinces is decided, has taken from our dominion a part of Tarata, that is, the districts of Tarata, Estique, and Tarucachi." {p. 437.) Turning now to the boundary between the source of the River Sama and "the Cordilleras on the frontier of Bolivia," there is, as appears from Chilean scien- tific investigations and studies, no convenient river course which might be taken as the boundary. No matter which one of the tributaries of the River Sama is followed, its rise will not be found, it appears, in the mountains that border upon Bolivia. Between those mountains and the sources of these tributaries there is a distance of thirty to forty-five miles. This 172 The Case of Chile. intervening area is occupied by the headwaters of the Eivers Mauri and Uchusuma which flow southeasterly into Bolivia. The headwaters of these two rivers are separated from the headwaters of the Sama tributaries by a range of mountains in which both systems have their sources. It is necessary, therefore, for the Arbi- trator to determine the northern boundary of Tacna in this intervening area between the headwaters of the Eiver Sama and "the Cordilleras on the frontier of Bolivia.' ' Taking into consideration the above stated facts and others, the Chilean geographer, Alejandro Ber- trand, in the report that he submitted to the Chilean Government on September 28, 1903, regarding the Bolivian border, which report served as a basis for the boundary provisions of the Treaty of 1904 with Bolivia, suggests, as a solution for the problem brought up by the fact that the River Sama does not rise in the moun- tains bordering upon Bolivia, the adoption of a line that will unite the source of the Chaspaya or of the Ticalaco, whichever may be found to be the true origin of the Sama, with the intersection of the two old Peru- vian departments of Tacna and Puno at the Bolivian border. This intersection is found at 17° 14' south latitude. 2. Chilcaya. The question of Chilcaya relates only to that part of the boundary between Arica and the Chilean De- partment of Pisagua from the point on the Camarones called Arepunta to the international boundary with Bolivia. Article III of the Treaty of Ancon states that the southern boundary of the provinces of Tacna and Arica shall be "the ravine and river Camarones." The Third Question. 173 The course of this ravine is plainly marked out from the sea to a point called Arepunta. That part of the line has not been called in question. At Arepunta, the River Camarones is divided into two tributaries : One of these comes from the northeast and is called the River Ajatama, and the other, coming from the southeast, is called the Caritaya. The ques- tion is which of these two tributaries is the true origin of "the ravine and River Camarones" up to the Bo- livian border. In these circumstances it was necessary for Chile to determine a boundary for administrative and jurisdic- tional purposes. Accordingly the Government of Chile issued the Decrees of November 3, 1885, and August 28, 1888, which established the boundary between Arica and Pisag*ua for those purposes. Peru pro- tested against these decrees, pointing out that they caused certain villages which formerly were in Arica to be included in the department of Pisagua and quot- ing the Governor of Arica and the Intendant of Tacna as opposed to such determination of the boundary. (Appendix, pp. 188, 189.) In 1900, the Government of Chile commissioned the Director of the Astronomical Observatory, Alberto Obrecht, and the engineer Abelardo Pizarro to study the question and to make a report thereon. This com- mission presented its report, which was published in the Chilean Official Bulletin of November 29, 1900. Upon the naming of this commission Peru took oc- casion to remonstrate against what appeared to be an ex parte determination of the Arica-Pisagua boundary. (pp. 177, 186.) The Peruvian Minister said: "The aforementioned boundary line is formed, according to the Treaty of Peace of 1883, by the 174 The Case of Chile. ravine and the River Camarones ; it separates the territory of Tarapaca, whose dominion has been ceded to Chile, from the territories of Tacna and Arica, not ceded as to ownership and the definite fate of which is subject to the contingencies of a plebiscite. Said line, therefore, has an interna- tional character." (Appendix, p. 186.) On January 21, 1903, the Chilean Government or- dered the Director of the Boundary Office, Ale- jandro Bertrand, who had been in charge of the de- marcation of the boundary between Chile and Argen- tina, to investigate the question of the northern boun- dary of the province of Tarapaca, between the point called Arepunta and the Bolivian frontier. Bertrand made a profound study of the question, taking into consideration the historical, traditional, legal, and administrative data, to which he refers in his report, dated October 1, 1903, and arrived at the fol- lowing conclusion: "In concluding, I have the honor of informing you that the northern boundary line of the prov- ince of Tarapaca, between Arepunta and the Bo- livian border, that corresponds, according to the investigations that I have exposed hereby, to the Peruvian interprovincial dividing line at the time of the cession of Tarapaca to Chile, is as follows : The Ajatama River as far as the point at which the Blanco or Surasura Eiver joins it, from there a straight line to the old boundary line of Jan- cuma or Penas Blancas, to the water spring of Lirpo, to the Pucupucune ranch, to the crest of the Pelado Hill of Llaretapampa, the passing over the line of the peaks of those of Chulluncayani Viscachitambo, through the pass of Chaca, to Herraje Hill, to Castilluma Hill, to Achachamayo Hill, to Arintica Hill, and to Puquintica Hill. The Third Question. 175 "This line will be set out, upon the ground, in accordance with the outline indicated in the map that has been prepared by the engineers of this Department, and that I enclose in this report. 44 As this line is founded chiefly upon official Peruvian publications, such as the census of 1876, the map and pamphlet regarding boundaries by Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan, the geographical work published by Guillermo E. Billinghurst, and de- positions of the natives of Tarapaca of Peruvian extraction, Chile would be justified fully in sus- taining it, in case that Tacna and Arica should re- turn to Peru according to the possibility foreseen by the Treaty of Ancon." (Appendix, p. 326.) The boundary line from Arepunta to the frontier of Bolivia recommended in this report of Bertrand was adopted officially by Chile for administrative purposes in the Decree of May 4, 1904. (Appendix, p. 328.) It appears form this report, as well as from the Peru- vian note of November 14, 1900, that the boundary in question is the same as the former political boundary between Arica and Pisagua when these territories be- longed to Peru. On this point Bertrand says : "In fact, Article II of the Treaty states: The Eepublic of Peru cedes to the Republic of Chile, perpetually and unconditionally, the territory of the littoral province of Tarapaca, the boundaries of which are: on the north, the ravine and River Camarones; on the south, the ravine and River Loa; on the east, the Republic of Bolivia; and the west, the Pacific Ocean." "The province of Tarapaca was ceded uncon- ditionally to Chile according to the Treaty of Ancon, with the northern, southern and eastern boundaries that it had under Peruvian sov- ereignty, whether or not they are correctly, pre- cisely, and completely expressed in the text of the said Treaty.' r (Appendix, pp. 283, 285.) 176 The Case of Chile. He incorporates the same idea into his conclusion quoted above. The Minister of Peru in Chile in the note of Novem- ber 14, 1900, alluded to, states : "Furthermore, this line separated unalterably for many years, within territory exclusively Pe- ruvian, the same political circumscriptions whose boundaries are now endeavored to be denned; and in this way the actual province of Tarapaea passed to the power of Chile. My government, for this reason, is in very propitious condition to ap- preciate with certainty the origin and course of it, which constitutes a new and powerful reason not to prescind from its approval." (Appendix, pp. 186-187.) It seems quite clear, therefore, that the two countries are in accord on the point that the old Peruvian in- terprovincial boundary is the same as that intended to be laid down in the Treaty of Ancon. The Decree of May 4, 1904, however, led to a re- newed diplomatic discussion of the boundary question. On July 16, 1904, the Peruvian Government made a protest against the Decree, in which it said: "By the Treaty of Peace mentioned there was ceded to Chile the territory of the ' littoral pro- vince of Tarapaca'; that is to say, the section of Peruvian territory known by that name. It is therefore indisputable, and the decree to which I refer accepts it, that the limit between Pisa- gua (the northern district of that province) and the province of Arica can be none other than the one pointed out bv the Peruvian laws previous to October 20, 1883. "Tarapaca, before forming a separate territo- rial district, belonged up to 1837 to the department of Arequipa; from this year it came to form a part of the littoral department of Tacna; from The Third Question. 177 December 1, 1868, it was raised to a littoral pro- vince, still having as its boundary the ravine and River Camarones. In harmony with this demar- cation, the census of 1876 pointed out as districts belonging to the littoral province of Tarapa6a those districts of Iquique, Pica, Pisagua, Tara- paca, Camina, Chiapa, Sibaya, and Mamma, all situated to the south of the Camarones River, and from its principal affluent the Caritaya. It re- sults, consequently, that even if that Treaty of Peace and Friendship of October 20, 1883, does not specify in detail lie points which form the di- viding line between the provinces of Tarapaca and Arica, the general terms which it employs, being with reference to the demarcation which existed in conformance to Peruvian laws, leave the boundary established with sufficient precision because, since, the province of Tarapaca has been separated from the department of Tacna in order to form the littoral province which was later on ceded to Chile, it is clear that that which expressly was not included in the segregation continued in the principal section which was the department of Tacna, the province of Arica forming a part thereof, according to Peruvian demarcation. 1 ' From what is explained above, it is deduced that the decree of your Government referred to, has adopted as a boundary the River of Ajatama and the points which are indicated as a contin- uation; instead of having taken the River Cari- taya and the places which belonged to it as a com- plement; thus segregating a section of the pro- vince of Arica which belongs to it in order to incorporate that section into Tarapaca.' ' (Appen- dix, pp. 331-332.) This note also refers to the decision of the Court of Appeals of Tacna in regard to the location of the borate fields of Chilcaya, and to the contradictory character of the reports of Chilean authorities as to the boundary. (Appendix, p. 332.) 178 The Case of Chile. These contentions upon the part of Peru were re- plied to by Senor Bertrand in his report of August 6, 1904 (Appendix, p. 334), and in the Chilean answer of August 12, 1904, to the Peruvian protest. The Chilean note disclaims any intention of deter- mining an international boundary by the Decree of 1904 which is a measure of internal administration, and quotes from the the Chilean note of January 19, 1901 (Appendix, p. 210), to the same effect. The Chilean Government then refers the Peruvian Government to the official Bertrand reports of 1903 and 1904 "in which are rectified the errors" contained in the Peruvian note of July 16th. (Appendix, p. 344.) The Bertrand reports of 1903 and 1904 referred to in answer to the Peruvian contentions are too long and detailed to be summarized here. The Arbitrator, therefore, is respectfully referred to these reports which are printed in full in the Appendix. (Appendix, pp. 278; 334.) In the Peruvian note of January 30, 1.901, it had been intimated that the borate mines of Chilcaya influ- enced the location of the boundary (Appendix, p. 232) ; and this intimation was revived by Senor Alberto Salo- mon in his note of December 24, 1921, in which he alludes to the borate deposits of Chilcaya as the reason why this region was included in the province of Ta- rapaca. (Appendix, p. 573.) It may be said that this charge was unwarranted because the borate deposits were at the time of the Decree of May 4, 1904, wholly in the hands of private grantees. Some of the con- cessions had been conferred by Bolivian authorities and others by Chilean authorities. The Decree of May 4, 1904, expressly declares that its provisions would not affect the rights previously acquired by private parties. Moreover Peru had been advised, on The Third Question. 179 January 19, 1901, in effect that Chile did not intend to give international significance to its territorial de- marcation in this region which was purely for adminis- trative purposes. (Appendix, p. 215.) Finally the ex- port duty collected by the Chilean Government from the borate deposits in that region is so insignificant as to make it an unimportant matter as to whether the deposits were in Chilean or foreign territory, since in 1921 the Chilcayan production of borate was only 122 tons. (Anuario Estadistico de Chile, p. 36.) The question is whether the River Ajatama or the River Caritaya is the true continuation of ■ l the ravine and River Camarones" declared in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon to be the southern boundary of Arica. There is also an intervening area between the head- waters of either of these tributaries of the Camarones and the boundary of Bolivia across which it is a ques- tion where the boundary lies. The bases for the foregoing statement on the part of Chile are to be found in the Bertrand report of Oc- tober 1, 1903, which Chile officially adopted as her own, and to which she respectfully refers the Arbi- trator for a presentation of the geographic and other data relating to this question. This Chilean report and the Peruvian note of November 14, 1900, appear to agree that the boundary laid down in Article III should follow the old boundary between Arica and Pisagua which was recognized when those territories were under the dominion of Peru. From this point of common agreement it ought to be possible to estab- lish a boundary satisfactory to both countries. In dealing with the Tarata and Chilcaya questions, Chile repeats her suggestion that a Special Commis- sioner be named by the Arbitrator to investigate on the ground and collect the necessary data to enable the latter to determine these boundary questions J-80 The Case of Chile. STATEMENT IN CONCLUSION. Chile, in concluding her presentation of the facts and arguments on which she relies in the arbitration instituted under the Protocol and Supplementary Agreement entered into with Peru at Washington, on July 20, 1922, respectfully submits the following ob- servations dealing with the various phases of the Tacna-Arica Question which it is hoped and expected will be finally laid to rest by the decision of the Ar- bitrator. It may be confidently asserted that the purpose of the arbitration, which was agreed to by Chile and Peru in the Washington Protocol, was to end this long- standing controversy, which has been for thirty years an obstacle to the restoration of complete friendship between the two countries. Arbitration was to sup- plant negotiation; juridical procedure, diplomacy: an arbitral award, the special protocol provided for in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon. The submission to arbitration of the controversy concerning Tacna-Arica is in the form of three spe- cific questions set forth in the Supplementary Agree- ment, which is made a part of the Washington Pro- tocol, and this limitation to specific questions reduces the scope of the arbitration and the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to answering primarily the First Question, and, in the event that that question, which relates to holding a plebiscite, is answered in the affirmative, then to answering the other two questions. It, how- ever,, reduces that jurisdiction to the First and pos- sibly the Third Questions in the event that the First Question is answered in the negative. An affirmative answer to the First Question will end for all time this old and continuing controversy which has for a third of a century vexed the Min- Statement in Conclusion. 181 istries of Foreign Affairs of Chile and Peru and has for many years caused the severance of diplomatic relations between the two countries, kept alive a feel- ing of bitterness and hostility between the peoples of the two Republics, and disturbed the tranquillity of South America. To bring to a conclusion these antagonisms and to restore cordial relations in the intercourse of the Governments of Chile and Peru and to reestablish friendliness between their peoples de- pend upon a decision by the Arbitrator that a plebi- scite should be held. A negative answer to the First Question will not end this undesirable and unwholesome state of con- troversy between Chile and Peru, to end which is the primary purpose of this arbitration. It will leave the whole subject of the manner of settling once and for all the permanent sovereignty over Tacna and Arica to a future negotiation which can hardly be expected to result in an agreement in the near future between the two Governments in view of the record of previous negotiations. The fundamental idea of the provisions as to a plebiscite contained in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon is the application of the principle that a people have the right to choose under what government they will live, the principle vital to the doctrine known as "the consent of the governed." That principle is as applicable to the present inhabitants of Tacna and Arica as it was to those resident there in 1894, when the ten-year period expired, before which expiration a plebiscite could not be held, and as it would have been to those resident there in 1933 if the Peruvian proposal of 1912 had been carried into effect. The adoption of any other means of settlement than by a plebiscite would be to deny this democratic prin- 182 The Case of Chile. ciple, which both Chile and Peru accepted as right in the Treaty of Ancon, and might possibly result in a great wrong to the people of the territory, the sover- eignty over whom is in dispute. Chile, in view of having agreed with Peru to accept this principle when they exchanged ratifications of the Treaty of Ancon, would be compelled to insist upon the application of that principle in any nego- tiations which might result from the Arbitrator an- swering the First Question in the negative ; and it seems hardly conceivable that Peru would deny to the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica the exercise of a free choice of their governors by declaring who should possess the sovereignty, when such denial would be a repudiation of a principle to which she gave her formal and unqualified assent when she ratified the Treaty of 1883, and which she has never denied in the course of negotiations with Chile extending over thirty years. • This being so, a plebiscite, however the Arbitrator decides the First Question, would seem to be the logical solution of the Tacna-Arica Controversy. Both parties have given their approval to the application of the principle, and "the present circumstances" refer- red to in the First Question submitted to the arbi- trator can in no way affect the right of the present inhabitants of the territory to have the principle ap- plied to them. The discussion of the terms of a plebiscite in the future negotiation contemplated by the Supplemen- tary Agreement of July 20, 1922, in the event that the First Question is -answered in the negative by the Arbitrator, would be but a continuation of the controversy which this Arbitration was intended to bring to an end. A negative answer would leave Statement in Conclusion. 183 the dispute in the same unsatisfactory state, in which it was prior to the signature of the Washington Pro- tocol, except that the good offices of the United States of America might be invoked in a future attempt to reach an agreement as to the terms of the plebiscite. From the purely practical standpoint, and in order to prevent an unprofitable and useless delay in set- tling the dispute as to Tacna and Arica, it is manifestly expedient, as well as just, that the Arbitrator should answer the First Question in the affirmative and pro- ceed to determine the conditions for holding the plebi- scite in accordance with the power granted to him in Clause Third of the Supplementary Agreement. It is expedient because it will end the Tacna- Arica Question, because it will prevent a future negotiation between Chile and Peru concerning such conditions, and be- cause it will meet the express desire of the two dispu- tant Governments and also that of the Government of the United States, at whose instance and through whose good offices the submission to arbitration was nego- tiated at Washington. The terms of submission of the First Question do not preclude the Arbitrator from considering the ex- pediency of answering that question in the affirmative. His right of scrutiny is broad and general, and in- cludes not only an examination of the legal principles involved but also the consideration of the expediency and wisdom of rendering a decision of that question, which will settle the controversy, a settlement which will be advantageous to both parties and make for peace and international friendship. Chile not only affirms that the Arbitrator possesses this right but con- fidently expects that he will employ it in formulating his answer to the First Question. 184 The Case of Chile. The phrase, "in the present circumstances [en las circumstancias actuates]," from this point of view possesses a significant meaning, since it includes, in addition to the political, social, economic and intel- lectual conditions, which exist today in Tacna and Arica, the facts, that the repeated attempts by the parties to negotiate the special protocol provided for in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon have failed, that diplomatic relations between Chile and Peru have been severed and continue to be severed because this con- troversy has remained unsettled, that a future nego- tiation would presumably perpetuate the present un- fortunate state of disagreement and irritation, and that a failure in this arbitration to settle the differences between Chile and Peru as to Tacna-Arica would be detrimental to Pan-American concord and good will, which is today the common desire and hope of all the American Republics. The mere lapse of time is not one of "the present circumstances" which can be successfully urged as an obstacle to the holding of the plebiscite, since in the identic proposals of the year 1912 both Governments advocated the postponement of that act to the year 1933; and furthermore, if the lapse of time was ever a valid reason against holding the plebiscite, which Chile does not admit, Peru has waived her right to raise it by her failure to do so during nearly thirty years of negotiation. Chile, therefore, requests the Arbitrator to answer the First Question in the affirmative by deciding that in the present circumstances a plebiscite should be held as provided in Article III of the Treaty of An- con and in accordance with the doctrine of "consent of the governed." Statement in Conclusion. 185 On the assumption that the Arbitrator decides the First Question in the affirmative, Chile further requests that the conditions for holding the plebiscite, which the Arbitrator possesses the power to determine un- der the provisions x)f the Supplementary Agreement of July 20, 1922, may be determined by him along the general lines laid down in Part III of this Case, which conditions Chile believes to be fair to both parties, just to the people affected, and in harmony with the practice of nations when they seek to learn the popular will through a plebiscitary proceeding. It should be borne in mind in considering the conditions for holding the plebiscite suggested by Chile that the present inhabi- tants of Tacna and Arica are the people who will be affected by the result of the plebiscite, that they are "the governed," and that it is their "consent" which should be obtained through the medium of a popular vote. Unless the importance of this fact is recognized, conditions may be unintentionally imposed which will work grave injustice to the population of the territory, whose future sovereign is in issue. While Chile has every confidence that the Arbitrator will give full weight to the right of the present inhabitants of Tacna and Arica to determine for themselves under what sovereignty they shall live, a right specifically declared in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, and never ex- pressly denied by Peru in her discussions of this sub- ject, Chile considers that she is justified, because of the importance of this fact, in again calling it to* the par- ticular attention of the Arbitrator since it should be, in her opinion, a controlling factor in the formulation of conditions governing the plebiscite. As to the Third Question submitted to the Arbi- trator in the Supplementary Agreement of July 20, 186 The Case of Chile. 1922, which question relates to Tarata and Chilcaya, Chile respectfully suggests that the Arbitrator name a Special Commissioner to investigate and report to him upon the geographical data and the topographical conditions affecting the delimitation of the boundaries in dispute and that he, the Arbitrator, delay his -de- cision of the Third Question until such investigation and report have been made. In connection with the foregoing suggestion, Chile also proposes that this question of boundaries be decided regardless of the way in which the Arbitrator answers the First Ques- tion, and also that the answers to the First and Sec- ond Questions should not be delayed until the Arbi- trator is prepared to decide the Third Question, which could be conveniently decided in a supplemental award. Before closing the presentation of her Case Chile desires to call the attention of the Arbitrator to the words of Don Luis Aldunate, one of the negotiators of the Treaty of Peace, in his memorial of 1883 sub- mitting the Treaty to the Chilean Congress, which ex- press the attitude of Chile toward the rights of the in- habitants of Tacna and Arica, an attitude which she has maintained for forty years: "If the result of the plebiscite shall restore the territorial region of Tacna- Arica* to the dominion of Peru, it would be consonant with the loyal and honorable policy of Chile to respect the decision of those peoples." With the foregoing observations and review of the subjects, which are submitted to arbitration in accor- dance with the Protocol and Supplementary Agree- ment signed at Washington on July 20, 1922, by the duly accredited representatives of Chile and Peru, Statement in Conclusion. 187 Chile has the honor to present to the President of the United States of America as Arbitrator, her Case to- gether with the documents, maps and other evidence on which she relies to support her contentions and her requests. Carlos Aldunate S., Ernesto Barros, Agents for the Republic of Chile. Robert Lansing, L. H. Woolsey, Counsel for the Republic of Chile. Tacna-Arica Arbitration THE APPENDIX TO THE CASE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS ARBITRATOR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROTOCOL AND SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN CHILE AND PERU AT WASHINGTON ON JULY 20, 1922 Tacna-Arica Arbitration THE APPENDIX TO THE CASE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS ARBITRATOR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROTOCOL AND SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN CHILE AND PERU AT WASHINGTON ON JULY 20, 1922 INDEX. DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND NEGOTIATIONS. PAGE 1884 November 10- Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Relations of Chile 3 November 13 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Min- ister of Peru in Chile 4 1886 March 17 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of For- eign Relations of Peru 5 July 14 Consul of Pern in Iquique to Minister of For- eign Relations of Peru 7 October 13 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Relations in Chile 11 1887 March 5 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Relations in Chile 13 March 8 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Relations of Chile 14 April 14 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Min- ister of Peru in Chile 17 April 18 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Relations of Peru 19 April 19 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Relations of Chile 20 1890 June 10 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Relations of Peru 21 1892 August 10 Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Min- ister of Chile in Peru 24 August 11 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of For- eign Relations of Peru 25 September 5 Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Min- ister of Chile in Peru 26 September 5 Enclosure to Note of Minister of Foreign Re- lations of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru. . 27 September 5 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of For- eign Relations of Peru 28 1893 April 4 Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Min- ister of Chile in Peru 29 April 8 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of For- eign Relations of Peru 30 April 8 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of For- eign Relations of Peru 32 April 18 First Conference between Minister of Chile in Peru and Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru 34 1893 June 19 Second Conference between Minister of For- eign Relations of Peru and Minister of Chile 36 INDEX (Continued) June 30 August 19 August 19 August 19 September 16 September 26 November 10 December 7 1894 January 26 January 26 February 23 March 9 March 27 March 29 September 21 October 4 1895 August 3 August 3 August 5 1895 August 9 August 20 PAGE Third Conference between Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru 38 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Chile in Peru 39 Enclosure to Note of Minister of Foreign Ee- lations of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru . . 40 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Peru 42 Fourth Conference between Minister of For- eign Eelations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru 43 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Peru 45 Fifth Conference between Minister of For- eign Eelations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru 47 Sixth Conference between Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru 50 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Chile in Peru 52 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Peru 54 Memorandum Submitted by Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 55 Memorandum Delivered by Minister of For- eign Eelations of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru 59 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Chile 62 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Peru in Chile 63 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Chile 68 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Peru in Chile 72 Minister of Chile in Peru to President of the Council of Government of Peru 74 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Chile in Peru 74 Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- • ister of Chile in Peru 75 Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- ister of Chile in Peru 76 Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- ister of Chile in Peru 78 INDEX (Continued) August 23 October 4 ' October 8 October 9 October 24 October 30 November 23 December 17 December 27 , December 31 1896 February 3 February 10 1897 August 14 1898 April 9 1900 May 10 1900 May 26 June 12 July 10 July 11 PAGE Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- ister of Chile in Peru 80 Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- ister of Chile in Peru 82 Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- ister of Chile in Peru 84 Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- ister of Chile in Peru 86 Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- ister of Chile in Peru 87 Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- ister of Chile in Peru 88 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Peru 92 Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- ister of Chile in Peru 93 Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- ister of Chile in Peru 94 Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- ister of Chile in Peru. . . . 95 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Chile in Peru 97 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Peru 105 Proceedings of Conference held between Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and Min- ister of Chile in Peru 128 Proceedings of Conferences held in February and March, 1898, between Minister Plenipoten- tiary of Peru on Special Mission and Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 131 Draft of Proceedings of Conference, Submit- ted by Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 148 Draft of Proceedings of Conference, Submit- ted by Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Minister of Peru in Chile 155 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Chile 156 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Chile in Peru 166 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Peru 171 INDEX (Continued) July 12 October 8 November 14 December 15 December 18 1901 January 14 January 19 January 30 February 18 March 7 March 13 May 26 1903 October 1 1904 May 4 July 16 August 6 1904 August 12 November 15 1905 February 18 March 15 PAGE Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Peru in Chile 173 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Chile 177 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Chile 179 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Chile 202 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Peru in Chile 204 Eeport of Committee on Foreign Affairs, Sub- mitted to Chilean Chamber of Deputies 208 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Peru in Chile 210 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Chile 225 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Peru in Chile 241 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Chile 250 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Peru in Chile 256 Circular of Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Eelations Abroad 258 Eeport Presented by Director of Boundary Office of Chile to Minister of Interior of Chile 278 Supreme Decree Issued by Government of Chile Fixing the Limits between Departments of Arica and Pisagua 327 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 329 Eeport Presented by Director of Boundary Of- fice of Chile to Minister of Interior of Chile. . 334 Enclosure to Preceding Document, — Decision of Judge of Pisagua on Case of Banco Aleman Transatlantico vs. Compania Minera de Chil- caya, dated June 10, 1901 338 Enclosure to Note of August 6, 1904 — Decision Given by Court of Appeals of Tacna on Case of Banco Aleman Transatlantico vs. Compania Minera de Chilcaya, dated December 6, 1901. . 339 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru 339 Declaratory Act Signed by Minister of For- eign Eelations of Chile and Minister of Bolivia in Chile 345 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 347 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru 354 INDEX (Continued) April 25 June 5 1908 March 25 May 8 August 29 August 29 1909 August 11 September 9 September 30 November 1 November 5 November 5 December 23 1910 March 3 March 15 March 19 March 20 1912 November 10 November 10 November 10 November 10 November 10 PAGE Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 362 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru 369 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Peru in Chile 370 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of For- eign Eelations of Chile 381 Presentation Address of Minister of Chile in Peru to President of Peru 408 Eesponse of President of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru, on Presentation of his Creden- tials 410 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru. 411 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 414 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 419 Minister of United States in Chile to Secretary of State of United States 422 Enclosure to Preceding Note — Statement of Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile of the Bases for Settlement of Tacna-Arica Ques- tion, dated October 15, 190$ 423 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Charge d 'Affaires of Chile in Peru. Memo- randum 424 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru 426 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 434 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru 445 Circular of Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Legations of Chile abroad 466 Charge d 'Affaires of Peru in Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 492 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Charge d 'Affaires of Peru in Chile 493 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 495 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru 496 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 497 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Chile 499 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Eelations of Peru 499 INDEX (Continued) PAGE November 30 Secret Message of President Billinghurst to Congress of Peru 500 1920 August 16 President of Chile to Confidential Agent of Chile before Government of Peru 518 August 17 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Con- fidential Agent of Chile before Government of Peru 519 1921 September 20 Circular of Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru to Ministers of Foreign Relations Abroad 520 December 12 Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Relations of Peru 536 December 17 Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Relations of Chile 539 December 20 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Relations of Peru 542 December 20 Circular of Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Legations of Chile abroad 547 December 24 Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Relations of Chile. . 572 December 26 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Relations of Peru 576 December 28 Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Relations of Chile 578 December 29 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Relations of Peru 580 1921 December 31 Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Min- ister of Foreign Relations of Chile 584 1922 January 18 Ambassador of United States in Chile to Min- ister of Foreign Relations of Chile 588 January 19 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Am- bassador of United States 589 May 15 Speech Delivered by Secretary of State, Mr. Charles E. Hughes, at Inaugural Session of Chilean-Peruvian Conference in Washington, D. C 591 May 15 Speech Delivered by Chilean Delegate, Sr. Luis Izquierdo, at Inaugural Session of Chilean- Peruvian Conference in Washington, D. C 594 June 13 Speech of Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile, Delivered in Session of Chamber of Dep- uties 595 June 30 Proceedings of Chilean-Peruvian Conference held in Washington, D. C 609 June 15 Memorandum Presented by Ambassador of Chile to Secretary of State of United States. . 633 July 6 Ambassador of Chile in United States to Min- ister of Foreign Relations of Chile 636 July 19 Ambassador of Chile in United States to Sec- retary of State of United States 637 INDEX (Continued') vii PAGE July 19 Secretary of State of United States to Ambas- sador of Chile in United States 638 July 17 Conference held between Secretary of State of United States and Chairmen of Chilean and Peruvian Delegations 639 July 20 Proceedings of Chilean-Peruvian Conference held in Washington, D. C 644 July 20 Speech of Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile, Delivered in Session of Senate 649 TEEATIES, AGEEEMENTS, etc. 1866 August 10 Treaty between Chile and Bolivia 667 1873 February 6 Secret Treaty between Bolivia and Peru 670 1874 August 6 Treaty between Chile and Bolivia 674 1875 July 21 Supplementary Protocol of Chilean-Bolivian Treaty of 1874 ' 676 1883 October 20 Treaty between Chile and Peru 677 1884 April 4 Truce Agreement between Chile and Bolivia.. 681 1902 September 23 Treaty between Bolivia and Peru 685 1904 October 20 Treaty between Chile and Bolivia and Conven- tion for Construction and Operation of a Eail- road from Arica to La Paz 688 1922 July 20 Protocol of Arbitration signed in Washington, D. C, between Delegates of Chile and Peru . . 699 1922 July 20 Supplementary Act of Protocol of Arbitration Signed in Washington, D. C, between Dele- gates of Chile and Peru 700 1874 November 3 November 12 1914 February 21 1860 November 13 1861 April 4 May 22 1919 July 14 1922 MISCELLANEOUS. Electoral Law of Chile Fixing the Value of Eeal Estate, Income, etc., Eequired for the Exercise of Eight of Suffrage 705 Electoral Law of Chile 706 Electoral Law of Chile 708 Political Constitution of Peru 710 Electoral Law of Peru 710 Census and Civic Eegistry Law of Peru 711 Decree Issued by President of Peru, Eegarding General Elections 711 Chapter Entitled "Expulsion of Peruvians" taken from "Hacia la Solucion" by Sr. Er- nesto Barros 713 Description of Tacna and Arica 733 Chronology of Events 763 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND NEGOTIATIONS. DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND NEGOTIATIONS, Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Re- lations of Chile, [Translation.] Santiago, November 10, 1884. Dear Sir and Friend : In official communication, dated the 28th ultimo the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Relations informed me that, under date of the 18th of this month, a decree imposing a patent tax on the inhabitants of Tarata was issued by the provincial government of Tacna. You are aware that Article III of the Treaty of Peace of October the 20th of last year does not include Tarata in the demarcation of Tacna province, since that instrument definitely fixes the Sama River as the northern boundary of that province, and Tarata lies to the north of that river. Therefore, the provincial governor of Tacna is un- questionably without power to impose taxes upon, or issue decrees of any kind relating to territories for- eign to his jurisdiction. In the presence of an act so serious the Minister of foreign Relations instructs me to take proper steps before your Government looking to the revocation of that decree and the return to the inhabitants of Ta- rata of the amount of money collected from them. It being in my opinion impossible that the above mentioned official could have proceeded in this matter under instructions from his Government, being sin- cerely interested, as it is, in the strict fulfillment of the stipulations contained in the Treaty of Peace, I have thought it preferable, before addressing to you an official note on the subject, to request you to be good enough to inform me whether my personal understand- ing of the incident is correct. The unprecedented action of the provincial govern- ment of Tacna, at this time possesses, in the eyes of my Government a character doubly serious, since, aside from being a flagrant violation of a pact in which the good faith of the two peoples is engaged, it carries with it for Peru, the germs of other dif- ficulties, for it offers new pretexts for the enemies of internal peace. Those enemies will not fail to exploit the incident by invoking the patriotism of the masses against the regrettable eventualities that must result to the country from such violations of the Treaty of Peace. I trust that the Chilean Government will speedily rectify the mistake in consonance with the friendly and cordial relations in the reestablishment of which it has been my grateful privilege to assist. Your sincere friend and servant, Vidal Garcia y Garcia. Sehor Don Aniceto Vergara Albano, Santiago. Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Peru in Chile. [Translation.] Santiago, November 13, 1884. My Dear Sir and Friend: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your esteemed favor of the 10th instant. I regret exceedingly that I cannot give you a formal reply with respect to the essential point in the first part of your letter, for although I have given it to the Pre- sident to read, we find ourselves inconvenienced by the absence of not only exact maps of the territories in question but also of any certain point of departure. In this emergency we have decided to ask the Pro- vincial Governor of Tacna for the necessary antece- dents in the case so that we may be fully informed. Your obedient servant, A. Vergara Albano. Sefior Don Vidal Garcia y Garcia. Santiago. Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of Foreign Re- lations of Peru. [Translation.] Lima, March 17, 1886. Mr. Minister: In reply to the note of Your Excellency of the 25th of February, ultimo, relative to that of your honorable predecessor, dated the 16th of the same month of last year, regarding the boundaries of the territory which Chile should possess during ten years, in conformity with the Treaty of October 20, 1883, I wish to inform Your Excellency that, having received instructions from my Government to deal with this question, 1 now proceed, in accordance therewith, to give Your Excellency an answer as to the matter that caused the above mentioned communication of February 16, 1885. My Government, wishing to have new reports, in spite of the sure data that it possessed, heard the polit- ical head of Tacna, who stated that the taxes imposed, which also had been the object of observations, as well as the subdelegations created, were within the jurisdiction of Chile, according to the Treaty of Oc- tober 20th. The River Sama being the northern boundary of the territories whose possession to Chile for a term of ten years — a boundary, the fixing of which was in fact the object of two long conferences — the Chilean jurisdic- tion exercised therein, is beyond all discussion. The undersigned was convinced that the political authorities of that territory had adjusted their acts to that stipulation and to the supreme orders and dispo- sitions issued in obedience to what had been cove- nanted; and that is why, upon acknowledging receipt on February 18th of the said note of the 16th, I has- tened to express that I would hand it to my Govern- ment on the trip to Valparaiso, upon which I was start- ing on that very same day ; but that since now I could anticipate that, as the honorable predecessor of Your Excellency stated with so much reason, it was impos- sible to suppose that Chile would have then, or ever, the intention of altering to the smallest extent that which she clearly and categorically had covenanted. The uprightness of her acts does not permit it to be suspected, I added, even in hypothesis, and I am sat- isfied to observe that the Supreme Government of Your Excellency does honor to the loyalty with which the Republic that I represent respects what is due an honest country. To offer Your Excellency an unequivocal proof that it desires to solve all difficulties, my Government pro- poses a means of simple and correct solution, that is, that a commission of experts, one appointed by Chile and another by Peru, shall come together and study the data that they may deem necessary by inspecting the course followed by the Sama Eiver from its sources to its outlet. The boundary line thus fixed, in a clear and unequivocal manner, a friendly and definite solu- tion will have been reached, and all doubts will be settled. It seems to me that the means indicated reveals the unflinching purpose of complying with Article III of the Treaty and also looks for the solution of the diffi- culty in a manner satisfactory to the high contracting parties. I renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my high consideration with which I have the honor to sub- scribe myself as Your Excellency's most attentive and obedient servant. Jovino Novoa. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. Consul of Peru in Iquique to Minister of Foreign Af- fairs of Peru. [Translation.] Consulate General of Peru in Chile, Iquique, July 14, 1886. Mr. Minister: Article III of the Treaty of Peace, which was signed with Chile by General Don Miguel Iglesias, stipulates that the northern boundary of Tacna territory (tem- porarily ceded) is the Sama River from its source in the cordilleras that constitute the boundary with Bo- livia to its mouth in the Pacific Ocean. The interpretation given by this Government in its practical application of that Article is, of course, far from correct: it is furthermore fanciful and is enormously and transcendent-ally injurious to the pres- ent and future interests of Peru. The Government of Chile, with the purpose of em- bracing more territory than is assigned to it under that Treaty, has taken as the source of the Sama River the Tarata River which is merely one of the affluents of the Sama. Thus the districts of Tarata and Tarucachi, which represent an immense expanse of territory and a popu- lation of more than 3,000 Indian inhabitants, have passed without further steps and wholly on that as- sumption, into the control of Chile and are at the pres- ent moment occupied by her. The exact source of the Sama River is in the Cor- dilleras bounding on Bolivia and known as Grande and Pequefio Barroso, mountains whose elevation above sea level exceeds 20,000 English feet. From its source to its confluence with the Tarata River it is known as the Estique River, and from that point of confluence, onward, to its disemboguement in the sea, it bears the name of the Sama River because it flows through and waters the valley of that name. The same condition exists with respect to this river as with respect to the Loa River which is also cited in the Treaty of Peace now being considered. The Loa River rises in the slopes of the volcano Mino* in the extreme southeast of the province of Ta- rapaca; it runs in the exact direction of north to south to the point known as Santa Barbara and thence, in- clining to the southwest, it passes by Chuichui and ends at Calama, where it divides into two branches forming the rivers San Salvador and Guacate which, in their turn, go to form the single river again at the point known as Chacance. From Chacance the river runs from south to north, passing by the Toco and ar- riving at Quillagua. From the point of Quillagua, occupying both banks of the river, it flows from east to west to its disemboguement in the ocean. This river is known by as many names as points through which it passes; thus it becomes the Miho Eiver, the Santa Barbara River, the Chuichui, the Calama, the San Salvador, the Guacate, the Chacance, the Toco and the Quillagua, and from the town of the last name down to the sea, only 20 leagues distant, it bears the name of the Loa River. The volume of water of the Estique % River, its course, the hydrographic system it obeys and the fact that it has its source in the highest Cor- dilleras of the Bolivian frontier in that section of the country's geography, demonstrate, clearly and con- vincingly, that that river, and no other, is the source of the river that waters the valley of Sama and that empties in the ocean. The Tarata River, the fanciful boundary fixed by Chile, is a river with a much inferior volume of water ; that river has its source in the heights of that name that rise above the sea some 15,000 feet and that are located in the northern extremity of the province of Tarata. The affluents of the Tarata River are the Totora, Challaguayo and Ticaco rivers, the first of which is of some importance. It is well known that our cordillera system runs from north to south and that our rivers on this side of the divortia aqaarum run from east to west. Tt is, then, altogether fanciful, not to say absurd, to seek, the source of the Sama River in the secondary water-sheds of the mere counterforts of the cordil- 10 leras, which, in this case, depart considerably from the line that divides Peru and Bolivia. The Chilean Government, with much secrecy, or- dered the preparation of a topographical map of the Tarata province and of the Sama Valley. With much difficulty I have been able to secure an extract from that map and I beg to attach it hereto for the infor- mation of the Supreme Government. This map, as Your Excellency will see, graphically confirms the correctness of my observations. The Province of Tarata, as Your Excellency knows, is composed of the following districts and populations : Names of the Population ac- Districts cording to the of the Province. Census of 1876. Candarave 2,378 Curibaya 596 Estique 672 Tarata 2,348 Tarucachi 593 Ticaco 1,136 Total 7,723 In conformity with the interpretation now given to the Treaty of Peace by Chile, the following districts remain within the jurisdiction of Chile: Tarata 2,348 Tarucachi .593 Estique 672—3613 and in the jurisdiction of Peru: Candarave 2,378 Curibaya 596 Ticaco 1,136—4110 7,723 11 The strict and only acceptable interpretation of Article III of the Treaty would leave within Chile 's jurisdiction only the district of Estique, the popu- lation of which is about 700 inhabitants. The geographical importance and strategic value of Tarata, and, more than all, the indisputable right which Peru enjoys over that vast expanse of territory unlawfully occupied by Chile, make abundantly clear Chile's preference not to longer postpone the settle- ment of this delicate and important matter. May God protect your Excellency. GUII/LERMO E. BlLLINGHURST. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Re- lations in Chile. [Translation.] Legation of Peru in Chile, Santiago, October 13, 1886. Mr. Minister: In accordance with the stipulations of the Treaty of Peace that put an end 4o the war between Peru and Chile the territories of the provinces of Tacna and Arica remained under the temporary dominion of Chile, and in paragraph 1st of Article III it was pro- vided that their northern boundary was the Sama River from its source in the cordilleras bounding upon Bolivia to its mouth in the ocean. In spite, however, of that clear and positive provi- sion, the serious mistake has been made of taking the Tarata River as the source of the Sama, the former being but one of the affluents of the latter; and as a result of that mistake several districts of Tarata 12 province have been unlawfully segregated therefrom and the Treaty of Peace has been thereby violated. My Government, which desires to respect that in- ternational pact in all its parts, is convinced that Your Excellency's Government is moved by the same desire and, in strict interpretation of the stipulations therein set forth, will have no objection to rectifying the mistake and ordering the evacuation of the districts that are now under the control of Chilean authorities. Your Excellency's enlightened statesmanship will not fail to grasp the importance of avoiding any dif- ficulty which, by exciting national feeling, might dis- turb, however slightly, the friendly and cordial re- lations that happily exist between Chile and Peru, and in the matter now under discussion Your Excel- lency will understand how imperative is the duty rest- ing upon my Government to request from Your Ex- cellency's Government the reincorporation of the ter- ritories that were not included in the temporary ces- sion of the territories of the provinces of Tacna and Arica. I beg that Your Excellency will have the goodness to inform me of your Government's decision in this matter. Shoulld Your Excellency, however, prefer a verbal discussion of the question, with the aid of more complete data, I would take pleasure in con- ferring with you at your office, convinced that an earlier and more successful solution would thus be reached. I avail myself of this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest esteem. Your Excellency's obedient servant, Caklos M. Elias. To His Excellency, Sefior Don Joaquin Godoy, Minister of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Chile. 13 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Re- lations in Chile. [Translation.] Legation of Peru in Chile, Santiago, March 5, 1887. Mr. Minister: As promised on the last occasion on which I had the pleasure to see you, I enclose herewith a memoran- dum relating to the Tarata question which confirms what I stated to Your Excellency's predecessor in my note of October 13th of last year, the reply to which is still pending, doubtless because of the con- gestion of business in your Department. It appears to me, from the contents of that mem- orandum, which is a resume of data supplied this Le- gation by most competent persons, that the Peruvian Government is proven to be justified in claiming res- titution of that part of its territory that was riot included in the temporary cession of provinces of Tacna and Arica. Your Excellency's Government which has always declared itself disposed to fulfill in its entirety the pact that put an end to the war, cannot fail, in this case, to recognize the truth of the situation, and I am confident that, inspired as it is by the loftiest sentiments, it will have no objection to ordering the return to Peru of the districts of Tarata province which down to the present have unlawfully remained subject to the jurisdiction of Chile. This becomes the more necessary since, upon the renewal of friendly relations between the two coun- tries, the duty of their Governments is to strive now, and in the future, to the end that the well recognized interests of the two peoples, the mutual respect and 14 the reciprocal esteem in which they shall come to hold each other, may efface all traces of unhappy dissen- sions and, on a sure foundation, cement a friendship that may be substantially profitable for both Peru and Chile. I trust, as Your Excellency has assured me will be the case, that this matter will receive preferred con- sideration and thus enable us to reach an early and satisfactory solution ; and I beg to repeat that, should it be necessary, I shall be glad to confer with you at your office whenever you shall be pleased to call me, in order to demonstrate more effectively, if it be pos- sible to do so, through the medium of a special map, the correctness of what is set forth in the memoran- dum enclosed, relating to the source of the Sama River. I reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration. ■ 9 Your obedient servant, Cablos M. Elias. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations, of the Republic of Chile. Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Re- lations of Chile. [Translation.] Memokandum. Santiago, March 8, 1887. The first paragraph of Article III of the Peace Treaty between Peru and Chile, signed October 20, 1883, says as follows: "The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica which are bound on the north by the Sama 15 River from its source in the mountain ranges bordering- on Bolivia to its disemboguement into the sea, on the south by the ravine of Camarones ; on the east by the Republic of Bolivia, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean, will continue in the possession of Chile and subject to the legis- lation and the authority of Chile for the term of ten years, the time to be reckoned from the ratification of the present Treaty of Peace." In spite of such a definite prescription Chile has fallen into the grave error of including a portion of the territory of the province of Tarata which has not been mentioned in the temporary cession granted by the pact which put an end to the war, taking as a di- viding line the Tarata River which' is considered as the origin of the Sama. In this way there are dis- tricts of the province of Tarata with a population of about four thousand inhabitants who have remained segregated from the jurisdiction of Peru. The River Sama as is very well expressed by the first paragraph of Article III of the Treaty of Peace has its origin in the mountain ranges bordering on Bolivia. These mountains are known by the name of Grande and Pequeno Barroso and are elevated above the level of the sea to a height of more than 20,000 feet. From here up to its joining with the River Tarata it is known by the name of Estique and from then on up to its disemboguement into the ocean bears the name of Sama because it crosses and waters the valley of that same name. The amount of water in the River Estique, the course which it follows, the hydrographic system which it obeys and the fact that it has its origin in the more elevated mountain ranges of the Bolivian frontier prove that this river and no other is the origin of the one which bathes the valley of the Sama and which empties into the Pacific Ocean. 16 The River of Tar at a is, in amount of water, much inferior to the Estique. It has its origin in the heights of that name which are elevated about 15,000 feet above the sea, and which are situated in the northern headlands of the province of Tarata. It is well known that the system of our mountain ranges runs from north to south, and that our rivers on this side of the divortium aquarwm run from east to west. It is, then, altogether incorrect to seek the origin of the Sama River on the less important slopes of the bulwarks of the Cordilleras which in this case depart considerably from the line which divides Peru from Bolivia. The Peruvian negotiators, upon insist- ing on the redaction of the first paragraph of Article III of the Treaty of Peace, mentioning clearly that there was only left pro tempore in the power of Chile the territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, excepted completely the territory of the province of Tarata, and even that Treaty circumscribed them within the limits which were definitely fixed for greater clarity and precision. But saying that the northern boundary was the River Sama from its source in the mountain ranges bordering on Bolivia up to its dis- emboguement into the sea they left definitely estab- lished that it was in those Cordilleras and in no other part, that one must seek the origin of the Sama River. Otherwise, the extent of the ceded territory would have been greater, and, consequently, the spirit and letter of the article quoted would have been without effect. The Peruvian negotiators, taking into account the grievous situation in which they were placed by the necessity — justified in their opinion — of celebrating peace, even at the cost of heavy sacrifices, chose to save as much as possible of their native land, and 17 for that reason they undertook a redaction which left out completely the territory of the province of Tarata and part of that of Tacna. The incidents which oc- curred before the signing of the Treaty of Peace tes- tify thus. It seems that the Minister of Foreign Af- fairs of Chile, at that time in Lima, demanded that the Eiver Locumba and not the Sama should be the northern boundary fixed for the temporal cession. Senores Lavalle and Castro Zaldivar, first, and after- wards General Iglesias, refused to submit to this last hour demand which was contrary to what was agreed before between Senores Iglesias and Novoa. This diplomat recognized the justice which existed for the Peruvian negotiators ; but, since Sr. Aldunate insisted, he had to confer by cable with His Excellency the President of Chile who answered more or less in these terms: "that it being his desire to arrive at peace the dividing line indicated by the Peruvian negotiators would be accepted.' ' This in fact, was done, and Paragraph 1 of Article III of the Treaty of Peace was drawn up in the terms so often quoted. Carlos M. Elias. Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Peru in Chile. [Translation.] Republic of Chile. Ministry of Foreign Relations, Santiago, April 14, 1887. Sir: I have had the honor to receive in due course Your Excellency's dispatch of the 5th ultimo in which you were pleased to enclose a memorandum setting forth the reasons on which the Peruvian Government bases 18 its request for the rectification of the northern bound- ary of the territories of Tacna and Arica possessed by Chile. The perusal of that document and a study of the rough draft which Your Excellency left with me have had the effect of persuading my Government more and more that we are dealing with a new geographical question the solution of which calls for exact knowl- edge of the topography of those territories, which knowledge is not now possessed by. my Government and the technical departments of Chile. This being the case, and having found nothing in the present case that involves the interpretation of the Treaty of Peace, the language of which is clear and the fulfillment of which has always been the desire of my Government, Your Excellency will permit me to insist upon the propriety of an arbitration, which on a former occasion was suggested on our part to Your Excellency's Government, to consist of a Chilean-Peruvian expert commission which would re- pair to the points in question and, in accordance with the principles of science, investigate and fix the source and course of the Sama River for the effects contem- plated in the Treaty of 1883. If, as I trust it may, this means of settlement be favored with the acquiescence of Your Excellency's Government, I am convinced that it will be easy to reach an agreement with respect to the composition of the board of experts and other details of pro- cedure. I reiterate the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration, and remain Your Excel- lency's obedient servant. Francisco Freire. To Sehor Don Carlos M. Elias, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Peru. 19 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. [Translation.] (Number 273.) Legation of Peeu in Chile. Santiago, April 18, 1887. Mr. Minister: On the 16th instant I received the reply to my dis- patch addressed to the Minister of Foreign Relations of this Republic (Chile), dated the 5th ultimo, request- ing the evacuation of the districts in Tarata which Chile retains in contravention of the stipulations of the Treaty of Peace. Your Excellency will note from the copy of that dispatch attached hereto that its contents do not ac- cord with what was stated to me verbally by Senor Freire at my conference with him on the 2nd instant, of which I gave an account in my confidential dis- patch, No. 263 ; and this goes to show that, after that conference, and evidently with the approval of the President, there is a desire to give another trend to the question. I have been unable to make any reply to Senor Freire, as I would have wished to do, respecting his suggestion to appoint a mixed expert commission, be- cause it relates to a proposal made prior to that time to the Government of Peru having the same import which, according to the message of the Supreme Coun- cil of Ministers to the Extraordinary Congress of 1886, "was the object of certain observations" on the part of our Chancellery, observations as to which I am still in ignorance, for, unfortunately, although I have asked for all the data relating to the Tarata question, I am supplied with them only in part. 20 Fearing, therefore, that I might be led into some inconsistency and being unwilling, on the other hand, to assume in such a delicate matter the responsibility of definitely rejecting Chile's proposal, I confined my- self to the reply of which I enclose a copy. In view of these documents, I beg that Your Excel- lency will arrange with His Excellency the President of the Republic what is best to be done in the matter and that you will be good enough to send me the precise instructions that I am to follow. May God protect Your Excellency, Carlos M. Elias. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru. Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] Legation of Peru in Chile, Santiago, April 19, 1887. Mr. Minister: I have had the honor to receive Your Excellency's note of the 14th instant in which Your Excellency is good enough to inform me that your Government is of the opinion that the question relating to Tar at a and the boundary fixed for the territory temporarily remaining within the jurisdiction of Chile is merely geographical; that it does not affect the interpreta- tion of the Treaty of Peace and that it would be well to appoint an expert Chilean-Peruvian commission to investigate and Hx the source and course of the Sama River. 21 Without, at this time, entering into a discussion of the reasons adduced by Your Excellency in support of your plan for the settlement of the Tarata question, I confine myself to informing Your Excellency that by today's mail I am sending to Lima a copy of Your Excellency's dispatch and that as soon as I receive my Government's reply T shall hasten to communi- cate it to you. Renewing to Your Excellency the assurances of my esteem, I remain, Your Excellency 's obedient servant, Caelos M. Elias. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations, of the Republic of Chile. Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Re- lations of Peru. [Translation] Legation of Pebu in Chile. Santiago, June 10, 1890. Me. Ministee: As to the point that refers to Tacna and Arica, which Senor Matte discussed confidentially with you in that capital, something has also been suggested to me, in friendly and confidential terms, by His Ex- cellency the President of the Republic and by the Minister of Foreign Relations, and I have hastened to make it known, in conformity with your in- structions, that Peru desired to fulfill strictly the Treaty of Peace, without advancing the period desig- nated in it for the plebiscite that is to settle the fate of those territories. 22 No occasion is lost, however, to show how great is the interest of the present Government in anticipating the solution of this delicate subject in a manner favor- able to Chile; although it may not be doubted that it wounds the legitimate patriotic sentiment of Peru. The desire to retain those territories is general in this country; but there are not lacking intelligent people who behold with fear these schemes for territo- rial expansion — objectless in respect of the progress and security of Chile — which tend to postpone a sin- cere reconciliation with Peru, and which are destined to cause deep and justifiable alarm throughout Amer- ica. Becently, in respect to the arrangement referred to by the Protocol of January 8 and by the claims which, to that effect, were presented by the French Legation to this Chancellery, an impetus has been given officially, although in a confidential manner, to this same ques- tion of Tacna and Arica, the representative of Chile in Lima being instructed to communicate to the Government of Peru that if it were disposed to con- sent to the immediate cession of those provinces, that of Chile would have no objection to paying four millions more than the sum stipulated in the Treaty of Anoon. It has been sought to lend respectability to this proposal, which, in my judgment, is in its essence derogatory to the dignity of Peru, by attributing to it the friendly design of aiding her in her arrange- ments with her supposed French creditors, whose claims are supported by the Chancellery at Paris, and Monsieur Bacourt is made to appear to suggest this procedure, which is contrary to every international practice. 23 When His Excellency Senor Mackenna informed me, in a confidential manner, of what was on foot in this respect, I hastened to reiterate to him the declarations that I had already made to the head of the state, and I added to him that I deemed the conduct of the French Plenipotentiary incorrect; but, as the Chilean representative in Lima must be dealing directly with you, I have had no occasion since then to discuss this subject. At all events, your enlightened judgment is not ignorant of how important it is to Peru and to the maintenance of her relations with Chile to regard with a patriotic and far-seeing mind the dangers that may supervene if, on the part of this country, there is not a radical change of policy as to this delicate situ- ation. The demand relative to Chile's unwarranted oc- cupation of a part of the province of Tarata has not prospered at all, owing to the fact that a reply from that office is pending in reference to a proposal made by Chile at the time of my first mission. Never- theless, as there has been presented to the Congress a plan of a municipal law by which several depart- ments were organized in the provinces of Tacna and Arica, after a consultation with you, I formulated the respective remonstrances, calling the attention of this Government that, at the proper time, it should communicate them to the Congress, inasmuch as it is contrary to international law and to the sovereignty of Peru to legislate regarding territories, the pre- carious possession of which places Chile in an ex- ceptional position, and still more so in the case of Tarata, since there was pending a demand of the Peruvian Government in respect of the return of that portion of her territory, which was not included in the temporary cession of Tacna and Arica. 24 Hitherto I have received no reply from this Chancel- lery, but if, in spite of my remonstrances, this part of the plan of a municipal law were to be approved in the Chambers, I should follow your instructions and formulate, in the most formal manner, the re- spective protest. God have you, Mr. Minister, in his keeping. Cablos M. Elias. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation..] (Number 16) MINISTRY OF FOREIGN RELATIONS. Lima, August 10, 1892. Mr. Minister: In conformity with Article III of the Treaty of Peace, signed between Peru and Chile in the year 1883, the territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica were to continue to be possessed by Chile and subject to Chilean legislation and authorities for the period of ten years, reckoned from the ratification of the said Treaty. After the expiration of this period, a plebiscite would decide, by popular vote, whether the territory should remain definitively under the do- minion and sovereignty of Chile, or whether it should continue to be a part of the Peruvian territory. A special protocol would determine the form in which the plebiscite shall be effected, and the terms and periods for the payment of the ten millions stipulated for the ransom of the two provinces. 25 The negotiators of that Treaty did not adjust the protocol, and, as the date on which the period of ten years will expire, reckoned from the ratification, which took place on March 28, 1884, is near at hand, the Peruvian Government considers it necessary to proceed to the negotiation of the said protocol to which I therefore invite Your Excellency to confer on the sub- ject and I trust Your Excellency will indicate to me the day on which our conferences may begin. I reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration. E. Larrabure y Unanue. To His Excellency Senor Don Javier Vial Solar, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile. Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of Foreign Re- lations of Peru. [Translation.] (Number 16) Legation of Chile. Lima, August 11, 1892. Mr. Minister: I have received Your Excellency's communication of this date, in which Your Excellency informs me that inasmuch as no protocol as to the form in which the plebiscite that will decide as to the definitive pos- session of the departments of Tacna and Arica has been adjusted, the Peruvian Government considers . it necessary to proceed to the negotiation of the said protocol, and it invites me to the effect, hoping that I might indicate to Your Excellency the day on which our conferences may begin. 26 In reply, I am pleased to say to Your Excellency that I shall bring to the knowledge of my Government the communication that I am answering as soon as possible, in order that it may take it into consider- ation, according to Your Excellency's desires. I offer to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Javier Vial Solar. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] Ministry of Foreign Relations. Lima, September 5, 1892. My Esteemed Friend: Bearing in mind the desire that you have expressed to me on several occasions as to relations between Chile and Peru, I have formulated the following bases of an arrangement, after conferring with my col- leagues, which may serve for discussion with the re- presentative of Chile. I beg you to be pleased to bring it to the knowledge of your Government. Your most attentive and faithful servant. E. Larrabure y Unanue. Senor Don Javier Vial Solar, Lima. 27 Enclosuke. Note of Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Min- ister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] Memoeandum. Lima, September 5, 1892. The products of Pern and Chile will be imported free of duties through the ports of each country, and in the places of consumption they will pay no other duties than those that affect similar national products. The merchant vessels of the two countries will enjoy, in the ports of each of them, the same privileges and exemptions as the national vessels. The Government of Chile dis occupies the territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, which will con- tinue under the sovereignty and dominion of Peru. The Government of Peru obligates itself: 1. To concede to the Republic of Bolivia one common custom-house, in which the Peruvian tariff regulations will obtain, at the port of Arica. The net revenues of that custom-house will be distributed in the fol- lowing manner: A third part to Bolivia; a second part to continue the cancelation of the Chilean- Bolivian debt; and the rest will be applied by Peru to the payment of sums due on her foreign indebted- ness, legally constituted, according to the Treaty of Ancon. 2. To facilitate the construction of one or more railways and telegraph lines, by private enterprises, which shall connect the port of Arica or the city of Tacna with the territory of Tarapaca or the frontier of Bolivia, with no other burden or other restrictions than those provided by the respective regulations of Peru. 28 The Governments of Pern and Chile will denounce all the treaties of commerce they may have in force at present and the stipulations of which, in the judgment of both, may be opposed to the present convention. They will invite, by common consent, the contiguous South American nations to the conclusion of special treaties of commerce, on the basis of mutual com- pensations in free exchange. A regulative diplomatic agreement — for which the Executive Powers of the two Eepublics are to be authorized by their respective Congresses — will serve as a complement to this convention. Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of Foreign Af- fairs of Peru. [Translation.] Legation of Chile. Lima, September 5, 1892. Dear Sir: I have received your communication of this date, with which you send the bases of a plan of a treaty between Peru and Chile, on which the representatives of the two countries could proceed to a discussion, and which you, with your colleagues of the Cabinet, request me to bring to the knowledge of my Govern- ment. In reply, I am pleased to say that I see no objection to acceding to what you request, and that, as soon as possible, I shall transmit to the Minister of Foreign Eelations your communication and the memorandum that accompanies it. Your very attentive and faithful servant, Javier Vial Solar. Senor Don Eugenio Larrabure y Unanue, Lima. 29 Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] (Number 9.) Ministry of Foreign Relations. Lima, April 4, 1893. Mr. Minister: As the period of ten years set by Article III of the Treaty of Ancon is about to expire and as the de- finitive fate of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, in respect of their future nationality, is to be decided by means of a plebiscite, my Government deems it necessary to proceed to the adoption of the special protocol to which the second part of the afore- mentioned article refers. My Government, impelled by a sense of this neces- sity, saw fit to invite Your Excellency, under date of August 10 of last year, through the medium of one of my predecessors, to the negotiation of the protocol mentioned, and Your Excellency was then so good as to reply that he would bring that communication to the knowledge of the Chilean Government in order that it might be taken into consideration. As I suppose that, after the time elapsed, Your Excellency is advised of the instructions that the Chancellery of Santiago has seen fit to impart to him as to that particular, I am pleased to invite him anew to a negotiation of the aforementioned protocol; and, to that end, Your Excellency will have the goodness to indicate the day on which we may begin the re- spective conferences. I take this new opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency the protestations of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Cesareo Chacaltana. To His Excellency Senor Don Javier Vial Solar, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile. 30 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru. [Translation.] (Number 11.) Legation of Chile. Lima, April 8, 1893. Mr. Minister: In reply to the verbal communication and attached memorandum, which, under date of September 5 of last year, were addressed to me by Senor Larrabure y Unanue, at the time Minister of Foreign Relations, my Government instructs me to express to you the opinion that has been reached as to the proposals to which the said documents refer. My Government is pleased to learn that there still exists in Peru the conviction that the industrial and commercial future of the two Republics depends, in a large measure, on the facilities and stimulus that may be afforded and lent by the legislation of the two countries to the exchange of their chief products. Chile is Peru's natural market in the different lines of articles of consumption of first necessity, as Peru is Chile's in the same respect. It would be idle to enter on an investigation with the narrow criterion of the merchant as to which may be today or within a few years, the more favored by a system of re- ciprocal commercial concessions. The very importance and nature of this subject counsel, in the judgment of my Government, that it should neither be dealt with outside of its natural realm nor be complicated with an affair of so diverse a character, such as that which has to do with the definitive nationality of the departments of Tacna and Arica. 31 My Government, consequently, will always accept with pleasure any indication of Your Excellency's that may have as its object the opening of negotiations for the establishment of a system of reciprocal com- mercial exemptions and privileges, and it will use every favorable opportunity to foster, on its part, proceedings to that effect with the enlightened Govern- ment of Peru; but it holds, at the same time, that there exists no motive that counsels the treatment of this subject in connection with the questions that relate to the definitive possession of the provinces of Tacna and Arica. In obedience to a sentiment of loyalty, I must make it clear to Your Excellency that it does not come within the designs of the policy of my Government to renounce the expectations which the Treaty of Ancon assured to Chile as to the acquisition of the afore- mentioned departments. Tn transmitting this reply, I am pleased to follow the express instructions of my Government to make known to Your Excellency its appreciation of the com- munication to which allusion has been made and its sentiments of deference and friendship toward Your Excellency's Government. I take this opportunity to reiterate to Your Ex- cellency, the assurances of my most respectful and distinguished consideration. Javier Vial Solar. To His Excellency Senor Don Cesareo Chacaltana, Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. 32 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of Foreign Re- lations of Peru. [Translation.] (Number 19.) Legation of Chile. Lima, April 8, 1893. Me. Minister: I have received the esteemed communication dated the fourth of the current month, by which Your Ex- cellency, at the . same time that he invites me to a conference for the discussion of the manner of effect- ing the plebiscite that is to decide as to the definitive nationality of the departments of Tacna and Arica, adds also that, as some months have passed since the day on which a similar invitation was addressed to me by one of Your Excellency's predecessors, it is to be supposed that I have already received the re- spective instructions from the Chancellery of Santiago as to the consideration of this important affair with Your Excellency. I should take occasion, Mr. Minister, to recall past events, which relate to the esteemed communication to which I am replying, if the allusion that Your Ex- cellency makes to the invitation that was addressed to me with the same object by one of his predecessors in the Ministry did not perhaps reveal an erroneous opinion regarding the interest and solicitude with which both the Chancellery of Santiago and its representatives in Peru, sought constantly an agree- ment regarding this subject with Your Excellency's Government. As to what concerns my honorable predecessors in this Legation, there must be some documents in the archives of that Ministry that could make clear to Your Excellency the earnest desire with which my 33 Government has attempted on several occasions to reach, in reference to this point, a proper solution and one in harmony with the well recognized interests of the two countries; and as for myself, it is hardly necessary for me to say to Your Excellency what your predecessors themselves could, better perhaps than I, explain. Indeed, not on one, but on many occasions have I had the honor to discuss with Your Excellency 's pred- ecessors the manner in which this delicate affair could be settled. Unfortunately, my efforts did not lead to any practical results, because the ideas introduced into the discussion were not well received by one or the other of the parties because the natural development to which they lent themselves was interrupted because of a change in the personnel of the Cabinet or because of some occurrence of another nature. The former invitation itself, which Your Excellency recalls in the esteemed communication to which I am replying, is a good proof of what I have said, since it gave place to several conferences on the subject between Senor Larrabure y Unanue and myself. So then — and replying to the invitation that Your Excellency addresses to me with a view to renewing the pending negotiations — I am pleased to be able to say to you that I shall do myself the honor to accept it on the day and at the hour that Your Ex- cellency may see fit to indicate to me. I take, Mr. Minister, this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency the sentiments of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Javier Vial Solar. To His Excellency, Senor Doctor Cesareo Chacaltana, Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. 34 First Conference Betiveen Minister of Chile in Peru and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru. [Translation.] [Lima, April 18, 1893.] Met in the Ministry of Foreign Relations Senor Don Cesareo Chacaltana, Minister of the Department, and Senor Don Javier Vial Solar, Envoy Extra- ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, for the purpose of opening negotiations conducive to the adoption of the protocol to which reference is made in the second part of Article III of the Treaty of Peace and Amity signed on October 20, 1883, and they agreed to place on record in the present minutes the declarations that are set forth as follows: The Minister of Foreign Relations said that the Government of Peru, in view of the proximity of the expiration of the period, after the termination of which the plebiscite mentioned in the article alluded to ought to be effected, and of the necessity that the respective protocol should be approved by the Congresses of the two Republics, deemed it opportune to proceed to its discussion, and that, with this object in view, the Minister had invited the Minister of Chile, who had seen fit to reply favorably. The Minister of Chile said that, in truth, as he had already had the honor to communicate in the note of the eighth of the current month, the Government of Chile saw no objection to proceeding to nego- tiations. Then the Minister of Foreign Relations explained that there existed an antecedent in respect of which concrete opinions had been expressed by the two Governments. When Senor Larrabure y Unanue was in charge of this office, there was proposed to the 35 Government of Chile, in a confidential manner and through the medium of its representative in Lima a plan of agreement that contained certain bases for a treaty of free commercial exchange between the two countries and for the return to Peru of the provinces of Tacna and Arica under the conditions therein in- dicated. In a note, recently addressed to this Ministry by the representative of Chile, the latter had made it clear that, although his Government was disposed to conclude a commercial treaty with Peru, it did not deem it expedient that an undertaking of this nature should be complicated with the one relative to the definitive nationality of the territories mentioned. For this reason the Minister of Foreign Relations con- sidered it necessary to explain that, if the ob- servations of the Government of Chile had been con- fined to this subject, there would assuredly have been no obstacle to separating the subjects and to entering on two different negotiations, the results of which would be, in turn, incorporated in different protocols. But, the reply of the Minister of Chile was not confined to opposing this separation, for he said besides, that the Government of Chile did not think of renouncing the expectations which, in its view, the Treaty of Peace held out to Chile in respect of the acquisition of Tacna and Arica: a declaration that was equivalent, in the judgment of the Government of Peru, to regarding the nego- tiation in question as terminated for the present, in order to make room for the discussion of the protocol provided for in the aforementioned Article III of the Treaty. The Minister of Chile replied that, as the Minister of Foreign Relations had just stated, that negotiation 36 ought to be looked upon as ended for the present, and that the discussion ought to be confined to the special protocol of the plebiscite, if another procedure were not accepted by the two parties; but that, even if they entered into this negotiation, he thought it would not constitute an obstacle that would prevent the two Governments, as the Government of Chile had sug- gested, from occupying themselves also with their com- mercial regulations, which were so important to the future of each country and might so greatly influence their progress and growth. The Minister of Foreign Eelations explained that the Peruvian Government did not renounce the pur- pose of promoting, when the opportunity should arise, commercial agreements with Chile on liberal bases and with reciprocal advantage; and that, with this in view, he was collecting data and information on the subject, in order to give them concrete and de- finite form. After what has been set forth, the negotiators agreed to proceed to discuss the bases of the protocol that occasioned this conference. Cesareo Chacaltana. Javier Vial Solar. Lima, April 18, 1893. Second Conference Between Minister of Foreign Re- lations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [Lima, June 19, 1893.] In the Ministry of Foreign Relations met, under date of this day, the Minister of the Department, Don Jose Mariano Jimenez, and the Envoy Extraordinary 37 and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Javier Vial Solar, to continue the conferences undertaken for the drafting of the protocol to which the plebiscite pro- vided for in Article III of the Treaty of Peace is to be subject. The Minister of Foreign Relations declared that the first article of the convention ought to determine the authority under whose control the plebiscite should be effected and that, since it was agreed that the present occupation of Chile should continue for ten years, he proposed that, on the expiration of this period, the possession of the temporarily occupied provinces be re- turned to Peru, as they belong to her by reason of rights that grow out of her character as direct sover- eign. The Minister of Chile took the opposite ground, as he denied the sovereignty of Peru over the provinces mentioned and as, in the judgment of his Government, it might by no means be deduced from the Treaty that the said territories must be returned to the possession of Peru on the ground of the mere fact of the expira- tion of the ten years. The Minister of Foreign Eelations replied that the proposal of the Minister of Chile was not in confor- mity with the letter of the Treaty, which limited the period of occupation to ten years, after the expiration of which a plebiscite would be effected, that is, when the Chilean authorities did not exercise dominion over the territories mentioned ; that the latter were qualified in the Treaty as simple possessors ; that Peru had not ceased to be the sovereign, both because of this circum- stance and because sovereignty is lost only by a treaty of territorial cession, a character not possessed by this part of that of Ancon. 38 The Minister of Chile replied that he could not ac- cept this interpretation, since the date specified in con- nection with the ten years referred only to the time of the plebiscite and no more ; that the occupation of Chile until this act should be accomplished definitively and the obligations of the Treaty fulfilled, was taken for granted in the article referred to by the Minister of Foreign Eelations; and that, finally, the very nature of this Treaty is tantamount to a territorial cession subject to the condition of the vote of the inhabitants. After a prolonged discussion, and as there was no agreement between the Plenipotentiaries in reference to their contradictory proposals, it was decided to make a record of them and to adjourn the conference. Jose Mariano Jimenez, Javier Vial Solar. Lima, June 19, 1893. Third Conference Between Minister of Foreign Rela- tions of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [Lima, June 30, 1893.] Met in the Ministry of Foreign Relations, the Minis- ter of the Department, Don Jose Mariano Jimenez, and the Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Javier Vial Solar, to continue to discuss the manner in which is to be effected the plebiscite referred to in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, and they voted to record the following : The Minister of Foreign Eelations said that, as the Minister of Chile had announced that the Gov- ernment of his country would not deliver to Peru the 39 territories of Tacna and Arica on March 28, 1894, on which date would expire the period of temporary pos- session granted to that country by Clause III of the Treaty of Ancon, he proposed, as a compromise, that the said territories should be delivered, on the date mentioned, to a third power, designated by common consent, under whose auspices the plebiscite would be effected, and which would immediately return them to Chile or Peru, according to what the result of the vote might be. The Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile replied that the proposal of the Minister of Foreign Eelations was, in the judgment of his Government, unacceptable, in view of the reasons that substantiated the right of Chile to occupy the disputed territories before and after the plebiscite and until Peru should fulfill all the obligations that Clause III of the Treaty imposed on her. After a long discussion on the subject and as no agreement was reached, the conference was adjourned. Jose Mariano Jimenez, Javier Vial Solar. Lima, June 30, 1893. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] (Number 19.) Ministry of Foreign Eelations. Lima, August 19, 1893. Mr. Minister: As the Government of Peru desires to reach an un- derstanding in respect of the bases of the protocol 40 that is to regulate the plebiscite that is to decide as to the definitive possession of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, and as this agreement has not been secured hitherto, because of the different interpretations that the parties give to Article III of the Treaty of Peace of 1883, I am pleased to transmit to Your Excellency the attached memorandum, the proposals of which reconcile, in my judgment, the demands presented in our former conferences and look to the fulfillment of the stipulations in force between the two countries. I beg Your Excellency, if he deem it proper to do so, to communicate this memorandum to the Government of Chile in order that it may have the goodness to say whether or not on these bases a definitive arrange- ment might be adjusted. With sentiments of the highest consideration, I sign myself as Your Excellency's attentive and faithful servant, Jose Mariano Jimenez. To His Excellency Don Javier Vial Solar, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile. Enclosure . Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.! Memorandum. Lima, August 19, 1893. Inasmuch as an accord was not reached between the Plenipotentiaries of Peru and Chile as to which of these Governments has the right to occupy the terri- 41 tories of Tacna and Arica during the plebiscite to which Article III of the Treaty of Ancon relates, it is agreed that Peru will possess the zone comprised be- tween the Sama Eiver and the Vitor ravine and that Chile will continue in the tenancy of the zone between this ravine and that of Camarones. On March 28, 1894, will be delivered to Peru the part of the territory that belongs to her, and within the sub- sequent thirty days each country will decide as to the procedure for the vote in her respective zone, she being free to designate the personal qualifications of the voters. The plebiscite will be effected before Oc- tober 1, 1894. If the vote should be favorable to Peru in both sec- tions, she will pay to Chile the indemnity agreed on in the Treaty in the following manner : The natural and manufactured products of Chile and their respective containers will be brought in free of import duties through the custom-houses of Peru for twenty-five years, and they will not pay in the terri- tory of the latter country other consumption taxes than those actually in force for similar national prod- ucts. If the plebiscite should favor Peru in the zone from the Sama to the Vitor only, the proportionate indem- nity will be paid in the same way, but with a reduction of the period of free entry to twenty years. Lima, August 19, 1893. 42 Minister of Chile in Peril to Minister of Foreign Rela- tions of Peru. [Translation.] (Number 19.) Legation of Chile. Lima, August 19, 1893. Mr. Minister: I have received the esteemed communication of this day in which Your Excellency transmits to me a memo- randum of proposals, which, in Your Excellency's judgment, reconcile the demands presented in our former conferences with a view to the fulfillment of the stipulations that prevail between the two coun- tries as to the manner in which is to be effected the plebiscite to which Clause III of the Treaty of Peace of 1883 refers. Without being able to express at once any opinion as to the proposals mentioned, I am pleased, never- theless, to inform you that by the post of to-day I shall make my Government acquainted with their contents, in order that, as soon as possible, it may decide as to what may be expedient. I take this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excel- lency the assurances of my high and distinguished con- sideration. Javier Vial Solar. To His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Relations, Doctor Don Jose Mariano Jimenez. 43 Fourth Conference Between Minister of Foreign Rela- tions of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [Lima, September 16, 1893.] Met at the office of the Ministry of Foreign Kela- tions, the Minister of the Department, Don Jose Mariano Jimenez, and the Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary of Chile, Don Javier Vial Solar, the former said that, in the several conferences held with the Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile to agree on the bases of the protocol that should serve for the plebiscite of Tacna and Arica, he had striven to convince the latter that the right of suffrage be- longed to none except Peruvians born and residing in the territories occupied by Chile; that, as to the age of the Peruvians, although he had reasons to maintain that from the age of eighteen men could be held re- sponsible for their actions, and, consequently, that they ought not to be denied the right to designate the Peru- vian or the Chilean nationality in favor of which they might wish to choose, he agreed to establish this right for those of over twenty-one years, an age required by the laws of Peru for the exercise of citizenship ; that, as the Minister of Chile had not accepted these ideas, and as the Minister of Foreign Eelations had not de- sired to continue the negotiation, if an agreement could not be reached in respect of the authority that was to control the territories during the plebiscite, he proposed today that if the Minister of Chile did not object to leaving on record the declarations made pre- viously, contrary to the proposals indicated in refer- ence to the requirements for voting, he might again set forth what he believed to be his duty and to be in con- formity with his instructions. 44 The Minister of Chile explained that, in truth, in the constant exchange of ideas to arrive at an agree- ment as to the bases of the protocol for the plebiscite, the Minister of Foreign Eelations had given utterance to the ideas that had just been expressed, as the speaker had in turn maintained that Chile could not accept them save in part* for he held that all the in- habitants of the territory possessed by Chile had the right to declare their will to belong either to Peru or to Chile; that there were not, in his opinion, sufficient grounds to attempt to restrict the recognition of this right of foreigners of all nationalities and still less of Chileans who might not be considered as foreigners in the territory of Tacna and Arica; that these ideas of the Government of Chile were in conformity with the antecedents of international law and practice; and must certainly be applicable to the present case, in discussing a territory such as Tacna and Arica, in which, on the one hand, the interests are in the hands of Chileans, and in which, on the other, the very nature of Chile's possession makes it necessary that the Chileans settled there should be logically con- sidered as citizens; that these ideas had also already been under consideration, on different occasions, set forth by the representative of Chile to some of the predecessors of the present Minister of Foreign Ee- lations, as the expression of the thought of the Chilean Government on this point, whenever the discussion of this subject had been provoked; that he himself did not believe either that the negative could be proved in order to proceed to discuss, in case Chile cannot con- sent to the proposals of Peru, relative to the fact that Chilean authorities should not be those that should govern the territories during the plebiscite. 45 The Minister of Foreign Relations replied that he did not consider applicable to the present case the in- ternational antecedents of history to which the Mini- ster of Chile alluded, because in the Treaty of Ancon it was expressly determined that, by popular vote, a resolution should be reached as to the future nation- ality of the territories, and that this popular vote could not refer to any save Peruvian citizens, a char- acter not possessed by the other inhabitants. The Minister of Chile replied that the very Treaty of Ancon itself spoke of a popular plebiscitary vote, which was equivalent to saying that the international antecedents of this kind of vote are applicable to it, whereby the observation of the Minister of Foreign Eelations was refuted. Whereupon an extensive discussion was renewed, and the speaker for each party, maintaining his ex- treme opinions, they agreed to leave a record of them in the present protocol, without prejudice to each of the negotiators formulating in a memorandum the bases of their respective proposals. Jose Mariano Jimenez, Javier Vial Solar. Lima, September 16, 1893. Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of Foreign Rela- tions of Peru. [Translation.] (Number 26.) Legation of Chile. Lima September 26, 1893. Mr. Minister : I have the honor to communicate to Your Excel- lency the reply of my Government to the proposals contained in the memorandum of August 19 of the cur- 46 rent year, which, at Your Excellency's suggestion, I was pleased to bring to the knowledge of the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Chile. My Government has learned with genuine satisfac- tion of the contents of said memorandum, since it con- siders it a manifestation of the laudable spirit of cor- diality that has animated the Government of Peru on this occasion; and so esteeming it, it has sought to devote to the study of its several complex provisions all the attention that their nature and broad scope de- mand. After this examination, my Government holds that, although it is true that some of the general ideas ex- pressed in the aforementioned memorandum might serve as a basis for the discussion of an arrangement that would consult, in a solid and permanent manner, the reciprocal advantages of the two countries, on the other hand, some of its concrete provisions, without having due regard for that just reciprocity, would be difficult to apply in practice, and they would give rise, perhaps, to difficulties, which ought always to be fore- seen in a negotiation such as this. In view of these considerations and without dis- esteeming in the least the proposals that Your Excel- lency, through the medium of the undersigned, has seen fit to communicate to it, my Government trusts that this spirit of cordiality, which has been and will always be the form of its procedure and which has in- spired the Government of Peru, in this incident of the negotiation, will soon assume the form of an agree- ment equitable and advantageous to both countries. I reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration. Javier Vial Solar. To His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Eelations, Doctor Don Jose Mariano Jimenez. 47 Fifth Conference Between Minister of Foreign Rela- tions of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [Lima, November 10, 1893.] Met in this department, the Minister of the Port- folio Don Jose Mariano Jimenez, and the Envoy Extra- ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Javier Vial Solar, for the purpose of continuing the negotiations as to the protocol of the plebiscite rela- tive to the provinces of Tacna and Arica, to which reference is made in the Treaty of Ancon, the Minister of Chile explained that, as he had already said in his communication of September 26th last, although it is true that his Government had regarded the proposals of the Peruvian Chancellery, contained in the memo- randum of August 19 of the current year, as a proof that the Government of Peru desired to reciprocate the friendly sentiments of that of Chile in this negotia- tion; nevertheless, those proposals did not consult in all their parts, the reciprocity of rights of the two countries on the basis of the Treaty of Ancon ; that the Government of Peru, without reasons deduced from the letter and just interpretation of those stipulations, demanded in the memorandum the disoccupation of the territory comprised between the Eiver Sama and the Vitor ravine, that is, almost the whole of the prov- ince of Arica and the province of Tacna, a disoccupa- tion that the Government of Chile could not, by any means, accept, save as a consequence of the adverse result of the plebiscite and the fulfillment of the obli- gations enunciated in the Treaty; and that for the commercial privileges offered by Peru — which might serve rather to strengthen and to consolidate their re- lations of friendship than as a pecuniary stimulus, a 48 commercial bond based on the reciprocal interests of the two countries— other considerations relative to the principle of the possession recognized and sanctioned by the Treaty of Ancon could not be postponed; that these very privileges, while it is true that they would supply Peru with the means of paying conveniently and without positive sacrifices a considerable number of millions — a payment which, made in any other way, would deeply affect her economic situation — on the other hand, would not be of equal importance to Chile ; that the faculty reserved to the Government of Peru in the memorandum, of decreeing, without any partici- pation on the part of Chile, the regulations that would determine the qualifications for the exercise of the right of suffrage in the zone comprised between Sama and Vitor, would assure Peru the evident reincorpora- tion of the disputed territories, with detriment to the just expectations of Chile in this respect; that, for these reasons, which were explained in his aforemen- tioned official communication of September last, he thought that he ought not to accept as a basis of dis- cussion the memorandum mentioned, since it would be impossible for the negotiation to progress on the basis of a prior disoccupation. The Minister of Foreign Eelations said that he had proposed in the memorandum the disoccupation of the zone comprised between the River Sama and the Vitor ravine, as a consequence of the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Ancon, and for the reasons that he set forth in the protocol of the second conference ; that if, as the Minister of Chile asserted, the considerations that compelled Chile to retain possession of the territories until the plebiscite should be adverse to her could not be deferred in favor of the commercial privileges offered by Peru, the proposal mentioned could not, in 49 reality, be maintained; that, furthermore, this result led to the observation made by the Minister of Chile, that, in the memorandum, should be reserved to the Peruvian Government the right to dictate the regula- tions that would decide, as to the qualifications for ex- ercising the right to vote in the zone comprised be- tween Sama and Vitor; a reservation which, in the judgment of the said Minister, would assure to Peru the manifest reincorporation of the territories, to the detriment of the just expectations of Chile; that, in respect of this, he ought to make it clear that this con- cession of the right to decide as to the qualifications of voters was also left to Chile in the memorandum, in respect of the zone of Vitor and Camarones ; and that, at all events, Peru would have proceeded by using as a basis the stipulations of the Treaty, universally ac- cepted principles of justice and other antecedents as a basis. The Minister of Foreign Relations concluded by saying that, in view of the declaration of the Mini- ster of Chile, it would be impossible for the negotia- tion to make headway on the basis of a previous disoc- cupation, he, on his part, regarded it as concluded. The Minister of Chile said that, before adjourning this conference, he deemed it necessary to affirm that he saw no objection to continuing the discussions whenever the Minister of Foreign Relations should invite him, since his Government considered that it would be possible to arrive at an understanding, with- out it being necessary for that purpose, to alter the present situation of the territories. Jose Mariano Jimenez, Javieb Vial Solar. Lima, November 10, 1893. 50 Sixth Conference Between Minister of Foreign Rela- tions of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [Lima, December 7, 1893.] Met in this office the Minister of Foreign Relations Don Jose Mariano Jimenez, and the Envoy Extra- ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Javier Vial Solar, on the invitation of the former, for the purpose of resuming the conferences for the drawing up of a protocol for the plebiscite in the terri- tory of Tacna and Arica. The Minister of Foreign Relations said that, as an agreement regarding the interpretation of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon had not been reached, and as the Minister of Chile had not accepted the suggested means of overcoming the existing difficulties, he pre- sented the proposal that the following questions be submitted to a friendly Government for immediate solution: first, to which of the two countries ought to belong the possession of the territories after March 28, 1894; and, second, does the right to vote include only persons whose nationality would be affected by definitive incorporation with Chile, or also other in- habitants! The Minister of Foreign Relations added that they would proceed according to the result of the arbitral decision to discuss the regulations for the registration of voters and other procedures of the plebiscite, as well as the terms and periods in which the indemnity would have to be paid by the country that might be favored. The Minister of Chile said that, although he had no instructions from his Government to accept or to re- ject the arbitration proposed by the Minister of Foreign Relations, nevertheless, with the general in- 51 structions that had been given him he could declare that this means of understanding and settlement was unacceptable; for, in order to be so, it would be neces- sary to suppose that the possession of the territory of Tacna and Arica, which Chile enjoys by virtue of the prescriptions of the Treaty of Ancon, was a disputable subject or one of doubtful right, which could not be admitted, even for a moment, as he has had the honor to declare on repeated occasions to the Minister of Foreign Relations. The Minister of Chile added that he regretted that the Government of Peru insisted on ideas of a character that would render an agreement between the two countries impossible. The Minister of Foreign Relations replied that the ideas set forth, both by him and by his predecessors in the Ministry, regarding this particular, were based, in the judgment of the Peruvian Government, on the letter of the Treaty of Ancon and on the very just de- mand that the plebiscite should be effected under con- ditions necessary to assure that the result would be regarded as the free and spontaneous expression of the will of the populations of Tacna and Arica. The Minister of Chile replied that this demand seemed natural to him, but that he did not consider the one suggested by the Minister of Foreign Affairs the appropriate way to satisfy it ; for the Peruvian Gov- ernment ought to have the firmest faith in Chile's honor and loyalty; an honor and loyalty of which he saw no objection to affording new proof by agreeing to such guaranties, as, by common consent, might be deemed opportune to assure a free and spontaneous polling of the vote on the occasion of the plebiscite. The Minister of Foreign Relations asked the Mini- ster of Chile whether he was authorized to include among those guaranties the participation of Peruvian 52 functionaries in the plebiscitary act and the fixing of the qualifications that ought to be possessed by voters. The Minister of Chile replied that if the Minister of Foreign Relations would carry the discussion to that realm and would formulate any concrete proposal, he believed it would be easy to arrive at an agreement ac- ceptable to both countries. Jose Mariano Jimenez, Javier Vial Solar. Lima, December 7, 1893. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] (Number 5.) Ministry of Foreign Relations. Lima, January 26, 1894. Mr. Minister: As a result of the agreement at which we have ar- rived in our verbal conferences and pursuing the order of ideas taken up in the last part of the minutes of December 7, I have the honor to present the following general bases for the drafting of the definitive protocol that ought to be adopted, according to Article III of the Treaty of Peace of 1883. The plebiscite will be effected under such conditions of reciprocity as the two Governments may deem necessary to assuring an honest vote, one that shall be the faithful and exact expression of the popular will of the provinces of Tacna and Arica. 53 II. Whichsoever of the two countries to which the said provinces shall be annexed will pay to the other ten million soles stipulated in the aforementioned Article III, in bonds of the public debt, at four and one-half per cent interest and one per cent for amortization. The bonds of Chile will be quoted at the mean rate at which those of the same kind have stood during the previous six months in the London market, and the bonds of Peru, at the rate that shall be agreed on be- tween the two Governments, which must be at least sixty per cent. The Government that shall issue the said bonds may, at any time, amortize them totally or partially at the rate at which they were accepted at the time of their issuance. III. Coupons for accrued interest and matured bonds will be received in payment of the customs duties of the country that may issue them. IV. In case Chile should triumph in the plebiscite, Peru may rectify her frontier on the Sama by advancing as far as the southern bank of the Chero ravine, which begins at Punta Quiaca and ends in the Cordillera south of the Nevado Pallagua, the dividing line being extended to the source and course of the Uchusuma. On the other hand, if Peru should be favored, Chile may rectify her frontier of Camarones, advancing as far as the north bank of the Vitor ravine or Chaca, in- cluding the cove of the same name, the dividing line ex- tending through the said ravine to its southern slope and the boundary with Bolivia. 54 The country that shall make use of the right that is conceded her on this basis will pay to the other the sum of three million soles, which will be deducted from the total sum of the indemnity. I request that Your Excellency have the goodness also to formalize your acceptance. I am pleased to add that the Peruvian Government desires to proceed as soon as possible to the discussion of stipulations as to the details that ought to complete the bases submitted above, and that it doubts not that the necessary agreement will be reached in order to assure the solidarity and spirit of reciprocal conces- sions that constitute the basis and grounds of the pres- ent note and of the definitive protocol. I reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my high and distinguished consideration. Jose Mariano Jimenez . To His Excellency Senor Don Javier Vial Solar, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile. Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of Foreign Rela- tions of .Peru, [Translation.] Legation of Chile. Lima, January 26, 1894. Mr. Minister : I have had the honor to receive Your Excellency's important communication of this date, in which you propose to me the bases, which, once accepted by me, 55 will facilitate the drafting of the definitive protocol to which Article III of the Treaty of Ancon refers. In reply, I am pleased to say to Your Excellency that I accept the afore-mentioned bases, desiring thus to afford to the Right Excellent Government of Peru a new proof of the lofty spirit of cordiality with which the Government of Chile has incessantly sought to re- move the obstacles that hinder the happy conclusion of this negotiation. I have the honor, Mr. Minister, to reiterate to Your Excellency the sentiments of my most distinguished consideration. Javier Vial Solar. To His Excellency Senor Don Jose Mariano Jimenez, Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. Memorandum Submitted by Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] [February 23, 1894.} The plebiscite referred to in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon will be effected under the conditions stipu- lated in the following articles, with a view to securing a vote that shall faithfully and accurately express the popular will of the provinces of Tacna and Arica. I. There will be formed in the city of Tacna, when the registration of those that have a right to vote is begun, a superior committee or board composed of one delegate appointed by the Government of Chile, another by the Government of Peru and an umpire, who will be desig- nated by the * * * of * * *. 56 This board will have exclusive powers of its own to make up the general register of voters whose names are listed in the partial registers of the localities desig- nated in a later article ; to order the publication of this general register ; and to make the scrutiny and the gen- eral regulations of the suffrage, announcing the result of the vote, which it will communicate immediately to both Governments. Also it will settle, without appeal, by a majority of votes, all the difficulties, doubts and questions that arise in respect of registration and during the voting, which shall be made to appear in the respective min- utes, or in written reports of the commissaries of each locality. n. The inscription in the partial registers and the recep- tion of the votes will be effected by joint committees composed of one delegate appointed by the Govern- ment of Chile, and another, by the Government of Peru, and they will function, for the province of Tacna, in the city of the same name, and in * * * and, for the province of Arica, in the city of this name and in * * *. in. The registration committees will establish quarters a month after the ratification of the present protocol and they will function for another month, beginning with the date on which their installation shall be announced. The reception of votes will begin fifteen days after the publication of the general register of voters and it will continue for, five days, and in each of them the respective minutes, in which will be made to appear the result of the vote, will be kept. 57 IV. Only those who fulfill the following conditions will be accepted for inscription in the registers as voters: 1. Peruvians, married or more than twenty-one years of age, w T ho reside at present in the provinces of Tacna and Arica. 2. Chileans, married or more than twenty-one years of age, who can establish a continuous residence of two years in the said provinces of Tacna and Arica and who live there at present. Persons in the public military service, employees of the administration or those that may have lost or have had suspended the rights of citizenship, in conformity, without distinction, with the laws of Chile or Peru, may not vote. V. Whichsoever of the two countries to which the said provinces shall be annexed will pay to the other the ten million soles stipulated in the aforementioned Ar- ticle III, in bonds of the public debt, at four and one- half per cent interest and one per cent for amortiza- tion. The bonds of Chile will be quoted at the mean rate at which those of the same kind have stood during the previous six months in the London market; and those of Peru, at seventy-five per cent of their nominal value. VI. Coupons for accrued interest and matured bonds will be received in payment of the customs duties of the country that issues them. 58 VII. In case Chile should triumph in the plebiscite, Peru may rectify her frontier on the Sama by advancing as far as the southern bank of the Chero ravine, which begins at Punta Quiaca and ends in the cordillera south of the Nevado Pallagua, the dividing line being ex- tended to the source and course of the Uchusuma. On the other hand, if Peru should be favored, Chile may rectify her frontier through Camarones, advanc- ing as far as the north bank of the Vitor or Chaca re- vine, including the cove of the same name and the dividing line extending through the said ravine to its southern slope and the boundary with Bolivia. The country that shall make use of the right that is conceded her on this basis will pay to the other the sum of three million soles. vm. After the communication of the result of the plebi- scite to the two Governments by the superior board of Tacna, if it shall have been favorable to Peru, the Gov- ernment of Chile will adopt the measures that may be necessary for the delivery of the occupied territories to Peru, within a period that will not exceed thirty days, reckoned from the date on which it may receive the information. Both contracting parties engage to take, by common consent, in the case indicated, the necessary precau- tions to insure that the authorities or commissioners that may be appointed by the Government of Peru shall receive from the Chilean authorities the establishments, public buildings and offices in the state in which they shall be bona fide on the day designated for that pur- pose, as well as the archives, documents and registers 59 relative to the judicial, civil and other administration in respect of the management and government of the territories. IX. In case the plebiscite shall be favorable to Chile, Pe- ruvian citizens, native and otherwise, of the territories of Tacna and Arica, with residence in them, shall pre- serve their nationality, save by a declaration to the contrary, with the enjoyment of the rights that are accorded to foreigners by the laws of Chile, or such as may be derived from treaties between the two na- tions. It is understood that the same right is recognized in respect of Peruvian citizens in the strip of territory comprised between the Camarones ravine and Vitor, in case that territory remain under the dominion of Chile, by virtue of the right of rectification stipulated in Article VII. X. The contracting parties reserve the right to settle, by a later protocol, what relates to the course of pend- ing litigations and rules of jurisdiction that are to prevail in case the territories of Tacna and Arica shall be restored to Peru as a result of the plebiscite. Confidential Memorandum Delivered by Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru, [Translation.] [Lima, March 9, 1894.] The Minister of Chile was in my office on Tuesday of the present week for the purpose of reminding me 60 of the incidents of the discussion that we held be- fore formalizing the agreement that appears in the notes of January 26 last. As the protocolization of our conferences has not yet been carried into effect, because the said Minister told me that the instruc- tions of his Government prescribed that he should em- ploy the verbal and confidential form, I have thought that I might not avoid setting down the following narrative of events: I. Senor Vial Solar sought to have included among the bases a basis that would embody the idea that the territories should remain during the plebiscite, in the same state as that in which they are to-day. I told him that it would be unnecessary to say so, for, only in order to change the person of the occupant would an express declaration be necessary. The Min- ister deemed my view of the case just. II. The same Minister desired that Article I of the bases should be drafted in the following manner, according to my recollection: ' ' The plebiscite will be effected under conditions that shall guarantee an honest procedure and a free vote. " I held out for the specification of these guaranties, but I could only obtain declarations similar to those that appear in the protocol of the fourth conference. I then said that I might propose no basis that would not assure me that an agreement founded on an equality of conditions would be consented to by Chile, and I proposed the following draft: ''The plebiscite Gl Avill be effected under conditions of the most absolute equality. ' ' Sen or Vial Solar declined, alleging that he had no instructions from his Government to accept such an equality. I replied that this was to me a condition sine qua non, and that the contrary exigency made it clear that his purpose was not to give proper guar- anties. He denied this idea, and, finally, we agreed, each maintaining his own ideas, to put in the word reciprocity, in order that an agreement might be reached between the two parties by the use of this term. III. Senor Vial Solar held that it would be a condition of the arrangement to constitute a tribunal to decide as to claims for damages suffered by Chileans. I answered that this subject had no relation to the one we were discussing and that the Peruvian Govern- ment would not object to negotiating the respective convention separately. IV. Senor Vial also presented the following request: "Peru will withdraw her opposition to the functioning of the tribunal of Berne." I made the same objection on the ground of inconsistency and in respect of it, I told him that Peru would not object to withdrawing her opposition, in one form or another, on the con- ditions proposed to the French Chancellery by Senor Don Jose Francisco Canevaro, and that I was dis- posed to give instructions to Senor Eibeyro to this effect, as in truth, I have done. Lima, March 9, 1894. 62 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Rela- tions of Chile. [Translation.] (Number 22.) Legation of Peru. Santiago, March 27, 1894. Sir: As the period of the temporary occupation of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, stipulated in the Treaty of Ancon, will expire to-morrow, I have received in- structions from my Government to communicate to Your Excellency that it laments that, for reasons in- dependent of its will, the protocol, by means of which the plebiscite that is to decide definitively the fate of the provinces indicated ought to be organized, has not been .effected. Although the Government of Peru upholds its in- terpretation of Article III of the Treaty of Peace, to the effect that Chile has no right to occupy these territories after March 28, 1894, it confidently hopes that Your Excellency will have the goodness to give special attention to the necessity of giving a definitive form to the bases of a reciprocal compromise on which an agreement was reached on January 26 of the cur- rent year; and that Your Excellency will also be so kind as to consider that the fact of prolonging the occupation of the provinces mentioned beyond the period stipulated, without having settled the con- ditions for the plebiscite can be understood as ap- plicable to Peru only with the reservation of her right as she has upheld it, without prejudice to seek- ing, in the most loyal and sincere spirit, an honorable and practical means of arriving at the solution of this interesting affair, in order to consolidate the friendly 63 understanding that happily exists between the two Governments. I take this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my high and distinguished con- sideration. R. Rtbeyro. To His Excellency Senor Don Ventura Blanco Viel, Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to Minister of Peru in Chile. [Translation.] (Number 620.) Republic of Chile. Ministry of Foreign Relations. Santiago, March 29, 1894. Sir: I have had the honor to acquaint myself with your polite note of the twenty-seventh of the present month, which you were good enough to put into my hands personally yesterday afternoon, at half after three o 'clock. In that communication, you informed me that, as the period of temporary occupation of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, stipulated in the Treaty of Ancon, would expire on the day following the date of your communication, you had received instructions from your Government to signify to this Chancellery that it lamented that, for reasons independent of its will, the protocol, by means of which the plebiscite that is to decide definitively the fate of the provinces indicated ought to be organized, has not been effected. 64 You add that the Government of Peru, although it upholds its interpretation of Article III of the Treaty of Peace, to the effect that Chile has no right to occupy those territories after March 28, 1894, it hopes that the undersigned will give special attention to the necessity of giving a definitive form to the bases of a reciprocal compromise on which an agreement was reached on January 26 of the current year; and that he will also be so kind as to consider that the fact of prolonging the occupation of the provinces men- tioned beyond the period stipulated, without having settled the conditions for the plebiscite may be under- stood as applicable to Peru only, with the reservation of her right as she has upheld it, without prejudice to seeking an honorable and practical means of ar- riving at a solution of this affair. Having transcribed, almost textually, the ideas con- tained in your note with which I am occupying myself, it is my duty to reply to them in conformity with the instructions that I have received from His Excellency the President of the Republic. I must begin, Mr. Minister, by making it clear that my Government — at the same time that it deeply de- plores that hitherto the bases for the holding of the plebiscite have not been settled — believes it to be its duty to declare that it disclaims, absolutely, all re- sponsibility that might be attributed to it in the prem- ises, inasmuch as the standard of conduct to which it has adhered, from the very moment in which it deemed it opportune to suggest the necessity of dis- cussing these bases, is an unimpeachable evidence that its most constant desire has been to seek a thoroughly opportune solution and one that would be in keeping with the Treaty of Ancon. In truth, Mr. Minister, neither you nor your Govern- ment can be unaware — since antecedents that must 65 exist in the Chancellery of Lima corroborate it in an unequivocal manner — that the Government of Chile, in dealing with this question, whether through the medium of its diplomatic representative in Peru or in its direct relations with the Minister of Peru in Chile, has been actuated invariably by a conciliatory and prudent spirit, seeking, as it has sought, as far as it* has been possible for it to do so, to render an easy and expeditious way to a settlement. You know, Mr. Minister, that, although the nego- tiations ought first to have been opened in Santiago, the Chancellery, always having in view the purpose of not hindering or delaying the steps, yielded, without any resistance, to the request that was made by your Government, that the bases of the plebiscite should be discussed in Lima, between His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru and the dip- lomatic representative of Chile. Having analyzed this first point, contained in your note to which I am replying, I proceed to occupy my- self with the declaration that you formulate as to the interpretation that the Government of Peru places on Article III of the Treaty of Peace, to the effect that Chile has no right to the occupation of the territories of Tacna and Arica after March 28, 1894. You must permit me, Mr. Minister, to inform you without delay that my Government does not share your Government's opinion in this respect. You are aware that, prior to the making of the Treaty of Ancon, Chile lawfully occupied the provinces of Tacna and Arica. Hence, if, later, a treaty was signed in which were stated the conditions under which the definitive pos- session of those territories should be decided, it is evident that, until those conditions should be fulfilled, 66 or until there should be an express agreement that should settle things otherwise, occupation ought in- variably to continue to be maintained by Chile. The opinion of my Government as to this phase of the question has been maintained, both by its Pleni- potentiary in Lima, in several of the conferences held with the Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru, and in some of the interviews conducted by the under- signed and his honorable predecessor with the Min- ister Plenipotentiary of Peru. Indeed, in the protocol signed in Lima on December 7, 1893, it appears that His Excellency Senor Jimenez said : "As an agreement regarding the interpretation of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon had not been reached, and as the Minister of Chile had not accepted the suggested means of overcoming the existing difficulties, he presented the proposal that the following questions should be submitted to a friendly Government for immediate solution : first, to which of the two countries ought to belong the territories after March 28, 1894? * * *" To this proposal, as appears in the same protocol, the Minister of Chile replied : "that, although he had no concrete instructions from his Government to accept or to reject the ar- bitration proposed by the Minister of Foreign Re- lations, nevertheless, with the general instruc- tions that had been given him he could declare that this means of understanding and settlement was unacceptable ; for, in order to be so, it would be necessary to suppose that the possession of the territory of Tacna and Arica, which Chile enjoys by virtue of the prescriptions of the Treaty of Ancon, was a disputable subject or one of doubtful right, which could not be admitted even for a 67 moment, as he has had the honor to declare on repeated occasions to the Minister of Foreign Relations. The Minister of Chile added that he lamented that the Government of Peru insisted on ideas of a character that would render an agreement between the two countries impossible." I deem it opportune, besides, to reproduce, next, paragraph I of a memorandum that His Excellency Senor Jimenez placed in the hands of the Plenipoten- tiary of Chile in Peru, which shows the sense and scope of the bases of an arrangement proposed by the former in his official communication of January 26 last, and leaves the way open to the negotiators : " Senor Vial Solar sought to have included among the bases a basis that would embody the idea that the territories should remain, during the plebiscite, in the same state as that in which they are to-day. I told him that it would be unneces- sary to say so, for only in order to change the person of the occupant would an express declara- tion be necessary. Senor Vial Solar deemed my view of the case just." My Government therefore, Mr. Minister, maintains, in this respect, the opinions that it has previously expressed as to Chilean possession of the provinces of Tacna and Arica until the settlement that must be sought in the celebration of the plebiscite. In respect of the ideas contained in your note, to the effect that the Government of Peru confidently hopes that the undersigned will see fit to give especial attention to the general bases of the arrangement presented on January 26 last by His Excellency Senor Jimenez, I hasten to signify to you that if the circum- stances that grow out of the pending ministerial crisis did not place me under the necessity of withdrawing 68 very soon from affairs under my charge, I should be highly pleased to enter upon a thorough study of the said bases and to discuss with you the details that ought to complete them and to fix the conditions and manner in which the plebiscite ought to be effected. In spite of this, you may be assured that my suc- cessor in the office of Foreign Relations will give due attention to the affairs with which I am occupying myself, and in the early settlement of which my Government is as vitally interested as your Govern- ment. Be pleased to accept, in the meanwhile, the assur- ances of my consideration. V. Blanco. To Senor Don Ramon Ribeyro, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Peru in Chile. Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. [Translation.] (No. 43.) Legation of Peru, Santiago, September 21, 1894. Sir: In due course I laid before my Government the re- sults of the conference of July 5th ultimo, which I had the honor to seek from Your Excellency with the ob- ject of renewing the conferences which, during last February, I had the pleasure of holding with Your Excellency's distinguished predecessor for the pur- pose of establishing in the respective protocol the conditions of the plebiscite that is to definitively settle the destiny of the provinces of Tacna and 69 Arica. I am now in receipt of instructions to inform Your Excellency that the Peruvian Government, prompted by the keenest and most sincere desire to arrive at an honorable and equitable solution of this important question, involving as it does the real and permanent interests of Chile and Peru, has every con- fidence that Your Excellency's Government, moved by the same purposes, will be good enough, in view of the present status of the negotiations, to lay before it the Chilean Government's views and opinions in the matter and the means by which, in its conception, the much desired settlement of the pending negotiations may be reached. The proceedings in the case, with which Your Excel- lency is of course familiar, show that on the 4th of April, 1893, the Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile in Peru, having been invited anew to adjust the bases of the protocol, proceeded at once to discuss the different ways in which the two negotiators interpreted the Treaty of Ancon. The results of those conferences were set forth in the acts subsequently subscribed by them. On the 19th of August of the same year the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Relations presented a memorandum containing a series of concrete propositions as a basis for negotiation, which propositions when submitted to the Minister of Chile at his Chancellery, were not ac- cepted, for the reasons specified in the act of November 10th. The parties then proceeded to the consideration of other bases of agreement which, this time, were adopted and agreed to in the form set forth in the exchange of notes of January 26th of the present year. It should be recorded in this connection that aside from the fact that the Minister of Foreign Relations 70 had knowledge of the course and incidents of these negotiations, the undersigned took occasion to speak of it with Your Excellency's distinguished predecessor when he was charged by his Government to overcome the difficulties and reservations which the Chilean Plen- ipotentiary raised against the agreement that among the bases discussed there should be included the even- tual right on the part of Peru to rectify the frontier be- tween the two territories in the event that the plebiscite should be favorable to Chile — a step which, resting upon the support of reciprocity adopted by the Chil- ean Plenipotentiary, resulted satisfactorily. The bases of January 26th having been adjusted, and the Chilean Minister having declared that his instructions were- not broad enough, the Peruvian Government decided to entrust to me the task of pro- ceeding with the negotiations, by that time reduced to fixing on the basis of that reciprocity, the composi- tion of the commissions or boards that were to conduct the plebiscite, the qualifications of the voters and the details relating to the payment of the indemnity; and I was further charged to inform Your Excellency that the Minister of Foreign Relations, in his anxiety lest the negotiations might suffer through postponements or somnolence, hastens to declare to the Chilean Pleni- potentiary that there is no objection to the immediate discussion of the terms of the agreement concerning the indemnification of injured Chileans, provided for in Article XII of the Treaty of Ancon; and that the Minister had therefore instructed me to negotiate the conditions under which Peru might retire from her opposition to the Swiss arbitration stipulated by Your Excellency's Government with the representative of France. 71 After a brief explanation which Your Excellency's predecessor sought from me concerning certain of the bases adopted on January 26th, I was extremely grat- ified to exchange ideas with him relating to the points still open to discussion, starting from an honorable reciprocity, in accordance with the spirit of the Chilean Government in rejecting the memorandum of August 19th and of the Peruvian Government in formulating the proposal of January 26th. Unfortunately at that time occurred the political crisis that brought about the resignation of Sefior don Pedro Montt's Cabinet, Sefior Blanco Viel, Minister of Foreign Eelations, then making it clear to me that it would be impossible to pursue the negotiations, which thereupon were suspended and remained in sus- pense even after the formation of the new Cabinet, as a result of the lamentable death of the President of Peru, General don Kemegio Morales Bermudez, until the recognition of his successor. In obedience to my instructions, following imme- diately upon that recognition, I hastened to renew the interrupted conferences in the hope that I might find in Your Excellency the spirit of friendly cordiality that has guided my Government throughout the course of these protracted negotiations and to put an end to the abnormal situation in which the provinces of Tacna and Arica found themselves. At that time also I had had the opportunity, at the above mentioned inter- view of July 5th, of hearing the resolution of Your Excellency's Government. The Peruvian Government, which is anxious to ar- rive at a conclusion of these laborious negotiations and which flattered itself that it had reached a safe point of departure in the bases of January 26th — having held them to be perfected through the fact that it had 72 received no communication in opposition thereto and that negotiations thereon had been initiated — con- sidered, therefore, that in the interest of an early and satisfactory determination — to which end no sacrifice would be too great — Your Excellency should be pleased to honor me with the communication to which I refer at the outset of this note. I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration. R. Ribeyro. His Excellency, Senor don Mariano Sanchez Fontecilla, Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Pent in Chile. [Translation.] (Number 2507) Republic of Chile, Ministry of Foreign Relations. Santiago, October 4, 1894. Sir: I am pleased to acknowledge the receipt of your courteous communication of the twenty-first of last month, in which you take occasion to inform me that you have brought to the knowledge of your Govern- ment the result of the conference that we held on July 5 of the present year for the purpose of renewing those that you had already held with my honorable prede- cessor. You also inform me, in the communication referred to, that you have received instructions to ad- dress the Chilean Government in order to suggest to it 73 the idea of transmitting to the Government of Peru its views and opinions regarding the means which, in its opinion, may lead to the conclusion of the pending ne- gotiation as to the ultimate fate of the provinces of Tacna and Arica. After the results at which we arrived in the confer- ence of July 5, to which you refer, it will not seem strange to you that this department conceives that there is no need or advantage whatsoever in going over the more or less detailed history of the negotia- tions prior to that date, since those negotiations can possess only an historical or illustrative importance in the negotiations that are to follow. For this same reason, and because new negotiations ought to be opened, the undersigned believed the mo- ment had not yet arrived to formalize in writing the views and opinions' of his Government. Accordingly, he believed also that it would be more conducive to the success of the negotiation that we should hold previ- ously a new conference, which, as you know, took place on the twenty-eighth day of last month. I cherish the hope that this conference — from which, I trust, no inconsiderable results will be obtained in the direction of reaching a solution of the question of the provinces of Tacna and Arica — will, in itself alone, constitute in your mind, as it does in my own opinion, a complete satisfaction of the desire you have seen fit to transmit to me in the name and by the in- structions of your Government. I renew to you the assurances of my highest consid- eration. M. Sanchez Fontecilla. To Senor Don Ramon Ribeyro, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Peru. 74 Minister of Chile in Peru to President of the Council of Government of Per [Translation.] Legation of Chile. The Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipoten- tiary of Chile presents his conrteons salutations to His Excellency, the President of the Council of Government and Minister of Foreign Relations and requests him to have the goodness to grant him an audience, as soon as possible, in order to engage his attention with one of the affairs that has been entrusted to him by his Gov- ernment. Maximo R. Lira takes this opportunity to reiterate to His Excellency Sehor Doctor Don Manuel Candamo the expression of his sentiments of the most distin- guished consideration. o Lima, August 3, 1895. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] Ministry or Foreign Relations. The Minister of Foreign Relations courteously re- turns the salutations of His Excellency the Envoy Ex- traordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile and has the honor to inform him that he will be highly pleased to receive him on Monday, the 5th, at two in the afternoon, to discuss the subject to which he re- fers in his esteemed note of today. Manuel Candamo takes the opportunity to reiterate to Senor Don Maximo R. Lira the assurance of his high and distinguished consideration. Lima, August 3, 1895. 75 Proceedings of the Conference held Between Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [August 5, 1895.] Met under date of this day, at this office the Minister of Foreign Relations, Don Manuel Candamo, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Maximo R. Lira, at the request of the latter, who explained that he had requested this con- ference in order to invite the former to discuss the bases of the protocol to which reference is made in Article III of the Treaty of October 20, 1883. The Minister of Foreign Relations said that, inas- much as the council to which he belonged was a tem- porary government, whose term of office would end in a short time, he considered that, perhaps, the moment was inopportune for the opening of a negotiation of this nature; and he added that Senor Lira had also entertained the same opinion, for when he was in the Ministry, on the eve of his departure for Chile, he told him that he was making use of the permission that his Government had granted him, because he believed that a discussion of this delicate international subject would have to be postponed until the new Government should be established, in view of the temporary character of the Council. The Minister of Chile replied, saying that the recol- lection invoked by Senor Candamo was correct, and that, in truth, he believed, for a certain time, that the Council of Government would not engage in a discus- sion of international questions. He had made this fact clear to his Government, and the latter, also per- suaded that these questions would not be considered, 76 granted him leave to be absent from Lima. Subse- quently, however, the same Council, by accrediting a plenipotentiary to the Government of Bolivia and by intending to send another to Santiago, signified that it deemed it opportune to deal with those questions, and that it desired to discuss them, since it was natural that they should be kept in view in the instructions it had given to the ministers it was sending abroad. As for the rest, even if the Council was to dissolve at once, it would always be wise to gain time and further the undertaking, with all the more reason, said the Minis- ter of Chile, inasmuch as it would not be wasted; for he supposed that the Council would proceed in this affair of an agreement with the already known head of the future Government. The Minister of Foreign Relations promised to sub- mit to the consideration of the Council of Government the invitation of the Minister of Chile, and thereupon the conference adjourned. M. Candamo. M. R. Lipa. In Lima, August 5, 1895. Proceedings of the Conference Held Between Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [August 9, 1895.] Under date of this day, met at this office, the Minis- ter of Foreign Relations, Don Manuel Candamo, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Maximo R. Lira, and the former said that he was ready to listen to the proposals that the 77 latter might wish to make with a view to the execution of the plan enunciated in the conference of the fifth. The Minister of Chile explained that, inasmuch as the possibility of the provinces of Tacna and Arica being annexed to Chile was contemplated in the Treaty of Ancon, he desired to know whether, in the judgment of the Government of Peru, it might be possible to negotiate an arrangement that would lead to the secur- ing of this result without the need of appealing to a plebiscite, and he presented, in favor of a direct ar- rangement, numerous considerations, deduced prin- cipally, from the necessity of ministering to the con- solidation of peace in South America. The Minister of Foreign Relations declared that he considered unacceptable any direct arrangement that should not have as a basis the return to Peru of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, to which the national patriotism was formally pledged; and that, just as Chile seemed determined to cherish the expectations that had been created in her favor by the Treaty of Ancon, so also Peru was resolved to maintain hers. This point was discussed at length until this con- ference ended, after it had been decided that all pro- posals that tended to a solution of the question by direct arrangements should be omitted from its dis- cussion. M. Candamo. M. E, Liea. In Lima, August 9, 1895. 78 Proceedings of the Conference Held Between Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [August 20, 1895.] Under date of this day, met at this office, the Minister of Foreign Relations Don Manuel Candamo, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo- tentiary of Chile, Don Maximo R. Lira. The Minister of Foreign Relations announced that, inasmuch as the idea of seeking a direct arrangement for the solution of the question relative to the future nationality of the provinces of Tacna and Arica had been eliminated from the discussion, it was now time to proceed to discuss the bases of the plebiscite and to begin by determining how the authority that would preside over it should be constituted. The Minister of Chile explained that, in his opinion, the subject ought to be approached otherwise. The Treaty of Ancon submitted the fate of the provinces of Tacna and Arica to two main conditions : that a plebiscite should adjudicate them to Peru or Chile, and that whichsoever of these two nations might obtain them should pay to the other a definite sum of money. It is therefore necessary to assure the effectiveness of the plebiscitary vote, and to ascertain in advance whether the two countries possess the means of ful- filling the second condition. In harmony with this opinion, the Minister of Chile offered, in behalf of his Government, sufficiently to guarantee its capacity to make the disbursement of the sum that would have to be paid if the plebiscite should favor Chile, and he asked the Minister of Foreign Relations to do as much in behalf of Peru. The Minister of Foreign Eelations replied that Peru would be able to pay the indemnity that might pertain to her, in bonds of the public debt or in money, within a period that would not exceed a year, reckoned from the date of the vote that would have restored to her the provinces of Tacna and Arica. The Minister of Chile deemed these offers unaccept- able ; neither the payment in bonds, for this would be equivalent to an incomplete clearing up of the situation and would leave in existence between Chile and Peru the relations of creditor and debtor, from which are wont to result difficulties or troubles ; nor payment within a period, because Chile and Peru would still be placed in a false situation, if the former, as seems natural, should have to continue to occupy Tacna and Arica until the latter should complete the payment of the indemnity. In other respects, he added, the period indicated is unnecessary, because Peru can, from this very moment, seek the sums she would owe to Chile and have them ready against the time when the plebi- scite shall have been effected, which will take place probably within a year, more or less, reckoned from this date. The Minister of Foreign Relations requested the Plenipotentiary of Chile to make his proposal more precise in this respect, and the latter said that an agreement might be made somewhat like the following : a month after the promulgation of the plebiscitary decision, Chile, if the decision were adverse to her, would return to Peru the provinces of Tacna and Arica, and Peru would pay to Chile the sums in which she would become indebted to her. Chile, in turn, would contract an identical obligation. It is under- stood, of course, that this payment must be sufficiently guaranteed. 80 The Minister of Foreign Relations said that he would consult his colleagues of the Council of Govern- ment regarding the point, and this conference ended. M. Candamo, M. R. Liea. In Lima, August 20, 1895. , Proceedings of the Conference Held Between Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [August 23, 1895.] Under date of this day, met in this office, the Minister of Foreign Relations, Don Manuel Candamo, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo- tentiary of Chile, Don Maximo R. Lira. The discussion was continued on the point that had remained pending in the previous conference, relative to the period and guaranties for the payment of the sum which, pursuant to what was stipulated in the Treaty of Ancon, is to be paid to the other country by the one which, according to the result of the plebi- scite, might acquire definitive dominion over the prov- inces of Tacna and Arica. The Minister of Foreign Relations explained that the period of one month, fixed by the Minister of Chile, was too brief, and that the briefest period that might be stipulated ought to be six months, reckoned from the promulgation of the plebiscitary decision, and that, in respect of guaranties, he did not deem it necessary that any in particular should be agreed on, inasmuch as something would have to be determined 81 in case the payment should not be effected within the stipulated period. The Minister. Plenipotentiary of Chile said, on his part, that he insisted on considering sufficient the period he had taken occasion to indicate at the pre- vious conference, for these two reasons: first, be- cause Peru may have been accumulating funds for the ransom of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, since she signed in October, 1883, the Treaty of Ancon, in which was stipulated the payment of a sum of money by her ; and, second, because even now steps might be taken to obtain these funds, she thus having at her disposal, for this purpose, a period of more than a year, which would unquestionably be the one that would elapse between this date and that of the promulgation of the plebiscitary decision. As to the guaranty which, in his opinion, Chile and Peru ought mutually to offer to each other, in order to assure the execution of the plebiscitary decision, Sen or Lira said that he continued to deem it necessary, because of considerations that he had set forth fully in other con- ferences and that still retained all their force. Never- theless, he concluded, perhaps it would be acceptable to substitute for that guaranty some provision that would otherwise assure the definitive settlement of the question relative to the future nationality of the ter- ritories of Tacna and Arica. Whereupon the conference adjourned. M. Candamo. M. R. Liea. In Lima, August 23, 1895. 82 Proceedings of the Conference Held Between Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [October 4, 1895.] Under date of this day, met at the office of Foreign Relations, the Minister of the Department, Doctor Don Meliton F. Porras, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Maximo E. Lira. The Minister of Foreign Relations explained that he had summoned the Minister of Chile in order to continue the conference begun with his predecessor, as it was the firm purpose of his Government to carry to a conclusion the discussions opened, and that he placed it on record, from that moment, that the design of the Peruvian Chancellery, in accepting the discus- sion as to the period in which Peru would pay the in- demnity, if the plebiscite should favor her, was merely to make a deduction from the spirit and letter of the Treaty, which employs the plurals, " periods and terms," in referring to the payment; which, un- questionably, includes the idea of a certain amplitude in the manner of said payment, not compatible with the declarations of the Minister of Chile, who, as a last concession, had decided in favor of the period of one month for the cancellation of the sum mentioned. The Minister of Chile said that it was also the de- sire of his Government, already manifested, quickly to decide the questions that were left pending by the Treaty of 1883 ; and, recalling, as he said, the reasons that he had alleged to Senor Candamo for making his request that a period should be fixed for the pay- 83 ment of the sum to which Article III of that Treaty refers, he said that some period had to be determined, and that it, according to the text of that provision, might be brief or long, of days, of months or of years. He added, further, that he had suggested the period of one month after the announcement of the plebi- scitary decision, as a basis of discussion, with the un- derstanding that Chile and Peru had abundant reasons to desire that it be made brief and no fundamental reason to desire that it should be long. The Minister of Foreign Relations then said that he believed it to be impossible that that was the idea of those who negotiated the Treaty, and that, at all events, he did not make a question of it, but limited himself to proposing an idea, which besides sur- mounting all the difficulties, was in harmony with a noble and lofty aim: that of making a mutual re- nunciation of the indemnity, because it was not in harmony with the sentiment of nationality to permit money to enter into the question of the loss or ac- quisition of inhabited territories, and because, finally, the claims that were pressed by each party made the renunciation perfectly equal and feasible. The Minister of Chile said that, without expressing himself as to the substance of this proposal, he con- sidered the acceptance of it very difficult, inasmuch as it would be equivalent to the annulment and not to the fulfillment of a part of Article III of the Treaty of 1883; that if the subject were approached by this path, it would be necessary to postpone the holding of the plebiscite until a new treaty might be sanc- tioned ; and that as the participation of the Congresses of the two countries would be necessary to effect, it, and as they might or might not favor it, the post- ponement would continue to be for an indefinite period. 84 At all events, as the proposal mentioned had not en- tered into the scope of his instructions, he would con- sult his Government regarding it, if the Minister in- sisted on his doing so. The expediency of this consultation being re- cognized, after a brief discussion, it was decided to adjourn the conference and to hold another meeting as soon as the Minister of Chile should obtain a reply from his Government. M. F. Pokeas, M. R. Lira. In Lima, October 4, 1895. Proceedings of the Conference Held Between Minister of Foreign Relations of Pern and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [October 8, 1895.] Under date of this day, met in the Ministry of For- eign Relations, the Minister of the Department, Doctor Don Meliton F. Porras, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile Don Maximo R. Lira, to continue the discussion of the conditions of the plebiscite that is to decide the fate of Tacna and Arica. The Minister of Chile said that he had received a reply from his Government to the inquiry he had made as to the proposal of the Minister of Foreign Rela- tions relative to the renunciation by both parties of the indemnity provided for in the Treaty of Ancon, and that it had declared the proposal unacceptable, for 85 the same reasons as those that had induced him to ob- ject to it in the preceding conference. He, therefore, added that the moment had arrived to continue to oc- cupy themselves with the question of the period for the payment of the indemnity. The Minister of Foreign Relations said that, in spite of the facilities granted to the country that should become the debtor, from conclusions clearly to be deduced from Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, he renounced them in the name of his Government, since Peru was absolutely sure as to the payment of the indemnity — in case the plebiscitary decision should be favorable to her — within any period, even if it were the briefest period — that of one month — fixed by the Minister of Chile. The Minister of Chile said, in this respect, that he had indicated a period of one month, as he thought it would be acceptable to both countries; but not as an exigency, and, in proof of it, he now said that it might be extended to three months. The Minister of Foreign Relations agreed to this conclusion. The Minister of Chile then pointed out that the time had come to consider the guaranties that would secure the fulfillment of the agreement, as it would be neces- sary to consider the possible eventuality that there might be a failure in it, although, on the other hand, the declarations and promises of the Government of Peru inspired perfect confidence. Foresight counseled the determination of what would have to be done in case of the non-fulfillment of the stipulation, and in this respect Chile offered the same guaranties that she asked. The Minister of Foreign Relations denied that it was necessary to establish other guaranties 86 than those that might be deduced from the very convention to which recourse should be had in fixing the conditions of the plebiscite and from the signatures on which that Treaty would de- pend; that, in respect of the obligation of the Government of Peru, Chile was amply guaranteed by the possession of the pledge, that is, the ter- ritory of Tacna aud Arica, and .by the sentiment of nationality, which is the best possible stimulus and sufficient in any case to guarantee the payment of the indemnity. The Minister of Chile insisted on his ideas, and there followed a long discussion, which it was agreed to suspend in order to continue it on the following day, at the suggestion of the Minister of Foreign Relations. M. F. Pokkas, M. R. Lira. Lima, October 8, 1895. Proceedings of the Conference Held Between Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [October 9, 1895.] On the ninth of October, one thousand, eight hun- dred and ninety-five, met in the office of Foreign Rela- tions, the Minister of the Department, Doctor Don Meliton F. Porras, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Maximo R. Lira. 87 After having discussed at length the point regarding which the debate had begun at the preceding confer- ence, and not having arrived at an accord, it was agreed that the reasons as to why a solution of it had not been reached should be placed on record by both parties and in separate notes. M. F. Porras, M. E. Lira. Lima, October 9, 1895. Proceedings of the Conference Held Between Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [October 24, 1895.] Under date of this day, met in the office of Foreign Kelations, the Minister of the Department, Doctor Don Meliton F. Porras, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Maximo R. Lira. The Minister of Foreign Relations said he had sum- moned the Minister of Chile for the purpose of arriv- ing at an agreement as to the terms on which ought to be drafted the minutes of the preceding conference ; an act that ought to precede the reciprocal sending of the notes that had been mentioned in that conference. After having exchanged some ideas as to what agreement had been reached on that occasion and as to the causes that had led to it, it was decided to let it stand as it was, until the Minister of Chile should ob- tain a reply from his Government in respect of the in- quiry that he promised to present to it regarding the 88 concession the Government of Peru would be willing to make as to guaranties and as to the idea of discuss- ing the bases of the plebiscite, while postponing the point that had occasioned the difficulties. M. F. Pobras, M. R. Lira. Lima, October 24, 1895. Proceedings of the Conference Held Between Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru, [Translation.] [October 30, 1895.] Under date of this day, met in the Ministry of For- eign Relations, the Minister of the Department, Doctor Don Meliton F. Porras, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Maximo R. Lira. The Minister of Chile explained that he had received a reply from his Government to the inquiry he had promised in the preceding conference to present to it; and that it left things just where they had been previously, as he was instructed to insist on the request for guaranties. The Government of Chile, he said, must have believed that the indefinite retention of the territory would not be such a guaranty, since this would be equivalent to Peru's taking the longest possible period for the payment of the indemnity, and that what had been agreed on in reference to periods would have no effect. And, as to the postponement of the consideration of this point, in order to proceed 89 to discuss the basis of the plebiscite at once, this had not been thought proper either, for the obvious reason that nothing would be gained by avoiding a difficulty now that would be sure to present itself later. The Minister of Foreign Eelations pointed out that, in view of the decision u of the Government of Chile, the difficulties presented still subsisted, and that he did not see any way of avoiding them, since the Government of Chile proposed unacceptable exigences. He added that Peru was ready to pay the ransom and that she would take into consideration the designation of the guaranties that might secure the loan necessary to enable her to deliver to Chile the ten millions, in case the latter should become the creditor, and that she would make this sacrifice in order to arrive at a result, but that it would be neces- sary to know whether this result would be possible. He added that Peru had a right to adhere to the spirit of the Treaty and ask for terms and ample facil- ities compatible with her economic situation, but that he had not insisted on the particular, in. order to show good will. He concluded by saying that, at all events, it would be impossible to offer at once the guaranties that the Government of Chile claimed, because Peru did not have money on deposit, and it would be neces- sary for her to obtain a loan and indicate the means of paying it, for all of which time would be necessary. To this the Minister of Chile replied, saying that he did not understand why the Minister of Foreign Relations considered unacceptable a request the ob- ject of which was to assure the efficacy of the plebiscite by eliminating the eventuality that, after being held, the decision might not be carried out because of a failure to fulfill the obligations contracted by one of the parties. This was not to press Peru, and to prove 90 that no such purpose existed, if the Minister of Foreign Eelations desired to take time to prepare the guaranty and to ask for a period with this object in view, it was most certain that the Government of Chile would oppose no difficulty to agreeing on one. In this way the plebiscite could be effected with the assurance that all its conditions would be fulfilled, because, after being held and being favorable to Peru, in the period already agreed on — three months— or in another briefer one, Chile would have returned the territory, and Peru would have paid the indemnity. The Minister of Foreign Relations said that he could not agree to the last statement of the Minister of Chile, because the plebiscitary decision would im- pose the obligation of an immediate delivery of the territory,. that it might not be subordinated to the full payment of the ten millions, since the Treaty men- tions periods and terms, which might be years, and since, by stipulating guaranties that would absolutely assure the Government of Chile, there would be no reason to exact any further guaranty, that is, the re- tention of the territory, as soon as the guaranty should answer the purpose of the security sought. The Minister of Chile explained, in respect of these declarations, that he did not conceive that the Minister of Foreign Relations would 61aim that the only in- terpretation of which the Treaty of 1883 would be capable was the one he gave. In his judgment, since the Treaty clearly sets forth that whichsoever of the. two countries that might be favored by the plebiscite was to pay to the other a sum of money, there could be no doubt whatsoever as to whether the payment was to be made immediately or within a convenient period previously fixed. However, the return of the territories in case of Peru's being favored ought to 91 coincide with the payment of the indemnity, and this interpretation has in its support a reason of much weight. Still, according to the hypothesis that served as a basis for its discussion and for the theory of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when Chile should have returned the territory, she would have fulfilled the totality of the obligations that the Treaty imposed on her ; in the meanwhile, Peru would have done no more than give security for the later fulfillment of hers. Since this is unnatural, concluded the Minister of Chile, neither can that which leads to such a result be the true interpretation of the Treaty, and the ful- fillment of correlative obligations under conditions of strict equality for both parties ought to seem to be the more acceptable. After the discussion of this point and as it was impossible to arrive at an agreement on the subject, the Minister of Foreign Relations indicated that, in spite of the unacceptableness of the interpretation that the Minister gave to the Treaty, he desired to bring to the knowledge of his Government the con- clusions that he had formulated. Whereupon it was decided to adjourn the con- ference. M. F. POKEAS. M. R. Lira. Lima. October 30, 1895. 92 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru. [Translation.] (Number 177.) Legation of Chile. Lima, November 23. 1895. Mr. Minister: In the month of August last the undersigned opened, with His Excellency Serior Candamo, President of the Council of Government and Minister of Foreign Re- lations, a negotiation designed to carry into effect Article III of the Treaty of Peace of October 20, 1883, and it was continued with Your Excellency. In our conference of October 30 last, the discussion was al- most exhausted regarding the point relative to the guaranties that ought to be stipulated to assure the efficacy of the plebiscite. " After the discussion of this point' ' — so run the minutes of that conference — "and as it was impossible to arrive at an agreement on the subject, the Minister of Foreign Relations indicated that, in spite of the unacceptableness of the interpretation that the Min- ister gave to the Treaty, he desired to bring to the knowledge of his Government the conclusions that he had formulated. ' ' As more than three weeks have passed since the date of the aforementioned conference, I take occasion to request Your Excellency to be so kind as to inform me whether the discussion, interrupted and now al- most exhausted, is to be continued, or whether Your Excellency's Government has reached a decision as to the point that Your Excellency, according to the min- utes cited, desired to bring to its knowledge. 93 I take this new opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency the expression of my sentiments of most distinguished consideration. M. R. Lira. To His Excellency, Senor Don Meliton F. Porras, Minister of Foreign Relations. Proceedings of the Conference Held Between Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [December 17, 1895.] Under date of this day, met in the Ministry of Foreign Relations, the Minister of the Department, Doctor Don Ricardo Ortiz de Zevallos, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Maximo R. Lira. The Minister of Foreign Relations explained that he had delayed this interview because he had only as- sumed charge of the portfolio a few days before and that he had to inform himself as to the state of the pending negotiations. The Minister of Chile replied that he had so un- derstood and that for this reason he had awaited the reply to his official communication of November 23 last. The Minister of Foreign Relations said that he ob- served that the Government of Chile maintained its demand that Peru should furnish a guaranty in order to carry into effect the plebiscite, and that, although he likewise still upheld, in this respect, the declara- 94 tions made previously by the Chancellery as to the manner of interpreting the Treaty of Ancon, he, de- siring to remove every difficulty, proposed at once that they proceed to an agreement to determine the manner in which the plebiscite should be held; and he added that this would not prevent an immediate discussion of the subject of the guaranty of the pay- ment of the ten millions: a subject regarding which the Government of Peru preoccupies itself in a spe- cial manner -and the solution of which would be complementary to the other. The Minister of Chile remarked that this proposal had already been presented by Sefior Porras and had been eliminated for reasons set forth in the minutes of a previous conference, and he said that, for this reason, he deemed it useless to consult his Govern- ment again regarding it. Not having reached any agreement, the conference was adjourned. Ricardo Ortiz de Zevallos. M. R. Lira. In Lima, December 17, 1895. Proceedings of the Conference Held Between Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [December 27, 1895.) Under date of this day, met in the Ministry of Foreign Relations, the Minister of the Department, Doctor Don Ricardo Ortiz de Zevallos, and the Envoy 95 Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Maximo R. Lira. , The Minister of Foreign Relations said that in the present state of the discussion it would be necessary to learn what guaranties the Government of Chile exacted, and that for this purpose he requested Senor Lira to set forth in a concrete manner the conditions that these guaranties ought to include. The Minister of Chile replied that, as he had already declared in another conference, he believed that it was not for his Government to indicate the security that Peru ought to offer, and he hoped therefore that the Minister of Foreign Relations would indicate those {hat his Government could offer. After a prolonged debate, it was agreed to postpone the conference until the thirty-first of the present month, on which date the Minister of Foreign Re- lations offered to name the securities that Peru might be ready to propose. Ricardo Ortiz de Zevallos. M. R. Lira. In Lima, December 27, 1895. Proceedings of the Conference Held Between Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [December 31, 1895.] Under date of this day, met in the Ministry of Foreign Relations, the Minister of the Department, Doctor Don Ricardo Ortiz de Zevallos, and the Envoy 96 Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Don Maximo R. Lira. • The Minister of Foreign Relations said that the Government and the Congress had interested them- selves in a very especial manner in the payment of the ten millions that Peru would have to deliver to Chile in case the plebiscite should be favorable to her; that, with this object in view, the Chambers had fully authorized the Government to raise a loan of ten million soles; and that, by a special law to meet the respective interest, it had placed a tax on the salt monopoly, the product of which would be, the Govern- ment estimated, a million soles, annually, as a mini- mum. He added that this security could be duplicated, but that in any case, Peru would engage to effect the delivery of a million a year, encumbering the products of the custom-house at Callao, which is the Republic's most reliable source of income, to that end. This is the security, the Minister of Foreign Relations said, that the Government of Peru offers to the Government of Chile until it succeeds in placing the loan, the payment of which could not be better guaranteed ; and all this without prejudice to Chile's retaining the ter- ritories occupied and receiving the revenues from the custom-houses in them. The Minister of Chile replied that from the state- ment to which he had just listened it was clear that the Government of Peru had occupied itself in devis- ing means to secure as a loan the sum of the eventual ransom of Tacna and Arica, but that had not demon- strated that it would be obtained with certainty. In- deed, it was conceivable that the capitalists to whom it might have to resort would not furnish the money because they might deem the security of the monopoly on salt insufficient, and, in that case, since Peru would 97 not have been able to meet the payment of the in- demnity, the plebiscitary decision would remain in- effective, which was precisely what the Government of Chile desired to avoid. So, therefore, as the se- curity presented by the Minister of Foreign Relations would be limited to the offer he had made to pay Chile annually a million soles, as a minimum, on account of the said indemnity in the event of not having found a capitalist that would lend the sum total of it, Chile, in reality, would have to serve as a money-lender, and this would be absolutely unacceptable. After a prolonged debate regarding this point, the Minister of Chile said that he deemed it unnecessary to consult his Government in order to be able to de- clare the aforementioned proposal unacceptable; and he concluded by saying that it was now time to effect the exchange of communications agreed on with Senor Porras in order to summarize the results of these con- ferences, and that he would await, consequently, the respective one that the Minister of Foreign Relations would have occasion to give him. Ricardo Ortiz de Zevallos. M. R. Lira. In Lima, December 31, 1895. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] (Number 2.) Ministry of Foreign Relations. Lima, February 3, 1896. Mr. Minister: In conformity with what was agreed on during the last conference held at this office between Your Ex- 98 cellency and the undersigned, I proceed to summarize the result of the points that were discussed, which ap- pears in the twelve protocols signed to that effect. It is to be regretted that it was impossible to arrive at a final solution of a question that seemed no longer to present any difficulties, when, in the conference — arranged by Your Excellency — of August 5 last, Your Excellency said that the purpose for which it had been done was to invite the Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to discuss the bases of the protocol referred to in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon of October 20, 1883. It seems therefore absolutely necessary to the undersigned to explain why an agreement has no"t been reached, while placing on record the good will that the Peruvian Chancellery has always manifested by confining itself to demanding the strict fulfillment of the part of the Treaty of Ancon that has remained pending. Unfortunately, it has been impossible hither- to to discuss for a single moment the manner of effecting the plebiscite, on the result of which has remained dependent the future nationality of the prov- inces of Tacna and Arica, because Your Excellency exacted, without taking into account the express tenor of Clause III of the Treaty of Ancon, guaranties in advance for the payment of the ten millions, when that Treaty says in a clear and definitive manner that : ' ' an especial protocol, which will be considered an integral part of the present Treaty, will establish the manner in which the plebiscite is to take place and the terms and periods of payment of the ten millions by the country that shall become owner of the provinces of Tacna and Arica. ' ' Having made this declaration, which I consider necessary, I proceed to recall the course taken by the conferences that both the undersigned and his pre- 99 decessors have held with Your Excellency and which are the subject of the aforementioned twelve protocols. I have explained that the first conference was held for the purpose of discussing the bases of the protocol referred to in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon. Senor Don Manuel Candamo, Minister of Foreign Re- lations and a member of the Council of Government, in spite of the hesitation he showed in the first con- ference, to discuss this subject, because of the transit- ory character of the Government to which he belonged, was willing to take up the subject in the second inter- view, and he declared himself ready to hear the pro- posals which, with that design, Your Excellency might see fit to make to him. However, as appears in the aforementioned protocol, Your Excellency confined yourself to proposing the acquisition, on the part of Chile, of the provinces of Tacna and Arica by direct arrangement: a proposal that Senor Candamo de- clared unacceptable as being contrary to the Treaty of Ancon and to the national sentiment. Your Excellency then exacted a previous guaranty of the payment of the indemnity, in order to discuss afterward the principal question, namely, the bases of the plebiscite. In that conference, Your Excellency declined to accept bonds of the public debt, and he desired to limit the period of the payment of the in- demnity to one month after the promulgation of the plebiscitary decision. In the third conference, Your Excellency insisted on a previous guaranty suggesting at the close that for this guaranty might be substituted some provision that would otherwise assure the definitive solution of the question relative to the future nationality of the territory of the provinces mentioned. In the following protocol, that of October 4, Senor Doctor Porras, my 100 predecessor, who had assumed charge of the portfolio of Foreign Belations, in continuance of conferences and seeking a practical solution that would in no way wound national sentiments, proposed, as a means of surmounting all the difficulties and with a noble and elevated design, that of mutually renouncing the in- demnity ; because he did not believe in the acquisition of those inhabited territories by the payment of a sum of money. Your Excellency, without expressing himself in a definitive manner as to the substance of this proposal, offered to consult his Government re- garding it ; and, on October 8, Your Excellency replied ftiat the said proposal had not been accepted by his Chancellery; and the conference was continued, Your Excellency indicating that it would be op- portune to discuss the question of security, in spite of the remarks made by this office, that Chile was amply secured by the possession of the pledge, that is, the territory of Tacna and Arica, and by the sentiment of nationality, which is the best possible stimulus and sufficient, in any event, to guarantee the payment of the indemnity. As the negotiations of October 9 were suspended, because it was impossible to arrive at an accord, and as it was agreed that a note should be passed by both parties in which would be made to appear the reasons why a solution in that respect had not been reached, it was decided on October 24 that what had been determined above should be declared void, and that another con- sultation should be presented to the Government of Chile in order that the idea of the bases of the plebi- scite might be carried forward, while deferring the point that had given rise to the difficulties. Your Excellency's reply in the conference of Oc- tober 30 was negative, and it provoked, on the part 101 of Doctor Porras, the definitive declaration that he could not agree to the subordination of the plebiscite to the obligation of the immediate delivery of the ten millions of the ransom. Afterward, when the under- signed had assumed charge of the portofolio of Foreign Relations, he held with Your Excellency his first conference on December 17 of last year, in which, while standing by the same declarations, he strove to make progress in the agreement that was to fix the bases of the plebiscite, without prejudice to discuss- ing afterward the security for the payment of the ten millions, a subject which, he added, especially pre- occupied the Peruvian Government, and one whose solution was complementary to the other. Your Ex- cellency was unwilling to discuss the question in this manner, and Your Excellency declared that this pro- posal had been presented by Sefior Porras and had been, as Your Excellency said, already eliminated. In view of the state in which the discussion was left and of Your Excellency's exigencies that a previous security should be furnished for the ten millions prior to considering the modus operandi of the plebi- scite, the undersigned, as appears in. the protocol of December 27 of last year, requested that Your Ex- cellency should express, in a concrete manner, the conditions that should be possessed by the guaranties demanded by Your Excellency's Government; but Your Excellency replied that, as he had made clear in another conference, it was not his Government's part to indicate the securities that Peru might be able to present, and therefore he hoped that this office would designate those that it could offer. On December 31 last was held the last conference, during which the undersigned said textually: 102 "that the Government and the Congress had inter- ested themselves in a very especial manner in the payment of the ten millions that Peru would have to deliver to Chile in case the plebiscite should be favorable to her ; that, with this object in view, the Chambers had fully authorized the Government to raise a loan of ten million soles; and that by a special law to meet the respective interest, it had , placed a tax on the salt monopoly, the product of which would be, the Government estimated, a mil- lion soles, annually, as a minimum. He added that this security could be duplicated, but that, in any case, Peru would engage to effect the delivery of a million a year, encumbering the products of the cutom -house at Callao, which is the Republic's most reliable source of income, to that end. This is the security the Minister of Foreign Relations said, that the Government of Peru offers to the Government of Chile until she succeeds in placing the loan, the payment of which could not be better guaranteed; and all this without prejudice to Chile's retaining the territories occupied and re- ceiving the revenues from the custom-houses in them." Your Excellency did not accept these guaranties and securities, considering it unnecessary to consult his Government, and he concluded by saying that it was now time to effect the exchange of communications agreed on with Senor Porras, in order to summarize the result of the conferences. This is the reason and motive of the present com- munication; but, before concluding it, I beg to declare that Peru has always been, as she is at present, re- solved to fulfil] faithfully and loyally what was stipu- lated in the Treaty of Ancon, and that, in spite of the clear and precise terms of Clause III of the said Treaty, she has sought a proper and rational means of re- moving obstacles that had not been foreseen and that 103 ought not to have presented themselves in the discus- sion of the modus operandi of the plebiscite that is to decide the nationality of the provinces of Tacna and Arica. I likewise place it on record that Peru has not only expressed her desire, but also the possibility of effecting the payment of the ransom. The circumstance mentioned by Your Excellency on more than one occasion, of his not being able to ex- ceed his definite and concrete instructions, has car- ried negotiations to a point where, in the judgment of the undersigned, they are contrary to the stipulations agreed on in Clause III in the Treaty of Ancon. The Treaty of 1883, now so often recalled, gave to Chile, in a definite manner in its second Article, the province of Tarapaca, and it clearly provided, in Article III, that the provinces of Tacna and Arica would be possessed by Chile for the period of ten years, and that, after the expiration of that period, a plebiscite, by popular vote, would decide whether the territory of those provinces should remain finally un- der the power and sovereignty of Chile or continue to be a part of the Peruvian territory. As may be seen, this clear and definitive clause subordinated only and exclusively the future nationality of those provinces to a vote expressed in a free plebiscite. The obligation of the payment of ten millions by the country to which the said provinces should be annexed does not constitute nor can it constitute anything more than the incurring of a debt, and hence in the second paragraph of the article mentioned it is said that in the special protocol, in which was to be established the manner in which the plebiscite should be held, would also be fixed the terms and periods in which the ten millions would be paid. Peru, consequently upon her obligations, has only demanded that steps be taken 104 to fix the bases on which the plebiscite should be held and the conditions of the Treaty strictly carried out. She also testifies that she is preparing to make the payment in case the result of the plebiscite shall be favorable to her; and, although the recovery of those territories is not subject to the payment of the ten millions, she agrees that Chile shall retain the pledge while she is effecting the delivery of the ransom. If the desire that this Chancellery has shown to manifest the good will with which it is animated, in order to remove every obstacle, has not been sufficient to bring about a settlement, it is therefore necessary to establish the rights that are derived both in respect of Chile and of Peru, from the Treaty of Ancon, which ought to be faithfully fulfilled. It is demonstrated that, according to the Treaty, the nationality of Tacna and Arica is subject only and exclusively to the result of the plebiscite and that it is in nowise subordinate to the payment of the ransom, and in spite of this fact I shall place it on record that Peru has expressed her desire to and possibility of paying the ten millions, as soon as the plebiscite shall have been favorable to her. "What she does not and can not accept, how- ever, as being contrary to the Treaty of Ancon, is that the future nationality of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, and even the protocol in which are to be fixed the bases of the plebiscite — a principal and neces- sary part of the Treaty — should be subordinated to the payment of the ransom; an accessory condition that constitutes a different obligation and one in nowise subordinated to the prior one. Nor can it be maintained that Chile is afraid of being deprived of the payment of the indemnity when the plebiscite shall have been effected in a manner 105 favorable to Peru, because, in addition to holding the pledge in such a case, she would have the greatest moral guaranty that one people can furnish to another, that is, national sentiment exercising itself in all its plenitude in order to reincorporate provinces which by popular vote, would have manifested their desire to return to the bosom of the common country. The Chilean Chancellery may not therefore entertain doubts in this respect, and to the great advantage of the two countries it is to be hoped that the obstacles will be removed and that when both parties shall ful- fill the conditions of the Treaty of Ancon, this impor- tant question may be settled in a definitive manner. I reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Ricardo Ortiz de Zevallos. To His Excellency, Senor Don Maximo E. Lira, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipoten- tiary of Chile. Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru. (Number 213.) [Translation.] Legation of Chile. Lima, February 10, 1896. Mr. Minister: I have had the honor to receive Your Excellency's courteous communication number 2, dated third of the present month, in which Your Excellency has taken 106 the opportunity to recall and summarize the discus- sions which, for the purpose of carrying into effect what was stipulated in Article III of the Treaty of October 20, 1883, the undersigned opened with the Peruvian Chancellery in August of last year. In that same communication, Your Excellency has mentioned the declarations as to how the Government of Peru understands that article of the Treaty of Peace and as to how it believes it will have discharged, on its part, the obligations imposed by the same Treaty on the two countries that set their signatures to it. Your Excellency will have to permit me, in replying to his note mentioned, to amplify the recollections it contains and to emphasize in behalf of the ideas and procedures which, by order of my Government, I have maintained during the negotiations developed in August and December, 1895, and the reasons, very substantial, in my opinion, that made them perfectly acceptable. Those reasons have been recorded in the minutes or protocols of the respective conferences, but this fact does not prevent their being reproduced here, with amplitude sufficient to serve the purposes of this communication. Before entering on the subject, I desire, neverthe- less, to explain why this Legation began the nego- tiations with which I am occupying myself, during the provisional administration of the Council of Government that ruled Peru from March until Sep- tember, 1895. I think I ought to do so because, from the beginning, it has been insinuated that the initiative of this Legation was perhaps extemporaneous, it being said that it was not the part of the Council of Govern- ment, in its capacity as a transitory government, "to touch" — so the Council itself expressed it in its mes- sage to the Congress — "on questions of importance of any kind. ' ' 107 The point as to the capacity of the Council, as a constituted Government and one recognized by foreign powers, to treat of any subject of an international character, is irrelevant to the discussion. The only thing that might be subject to doubt was the expedi- ency of doing so, because of the brief duration of its power. However, if doubts existed, they disappeared in respect of the transcendent question of Tacna and Arica at the moment in which, by accrediting a Le- gation to Bolivia and by seeking to accredit another to Chile, it signified that it was prepared and qualified to deal with it. It is inconceivable that it should have been otherwise, because, evidently, it could not have sent Ministers to those Republics, without provid- ing them with instructions as to that capital question. My Government , however, did not share those doubts. It believed, on the contrary, that there was positive advantage in undertaking the examination of this question with the Council in which were rep- resented the party that had just been governing Peru and the one that had conducted a great revolution to overthrow it. Any treaty negotiated by that Council would have possessed immense prestige in the opinion of the country, above all, if it be borne in mind that the work of the provisional Government was to be revised by the executive and legislative powers of the new administration. Unfortunately, the negotiations opened by the Right Excellent Council did not lead to any result, but if any had been reached, it would have fully justified the foresight of my Government. I now proceed to take up what constitutes the main purpose of this communication, that is, to establish and demonstrate that the Government of Chile has exerted itself greatly to reach an agreement with Your Excellency's that would make it possible to execute 108 the part of the Treaty of October 20, 18S3, that re- fers to the settlement of the definitive nationality of the provinces of Tacna and Arica; and that, if it has not succeeded in doing so hitherto, it is because Your Excellency's Government has insisted on at- tributing to that Treaty a meaning that would release Peru, almost wholly, from the fulfillment of the ob- ligations she contracted by it, while Chile would al- ways remain subject to the strict fulfillment of hers. As soon as the negotiations to which I refer were opened, it naturally became necessary to determine the concrete point that must be the material of the first agreement. Article III of the Treaty of 1883 provided that the territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica should continue to be possessed by Chile and sub- ject to her legislation and authority for the period of ten years, reckoned from that ratification. After the expiration of that period, a plebiscite would de- cide, by popular vote, whether that territory would remain definitively under the power and sovereignty of Chile, or whether it would continue to be part of Peru. Whichsoever of the two countries that should be favored by the plebiscite would have to pay to the other ten million pesos, and it added that : "A special protocol, which will be considered an integral part of the present Treaty, will establish the manner in which the plebiscite is to take place and the terms and periods for the payment of the ten millions by the country that shall become owner of the provinces of Tacna and Arica." The principal points that we negotiators of the Complementary Protocol of the Treaty of 1883 ought to consider are two therefore: the organization of 109 the plebiscite and the determination of the conditions of the payment of the indemnity. It was necessary that the preference be given to the discussion of one or the other of these two points. Sehor Candamo proposed, in the conference of August 20, that it should begin with the plebiscite and "by determining how the authority that would preside over it should be constituted. ' ' On my part, I suggested that our first agreement, which I then deemed very easy, would concern the form, periods and terms of payment of the indemnity. There was a very strong reason, in my opinion, as to why the preference should be given to this procedure. The organization of the plebiscite would necessarily impose on us a considerable labor, and it would be unwise therefore to attack it without being assured in advance that, as a result, it would not be futile. Now, as the only thing that could frus- trate it would be some difficulty relative to the payment of the indemnity, the most elementary prudence counseled that we should ascertain at once whether such a difficulty existed and that we should face it and eliminate it. Seiior Candamo must have found some force in my remarks, since he accepted my sug- gestion without opposition ; and that it was in harmony with a wise prevision is proven to the utmost evidence by subsequent events. The difficulty that I feared might appear in the last stage of the negotiation pre- sented itself in the first, and that with such serious characteristics that a discussion of four months has not been sufficient to remove it. It did not spring from any fault of Chile's, however, nor was it due to the fact that her Minister in Lima had reversed the natural order of the discussions. It arose, and it still exists, because Peru, contrary to everything that was to be expected, was not prepared 110 for the fulfillment of the obligations imposed on her by the Treaty of 1883 as a condition for the reestab- lishment of her sovereignty in the territory of Tacna and Arica. No one has invented the obstacle ; it came to light because it existed, and a variation in the order of the negotiation of the protocol would not have caused it to vanish. His Excellency Seiior Candamo and the under- signed, being now in agreement that the first question we ought to discuss was the payment of the indemnity, thought was naturally given to the determination of the period within which it would have to be effected. After certain ideas were expressed by each of us re- garding this point, the discussion was limited to the terms of the proposal that is incorporated in the minutes of August 20, as follows : "The Minister of Foreign Relations requested the Plenipotentiary of Chile to make his proposal more precise in this respect, and the latter said that an agreement might be made somew T hat like the following: a month after the promulgation of the plebiscitary decision, Chile, if the decision were adverse to her, would return to Peru the provinces of Tacna and Arica, and Peru would pay to Chile the sums in which she would become indebted to her. Chile, in turn, would contract an identical obligation. It is understood, of course, that this payment must be sufficiently guaran- teed." Both Seiior Candamo, first, and Seiior Porras, after- ward, deemed the establishment of the period of one month after the plebiscite, as that within which the payment of the indemnity by Peru would have to be effected, unacceptable, owing to its brevity. I have a right to believe, nevertheless, that Your Excellency's Ill Government looked with some favor on the reasons that we advanced in support of a decision in favor of a brief period, because an agreement was reached at last on one that differed little from the one suggested by the undersigned. Indeed, the expediency of re- stricting the period as much as possible was not doubt- ful. We discussed the basis of this hypothesis — that •the popular vote might be favorable to Peru — and I said that this would oblige our Governments to carry out the plebiscitary decision without delay, in order not to prolong for a greater time than necessary an abnormal situation and one that would necessarily be disagreeable to both countries. If the reincorporation of Tacna and Arica with Peru were decreed by the people, Chile would be under obligation to hasten to surrender that territory wherein her authority would no longer have dominion or prestige. Peru, in turn, ought also to feel moved irresistibly to hasten with- out delay to the call of her former provinces, carrying to them, as they demanded of her with the clamor of their votes, her banner, her authority and her laws. Ordinary expediency would counsel and impose dis- occupation. The situation being considered in this manner, the necessity of carrying the decision of the plebiscite into effect immediately after it should be announced, by the fulfillment, on the part of the two countries bound by the Treaty of 1883, of all the obligations that it imposed on them, would become therefore all the more urgently necessary. However, a longer period was requested on the part of Peru than the one suggested by the undersigned, in order to effect the payment of the ransom of the territory of Tacna and Arica. In the conference of August 20, Sehor Can- damo believed that of one year indispensable, and in 112 the conference of August 23, that of six months. These periods were apparently designed to give Peru time in which to negotiate the acquirement of funds for the ransom. When the negotiation that Senor Can- damo did not succeed in terminating was renewed with Senor Porras, the first Minister of Foreign Re- lations of the present Government, on October 4, the discussion of the period was continued until, in the conference of the eighth of the same month, Min- ister Porras declared that Peru did not need a period. It was agreed nevertheless, on the spontaneous in- itiative of the undersigned, that the payment should be made three months after the official promulgation of the decision of the plebiscite. It has seemed useful, for several reasons, to recall here these incidents, which show how the question — relative to the period within which Peru, if she were favored by the plebiscite, was to effect the payment of the ransom of the provinces of Tacna and Arica — arose, developed and was terminated. By means of them, it is demonstrated that the suggestion of the period, apparently brief — if it were not so in reality — made by the undersigned was merely the result of a desire to prevent the interval of transition that would succeed the plebiscite from lasting longer than that which would be strictly necessary to enable the Chilean authorities to withdraw from it, and the Peruvian authorities to occupy it. That period was not sug- gested as a means of pressure or as a demand; and the clearest proof that the Government of Peru could not feel pressed is furnished by the fact that the im- mediate predecessor of Your Excellency ended the dis- cussion by declaring, in the conference of October 8, ' ' that, in spite of the facilities granted to the coun- try that should become the debtor, from conclu- 113 sions clearly to be deduced from Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, he renounced them in the name of his Government, since Peru was absolutely sure as to the payment of the indemnity — in case the plebiscitary decision should be favorable to her — within any period, even if it were a briefer period than that of one month fixed by the Minister of Chile." On the undersigned 's initiative, as has been recalled, the period in question was extended to three months. Nevertheless, over that discussion, which had no rea- son for being held, as may be seen from this result, two had been spent. Along with the question of the period that Peru would have for the payment of the ransom of Tacna and Arica, was presented, in the conference of August 20, that of furnishing a security that would guarantee the effectiveness of the payment. On this point, de- bated at length between Senor Porras and Your Ex- cellency, an agreement was found to be impossible. Your Excellency, in the note that I am answering, at- tributes to this demand of a guaranty the lack of a result in the negotiation we continued until December 31 of the year just passed and places it among the obstacles "that had not been foreseen and that ought not to have presented themselves" in discussing the organization of the plebiscite. Your Excellency seems to believe that the discussion ought to have been limited to the negotiations opened on August 5, 1895, and he declares that it is to be regretted that it did not happen thus. The final clause of Article III of the Treaty of Oc- tober 20, 1883, is copied literally in the body of this communication, and to it I refer at once in oroTer to avoid useless repetitions in the course of the observ- ations that follow. 114 The negotiation undertaken by the undersigned had as its object the arrangement of the protocol by means of which the inhabitants of Taena and Arica, con- sulted in a popular vote, would proceed to decide whether that territory should remain annexed to Chile or should again form a part of Peru. In the same protocol, however, were also to be fixed the terms and periods in which should be paid the in- demnity that would be laid by the Treaty on the coun- try that might obtain the definitive possession of the said territory. As the payment of the indemnity was one of the subjects of the protocol, it was necessary to consider it at some stage of the negotiation, and as it came up first of all, it was impossible to refuse to contemplate it under all its aspects. One of them was the guaranty of payment. On her part, Chile hastened to offer, in this respect, all the guaranties that might be desirable; but she exacted, naturally, in reciprocity, that Peru also should furnish them. She had more than enough reason and right to do so. It has already been said — and it is well to repeat it here — that the situation that would be created in the territory that she occupies to-day would be ab- solutely unacceptable to Chile after the plebiscite in which its inhabitants would have expressly declared that they did not wash to continue to be subject to her authority. She understood that, in this case, it would have been her most elementary duty to with- draw therefrom immediately, and she proceeded wisely when she attempted to guard herself against the peril of having to prolong the occupation against her will. However, as she would necessarily have to continue it, if Peru did not opportunely fulfill one of the es- sential conditions of the ransom, as was the payment of the indemnity, and as such a contingency was not 115 unlikely, she said: "I will not go to the plebiscite without having obtained in advance the absolute as- surance that it can and will, in reality, produce all its effect. ' ' Behold, the reason why she asks for security ! She also enjoys the unquestionable right to ask for it. Your Excellency knows quite well that interna- tional law accepts incorporation in treaties of the se- curities or guaranties that add value to their stipu- lations and safeguard them from possible violations. These guaranties have varied in character in the course of time. They were only moral during the days in which it was deemed a sufficient guaranty that sovereigns should bind the fulfillment of their word with an oath. Afterward, they were material, such as the delivery of hostages or the surrender of a portion of territory as a pledge. The request for a guaranty presented by the undersigned to Your Ex- cellency 's Government is not unusual therefore or con- trary to law; and if an attempt were made to say that the protocol in question is not, strictly speaking, a treaty, I should confine myself to recalling, in order to show that if it is not so in name, it is so in sub- stance, that when it is adopted, it will have to be considered an integral part of the Treaty of Peace of 1883 and, consequently, the same international value. Your Excellency affirms, however, in his note that the Government of Peru has made preparation to furnish guaranties, and he enumerates those it has offered, adding simply that the Minister of Chile did not accept them. This forces me to complete Your Excellency's declaration, by showing that the guar- anties offered have been such only in name or that they have seemed unacceptable for reason of great weight. The minutes of the Conference held on October 8 show that when the undersigned presented his re- quest for guaranties, he obtained the following reply : 116 '^The Minister of Foreign Belations denied that it was necessary to establish other guaranties than those that might be deduced from the con- vention itself to which recourse should be had in fixing the conditions of the plebiscite and from the signatures on which that treaty would depend; that, in respect of the obligation of Peru, Chile was amply guaranteed by the possession of the pledge, that is, the territory of Tacna and Arica, and by the sentiment of nationality, which is the best possible stimulus and sufficient in any case to guarantee the payment of the indemnity. ' ' The possession of the territory of Tacna and Arica is the only real guaranty that seems to be offered here. Minister Porras believes that Chile would be able and even ought to agree that the plebiscite should be effected and that Chile should continue to occupy that territory, if the decision of the plebiscite were favorable to Peru, until the latter had paid its ransom. It may be understood, however, without any effort, that this solution would necessarily be unacceptable to Chile. Indeed, if what is sought is precisely to put an end to the present situation of the territories of Tacna and Arica and to Chilean occupation, in case Peru should recover them, how could Chile be willing that the solution of the difficulty should be a prolong- ation, for an indefinite time and in a less dignified manner in so far, as she would be concerned, of the very situation to which it is desired and is necessary to put an end? As to the occupation, if what Chile needs and seeks is security, in order not to prolong the situation, in case the plebiscite should be adverse to her, how can it be said that she will obtain that security by the continuance of the same occupation? Senor Porras went further. He said that Chile would be amply secured by the signatures that would 117 seal the convention and by the sentiment of nation ality. To this Your Excellency added, in amplification of the same remark, that Chile "would have the greatest moral guaranty that one people can furnish to another, that is, national sentiment exercising itself in all its plenitude in order to reincorporate provinces, which, by popu- lar vote, would have manifested their desire io return to the bosom of the common country." I will certainly not deny, Mr. Minister, that respect for a signature placed by a Government at the end of a treaty or any other kind of engagement and the sentiment of nationality are moral guaranties that give vigor to the stipulations of a treaty; but these guar- anties are not those that are expressly spoken of when two nations bind themselves by means of a treaty, because they are among those that are always presupposed and are always regarded as incorporated in each and every one of its clauses. It is taken for granted, when a treaty is read, that the faith and honor of the nations that signed it guarantee its execution ; but this does not prevent the entrance into it of securities of another nature also, which express the fear that the moral ones may not be sufficient to assure its execution; and this is the case because it does not always happen that nations can, even if they earnestly desire to do so, honor their plighted word. These observations are also applicable to the offer of the sentiment of nationality as a guaranty. How- ever intense this sentiment may be, it can not always do everything, and history abounds in examples of its unreliability. The first proposal of Senor Porras, to the intent that Chile should accept as a sufficient guaranty "the 118 retention of the pledge,' ' was renewed by Your Ex- cellency in the conference of December 31, with the addition that Peru would deliver, annually, to Chile a million soles on account of the indemnity, while suf- ficient funds were being secured with which to pay it in its totality. It has already been explained why the principal proposal was unacceptable ; and from the first moment the undersigned believed — and he so explained to Your Excellency — that what was added was much less so. The annual installment of a million soles would have to be paid in case Peru might not be able to raise the loan for which she is planning in order to obtain the ten millions of the ransom. It is to be supposed that this would not happen for lack of pa- triotism in the country or of earnest activity on the part of the Government; and it is also presumable that if the first efforts, which are always the most vigorous, should fail because of some insuperable ob- stacle, later efforts, in which the enthusiasm of faith would then be lacking, might not be more fortunate. Suppose then — which is probable — that there should be no loan, that the temporary situation should be- come a definitive situation, that the indemnity would be paid by annual installments until the complete liquidation of the debt, and that Chile, become a credi- tor, a capitalist and a surety for Peru, would have to remain in Tacna and Arica for long years. For these reasons, I thought it unnecessary to consult my Government as to the proposal of Your Excellency, and I declared it unacceptable. Among the moral securities offered, I ought to in- clude, finally, that which Your Excellency deduces from the efforts that the Executive and Legislative powers of Peru have begun to make recently in order 119 to create resources applicable to the payment of the indemnity. Your Excellency appeals to a law which, for this purpose, has laid a tax on the consumption of salt. As to this point, I already had the honor to say to Your Excellency in our conference of December 31, that all this can only signify to Chile a manifestation of good will on the part of Peru to honor her engage- ments; but that, as a real guaranty, it would have to be offered not to Chile, but to the capitalists that are accustomed to make a business of loans. In any event, there would always remain the doubt as to whether the tax on the consumption of salt would be a sufficient guaranty in the eyes of a capitalist, and I note that this doubt is also entertained by the national press and even by functionaries of such lofty category as His Excellency Senor Billinghurst, the first Vice-President of the Kepublic, who declared a short time ago, in an address delivered in Tacna, that: "the taxes planned by the Executive, in the best of cases, will always be insufficient to constitute a fund for the interest and amortization required by the loan of a million pounds sterling, designed to pay for the liberation of Tacna and Arica. ' \ The last part of Your Excellency's note is intended to make clear the meaning that Peru attaches to Ar- ticle III of the Treaty of 1883, and, in this respect, Your Excellency makes assertions that I must con- tradict and propounds doctrines that are not those of international law. Your Excellency says that this Article made the future nationality of the provinces of Tacna and Ar- iea contingent solely and exclusively on the popular vote expressed in a free plebiscite, and therefore that 120 their incorporation with Peru would not be subject to the payment of the ten million soles mentioned in the same Article. On my part, I set over against this assertion the literal text of the Treaty. In the same paragraph as that in which it is determined that a plebiscite will decide whether those provinces will be Chilean or will continue to be Peruvian may be read what follows : "Whichsoever of the two countries to which the prov- inces of Tacna and Arica shall become annexed will pay to the other ten million pesos." This is equiv- alent to saying that Chile, in order to acquire those provinces, or Peru, in order to recover them, must submit to a double condition: that of a popular vote, which shall give them to her, and that of paying ten million pesos. These two conditions, incorporated, as they are, in the same article of the Treaty, are inseparable and do not admit of fictitious distinctions of priority or of importance. Both are complete in the unit of a single thought, and in such a manner that it is impossible to think of the execution of the Treaty apart from the fulfillment of the two conjointly. So therefore, Mr. Minister, the lack of conformity in our opinions in this respect is absolute. Therefore I think it necessary to support mine by appeal to writers that express themselves with authority on sub- jects of international law. They all hold, with Grotius, that "all the articles of a single and identical treaty are comprised in one another in the form of a condition, as if it should be said formally: 'I shall do this or that thing, provided you do this or that on your part.' " Calvo, glossing this text and that of Blunschli to whom "the treaty of peace constituted a whole/ ' said "a state, like any individual, does not have a right to re- ject or not to observe one of the provisions of a con- tract and to receive the benefit of the others, it could not 121 be admitted, either, that distinctions should be made between* articles of greater or less importance.' ' Wheaton expressed himself thus: "The violation of any one article of the treaty is a violation of the whole treaty; for all the articles are depended on each other, and one is to be deemed a condition of the other." It is useless to multiply these quotations, since the doctrine of the authors is uniform on this subject. All the provisions of a treaty form an indivisible whole ; each of them is incorporated in the others and any one of them is a condition of the others. This doctrine of distinction that Your Excellency seeks to establish between the clause of Article III of the Treaty of 1883, which refers to the plebiscite, and that which speaks of the payment of ten million pesos is therefore improper. Your Excellency says of the former that on its execution depends exclusively the determination of the definitive nationality of the territory of Tacna and Arica, and he attributes to the latter the accessory character of a mere obligation of debt, while saying expressly that both are different obligations, unrelated between themselves. It has just been seen, however, that these distinctions are unacceptable in law. Applying to the case in question the formula of Grotius, the aforementioned Article III has said to Chile and Peru: "Whichsoever of you to which the plebiscite shall adjudge it will be the owner of the territory of Tacna and Arica, provided you pay ten million pesos to the one not favored by the popular vote." At all events, and without regard to anything besides the letter of the Treaty itself, it is evident that what it united can not be separated; that distinctions do not exist where the Treaty made no distinctions; and that the fulfillment of one of its 122 precepts compels the strict and necessary fulfillment of the other. However, even without appealing to these argu- ments of authority, which are decisive, logic alone would be sufficient to demonstrate that the meaning that Your Excellency attaches to the controverted part of the Treaty of 1883 is unacceptable. Suppose, in truth, the plebiscite to have been already effected with a result favorable to Peru, and see what would happen, if the provisions of the Treaty were applied as Your Excellency has desired. Chile would return to Peru the provinces of Tacna and Arica, and Peru would confine herself to receiving them; Chile would thus have fulfilled the obligation she contracted, by respect- ing the will of those provinces manifested in the plebi- scite; and Peru would leave postponed until better times the fulfillment of hers, which would consist in paying ten million pesos for their redemption. Peru, deeming the onerous clause of the Treaty to be of a secondary character and saying that she would oc- cupy herself later with the affair of the payment would have received all the benefit of the plebiscite, while Chile, after having returned the territory she has been occupying, would have to wait — in order to obtain the compensation that would be due her — until some re- sult should be produced in Peru by the salt monopoly, the financial negotiations or the endeavors of public sentiment. In a word, Chile would have carried out the Treaty in so far as she is concerned, and Peru would not have done so. Permit me therefore, Your Excellency, to say that the absurdity of these two effects completely discredits the understanding of the Treaty of 1883 that would conduce directly to them. In this manner have been developed for five months the negotiations that the undersigned began, by the 123 instructions of his Government, in August of last year, without even so much as a momentary glimpse of an early solution. It can hardly be understood why a labor of such length could have been so fruitless, and it would be an enigma, if the twelve protocols in which its authentic history has been written did not stand as an indication of the causes of this deplorable fail- ure. They, indeed, testify that, at almost every stage through which we have painfully toiled, there has arisen some obstacle that delayed us and that at times compelled us to retrace our steps. This fact naturally argues responsibility on the part of some one, and the moment has now arrived, doubtless, for deter- mining it. Tn Your Excellency's official communica- tion to which I am replying, it is insinuated with sufficient clearness that the obstacles we have en- countered have been raised by Chile, and it is affirmed that nothing has been more constant than the good will of the Peruvian Chancellery to remove them. It is Your Excellency then who has begun that determin- ation of responsibility that the undersigned also deems necessary and intends to undertake on his part. A superficial examination of the futile negotiation with which I am occupying myself will show that it has been hindered by numerous difficulties of detail; but, looking well beneath the surface, it may be at once discovered that all of them spring from a single great difficulty, not yet indicated, which ought to be pointed out. It is a fact — and I note it without quali- fying it — that Peru, in embarking on the discussion of the protocol complementary to the Treaty of 1883, was not prepared to fulfill one of the obligations that this Treaty imposed on her ; that of the eventual .pay- ment of ten million pesos for the ransom of Tacna and Arica. In twelve vears. nothing had been done to 124 prevent this negotiation from taking her by surprise, and exactly there is to be found the chief and only cause of the lack of result. Indeed, if Peru had pre- pared in time for the acknowledged needs of her pres- ent situation, which of those obstacles could not easily have been overcome 1 Not one of them ; and probably they would not even have appeared. Periods! They would not have been necessary. Guaranties? She could have furnished them very easily. If these two questions on which the negotiation has been deplor- ably stranded had been thus eliminated, it would have been possible to proceed to organize the plebiscite, and the problem would perhaps have been solved at this moment. Instead of this, much time has regrettably been wasted and lost in discussions of slight utility. The discussions as to the periods lasted two months ; that as to guaranties, another two months; and here I call Your Excellency's attention to a revealing cir- cumstance: the question of periods terminated at the very moment in which Minister Porras believed that Peru now had resources with which to pay op- portunely the ten million pesos. He said, in the con- ference of October 8, that Peru was completely assured of paying the indemnity and that she declined to re- quest any period. Hence the demand of periods neces- sarily originated in the neglect of which Peru was guilty when she failed to remember that in the Treaty of 1883 existed a clause that obligated her to pay an indemnity. However, the securities to which Minister Porras alluded in October must have disappeared very soon, because there at once arose the question of the periods, masked by the question of the guaranties. "When the latter were requested by the undersigned, Your Excellency's Government, denying in principle 125 its obligation to furnish them, offered under the name of such of those that I have examined in the body of this communication and that pertained, all of them, to the purpose of obtaining periods for the effecting of the payment, long in one case, and indefinite in the other. As a guaranty, Sehor Porras said, let Chile retain the territory of Tacna and Arica until the in- demnity shall have been paid her. Your Excellency made an identical proposal, adding to it a promise to pay annually an instalment of a million soles. These proposals, as I have already shown, did not furnish the requested security; but, on the other hand, they granted to Peru the periods that she had expressly renounced. Peru, which would pay when she could, if she accepted what was proposed by Senor Porras, would cancel her obligation in no less than ten years, according to what Your Excellency has offered. All the routes led to the same point, and by all of them one would arrive at the annulment of the only agree- ment, painfully obtained: that the payment of the indemnity would be effected by Peru three months after the decision of the plebiscite should be promul- gated. A single proposal departed from this path : that of Senor Porras, who suggested that it would be ex- pedient for Chile and Peru to renounce the indemnity. However firm in the mind of Your Excellency's Government may have been the conviction that the plebiscite would unquestionably favor Peru, that pro- posal had no other object than to relieve her of the burden that was imposed on her by the Treaty of 1883. I ought to recognize, nevertheless, that Chile in view of the expectations that she cherishes, based on the plebiscite, w T ould have, been favored by accept- ing it; but my Government did not believe that it 126 could accept it, because this would have meant the postponement of the holding of the plebiscite; the derogation, in the part that refers to it, of the Treaty of 1883; and the replacement of it by another treaty of an equal nature. There was nothing, in the mean- while, that counseled or justified the adoption of such a procedure. Inasmuch as one treaty existed, the simplest and most correct solution would have been to fulfill it, it also appearing reasonable that this would be much easier than to negotiate and adopt another one. I have therefore demonstrated, by the argument here concluded, that the Government of Chile has really desired to go to the plebiscite ordained by Ar- ticle III of the Treaty of 1883 in search of the legal solution of the problem of Tacna and Arica. The steps it took for this purpose at a moment that it deemed exceptionally propitious, a short time after a crisis had been caused in this capital by a situation that profoundly disturbed the internal life of Peru, have not borne, nevertheless, any fruit, and they have been developed laboriously for six months amid numer- ous obstacles. To all the solicitations — reasonable and in strict conformity with law — which the under- signed has formulated, Your Excellency's Govern- ment opposed negatives irreconcilable with the ful- fillment of the obligations expressly recognized and accepted by Peru in the Treaty of 1883. There can be but one explanation of this opposition. Peru, dur- ing twelve years that have passed since the conclusion of the Peace of Ancon, has done nothing to prevent the expiration of the period of the Treaty from over- taking her unprepared with the means of fulfilling it. There were not issued, during that long period, laws and resources for the redemption of the provinces that 127 the plebiscite might return to her, nor had she ap- pealed to the national sentiment for the aid of its efforts. Only now, and still three months after the opening of the negotiation of the plebiscite with her Chancellery, has she begun to prepare the means that she needed to enable her to participate in it without embarrassment. Owing to the fact that she had not accumulated them in time, she was surprised at the last hour in a struggle with uncertainties that have compelled her to meet the solicitations of Chile with unjustifiable refusals. It being thus proven that the difficulties that have hindered and frustrated the nego- tiation of the plebiscite have originated with Peru, I reply to the last part of Your Excellency's note, in which you speak of obstacles that ought to be over- come, while expressing confidence that your Govern- ment will remove them. Otherwise, if the Treaty of 1883 be not fulfilled opportunely and in all its parts, the responsibility will not be Chile's; and my Govern - ment — which desires to appear honorably before the plebiscite and has made great efforts to be able to do so — attributes it wholly to Your Excellency's Government. I take this new opportunity to reiterate . to Your Excellency the protests of my most distinguished con- sideration. M. R. Lira. To His Excellency, Senor Doctor Don Eicardo Ortiz de. Zevallos, Minister of Foreign Eelations. - 128 Proceedings of the Conference Held Between Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru and Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] [Lima, August 14, 1897.} Meeting in the Department of Foreign Relations this date, the Minister of that branch of the Government, Dr. Enrique de la Riva-Aguero, and the Envoy Extra- ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Dr. Vicente Santa-Cruz, the former explained: that he had taken the liberty to invite the Minister of Chile to this conference for the purpose of continuing the interrupted negotiation of the matter of Tacna and Arica, which his Government desires to carry to a conclusion, in the shortest time possible ; that not only did their proper obligations demand it, but also the necessity under which they found themselves, for, heeding such a unanimous and legitimate national aspiration; that, on the other hand, it is unquestion- able that both Peru and Chile are agreed that the situation of uncertainty which the force of that affair maintains, should disappear, in order to make their relations* truly stable and enable them to busy them- selves with their common and permanent interests. The Minister of Foreign Relations added that he wished to state that there had been two reasons for which his Government, without ever neglecting the question of Tacna and Arica, about which steps had been taken here as well as in Santiago, has not, how^- ever, urged the matter on Chile during the past year, for the purpose of securing an immediate solution: first, because he deemed it proper on his part not to do it when the new administration of Sr. Errazuriz had just been inaugurated, which was then engaged 129 n the task of internal organization; and second, be- cause the subsequent retirement of Sr. Lira left the Legation of Chile, for four months, without a repres- entative who could treat with such a delicate subject; but that, first one and then the other reason having disappeared, he hoped that Sr. Santa Cruz, being satisfied for the reasons already given, which could advise both countries toward an immediate solution, would be disposed to secure it in the frank and cordial discussion to which he had had the honor to invite him. The Minister of Chile replied that he* accepted this invitation with pleasure, as his Government, enter- taining the same high designs shown by the Minister of Foreign Eelations, desires, as well as Peru, to de- finitely solve the question of Tacna and Arica. The Minister of Foreign Eelations forthwith sug- gested that he believed it necessary to protocolize all the conferences on this subject, beginning with the present one, it being understood that in order that the discussion should not be difficult and embarrassing, only the essential parts would be set forth, leaving out in good faith, for both parties, the opinions which are given or decisions which are declared, of a con- fidential nature; a suggestion which was accepted by the Minister of Chile. After lengthy general consideration, carried on by both Plenipotentiaries, the Minister of Foreign Re- lations declared that his Government had no proposal to make to Chile for the direct settlement of the ques- tion of Tacna and Arica, in regard to which it only asked the faithful and honest fulfillment of the Treaty of 1883 ; but that, as the Government of Chile had on various occasions intimated the desire to reach a di- rect solution, it would accept, with pleasure, the dis- 130 cussion of any proposition in this respect which might be made to it, and which should always be based on the complete restitution of the said provinces to Peru. The Minister of Chile replied that his instructions do not authorize him to make any proposal for a direct settlement, doubtless because Peru did not ac- cept those which were previously made, and that he is only empowered to arrange the form and conditions of the plebiscite, which, nevertheless, did not prevent him from discussing, either now or later, the direct combinations that might be proposed to him, or per- haps make proposals in the course of the debate, if his Government, having been given the antecedents, should strike upon any which would be acceptable. Consequently it was agreed, beginning with the next conference, to begin full discussion of the protocol regulating the plebiscite, the naming of the day upon which it shall take place having been opportunely made by the Minister of Foreign Relations. Before retiring, the Minister from Chile declared that he wished to call the attention of the Minister of Foreign Relations to the objection drawn up by his Government in the Valdes Carrera affair. By reason of this, the Minister of Foreign Re- lations made a brief explanation of said affair; he indicated that the reasons which had prevented him from giving a timely reply to Sr. Lira 's last note are those set forth in his communication of July 9th to Sr. Bravo Valdivieso ; but that he had no objection to dealing with it separately with His Excellency Sr. Santa Cruz, which was done in a special conference which they held immediately. E. DE LA RlVA AGUERO. V. Santa Cruz. Lima, August 14, 1897. 131 Proceedings of the Conferences Held in February and March, 1898, Between Minister Plenipoten- tiary of Peru on Special Mission and Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] {April 9, 1898.] I. Met, in the hall of the Ministry of Foreign Re- lations of Chile, the Minister Plenipotentiary of Peru, on a special mission Don Guillermo E. Billinghurst, and the Minister of the Department, Don Raimundo Silva Cruz, the former stated that his Government, desiring to reach, as soon as possible, a definition of the situation of the territories of Tacna and Arica, in conformity with the Treaty of Peace of October 20, 1883, and thus to strengthen the relations of friend- ship between the two countries, had seen fit to ac- credit him on a special mission to the Government of this Republic. The Minister of Foreign Relations said that the Government of Chile could do no less than congratu- late itself that this important mission had been in- trusted by the Government of Peru to a person so distinguished and so highly placed in that Republic, and, at the same time, especially connected with Chilean society, which, without doubt, must facilitate a negotiation that Chile has always longed to see ter- minated in a form satisfactory to both countries and in that absolute correctness which is the pledge of friendship and expediency between nations united by bonds of origin and common mercantile and industrial interests. The Minister added that, although the Treaty of 1883 established the plebiscitary procedure for the settlement of the question under discussion, 132 this would not prevent the two Governments from agreeing on a direct and more rapid manner; and, with that in view, he at once proposed the following idea: that Peru should definitively cede to Chile dominion over the territories of Tacna and Arica, and that Chile, on her part, would not limit herself to paying the indemnity stipulated in the Treaty in force, But that she would be disposed to go still further. The Minister of Peru declared that his Government had already declined, on former occasions, to consent to the delivery, by direct arrangement, of the territories of Tacna and Arica, and that she would always stand by that decision, because the national sentiment powerful and inflexible in this respect, would not yield to offers, however advantageous they might be. He added that although Peru had entered into a treaty — as a consequence of the outcome of the war of 1879, and in order to rid herself of the foreign occupation that even threatened her sovereignty — to cede Ta- rapaca perpetually and unconditionally, today — when she is in the full exercise of her sovereign rights, with a Government that has been able to win respect at home and abroad, and when she possesses the re- sources necessary to meet the obligations that the ransom of the provinces involves, far from being able to consent to the dismemberment of the national ter- ritory, thus trampling on the most sacred rights of her fundamental charter — the reincorporation of those territories, an aspiration that touches the souls of the Peruvian people, has come to constitute a national ob- jective, to which is bound the very existence of Peru as a sovereign nation. Apart from these consider- ations, which are in the consciousness of each and all of the Peruvians, these are those of a less elevated character, but no less fundamental, that make this 133 proposal unacceptable and that refer to the economic life of the valuable departments of southern Peru. The Minister of Foreign Relations remarked that he would not enter into an analysis of the reality and intensity of patriotic feeling, always respectable in itself, to which the Minister of Peru had just alluded and which he alleges as the most unsurmountable ob- stacle to the acceptance of the direct arrangement; but a fact of greater significance and importance ought not to be overlooked. The territories of Tacna and Arica have been, since 1883, subject to a special situation created by the Treaty of Peace and Friend- ship, which left them without definite nationality, or even with a nationality more closely related to that of Chile, to whose possession and laws it subjected them. The possession that might be acquired by one of the countries could not therefore be considered by the other a dismemberment of territory, whether by direct arrangement or by a plebiscite. It would merely signify the determination of a dominion today in- definite. As to reasons of expediency, the Minister of Foreign Relations holds that they are all, in so far as Peru is concerned, on the side of a direct arrangement, such as the one that he proposes to her, if account be taken of the sacrifices of every kind that would be imposed upon her in order to bestow on those territories a greater prosperity and development in a manner that would enable them to make an adequate contribution to the national life. The Minister of Peru explained that there was no exaggeration whatsoever in the remarks to which he had already given utterance; that, without entering upon a full discussion, he believed it proper, never- theless, to declare that he did not accept the theory 134 of the Minister of Foreign Relations as to the present condition of Tacna and Arica, for the occupation main- tained by Chile signified to Peru no more than a suspension of the exercise of her sovereignty over those provinces, and in nowise the abandonment or renouncement of sovereignty itself; but, disregard- ing this, and above every other demonstration, the fact was that, in his judgment, Peruvian sentiment had not ceased for a single instant to regard the two prov- inces alluded to as an integral part of her territory; and that, as to reasons of expediency, it would be sufficient to note that the construction of a railway from Arica to another point of that coast toward the productive centers of Bolivia, as was foreseen by the treaties pending and those already public, of Chile with that nation, would introduce serious economic disturbances in the departments of Puno and Are- quipa, in the realm of railway traffic and the products of the custom-house of Mollendo, to which Peru can not contribute by a direct labor of her own; and he ended by setting forth that the only possible solution consisted in faithfully fulfilling the Treaty of October 20, 1883, and, convinced of which, he invited the Min- ister of Foreign Relations to proceed to discuss the bases of the plebiscite. The Minister of Foreign Relations then proposed that, inasmuch as it was impossible for them to reach an understanding as to the basis of a direct arrange- ment relative to the whole of the territories, it might refer to at least a part. So, by dividing them into two zones, one from Arica southward, and the other from Arica northward, Peru could annex the latter, and Chile, the former, without any indemnity on one side or the other, that is, the indemnity would be re- ciprocally liquidated. 135 The Minister of Peru maintained that the same reasons that militate against his country's being able to accept the cession, without a plebiscite, of the whole, would obtain, with the same force, in respect of a part; so that he would only have to repeat them in order to arrive at the same conclusion, strengthened in this case, by the consideration that the towns situ- ated north of Arica would be in a completely anom- alous position and would be destined to languish and die. The Minister of Foreign Eelations observed that in spite of previous negotiations, as appears from antecedents that exist in the archives of the Ministry, the Government of Peru was disposed to enter into direct arrangements as to one part of those terri- tories, it proposing that the region from Chero north- ward, as far as Sama, should be annexed to Peru, and, on the other hand, that from Vitor southward, as far as Camarones, should be annexed to Chile, the plebiscitary decision being thus limited to the intermediate zone and the amount of the indemnity being also reduced to four million pesos. In view of this, he now took occasion to make it clear that the Government of Chile is disposed to accept, at once, this basis, in its desire to seek a method that would better conciliate the interests of the two countries. The Minister of Peru said that public opinion in his country had never accepted the idea of the arrange- ment to which he had alluded and that today, when the treaties concluded between Chile and Bolivia as to the particular are known, it was rejected in an express and definitive manner, for reasons of a different nature that touch the delicate fibers of the national dignity, because of which it might be asserted that there is not in Peru a single ruler that would 136 dare to cede, apart from the case contemplated in the Treaty of 1883, so much as an inch of the territories of Tacna and Arica. The Minister of Foreign Eelations declared that al- though, according to the words to which he had just listened, he understood that it was also impossible to arrive at an accord as to the latter basis, he could do no less than lament that the mind of Peru should be influenced in any way and to such a considerable degree by the circumstance that a sister country might be able to reap a benefit thereby, all the more so that in such a case it would not be Peru that would be ceding territories to Bolivia, but Chile that would be disposing freely of what she might legitimately acquire. This reveals, on the other hand, he added, that the expediency or inexpediency of the dismember- ment of the territory is not the strongest of the reasons. He ended by asking the Minister of Peru to think over this proposal for some days. The Minister of Peru replied that the ideas that he had expressed, which emanated from an intense conviction and a broad study of this question under its distinct phases, were incapable of modification; but that, out of deference to the Minister of Foreign Eelations, he did not hesitate to agree to discuss this point again. After the conferences had been suspended for some days, the Minister of Peru said in the next that the proposal made by the Minister of Foreign Eelations, which had remained pending, could not be accepted, because, in addition to reasons of patriotic sentiment, to those that counsel retention for the maintenance of the railways of southern Peru and to those that relate to the port of Mollendo, already set forth, there remains the very important reason that, in case of 137 the establishment of a new nationality north of the Camarones ravine, Peru would be left without a natural frontier ; and, if to this be added the establish- ment there of new towns and railway traffic, that her condition would be wholly anomalous, since she would lack the means that would enable her to watch over her new frontier in an effective manner. He concluded by again expressing a desire to seek a sol- ution in a plebiscite, as was prescribed by the Treaty of October 20, 1883. The Minister of Foreign Relations said that the strongest proof that the Government of Chile was animated by the best designs in respect of this question were the efforts that it had made to solve it, in a man- ner that would most thoroughly and rapidly harmon- ize the interests — the compromise or direct arrange- ment — but that, if it should be impossible, the Govern- ment would be to-day, as it had always been, ready to study the most serious forms and bases — both guaranteed and honorable — for the plebiscite provided in the Treaty of 1883, which it had tried at every moment, to carry into effect, as is shown by the fact that its representatives in Peru have never lacked instructions to this effect. n. Proceeding to treat of the form in which the plebi- scite ought to be effected, the Minister of Foreign Relations proposed the idea that, for the purpose of this act, the territories be divided into three zones from north to south ; one from Sama to Chero, another from Chero to Vitor, and a third from Vitor to Cama- rones, because thus would be better consulted the will and interests of each of those sections, according to their development, interests and sentiments, and 138 because, otherwise, they would be forced to submit to a general decision that might not be the best suited to their peculiar character. The Minister of Peru remarked that among the parts indicated of those territories there is no differ- ence whatsoever in respect of their economic life and their tendencies and desires, and that it would be im- possible for him to accept the idea, he preferring to adhere to the provisions of the Treaty of Ancon, which mentions only a plebiscite for all the territories. The Minister of Foreign Relations, insisting on the idea of dividing the territories for the purpose of the plebiscite, proposed that the division be made in at least two parts, each of which would correspond, re- spectively, to the former provinces, at present depart- ments of Tacna and Arica. It is clear, he added, that this division, made in ancient times by Peru and retained by Chile, is founded on the peculiar conditions of each of those two regions. The Minister of Peru insisted, on his part, that it was impossible for his Government to accept the division of the territory, considered by the Treaty of Peace as one only, as a unit, for the purposes of the plebiscite ; and, regretting that he could not accede to the invitation offered him by the Minister of Foreign Relations, of arriving at an especial agree- ment in this respect, he repeated that he would prefer to adhere to the terms of the aforementioned Treaty. III. Proceeding to the determination of the essential bases of the plebiscite, it was agreed to consider it in the following order: first, those who have a right to vote; second, whether the vote ought to be public or secret; third, who ought to preside over the oper- 139 ations of the act and settle the difficulties that might arise in it; fourth, the terms and periods in which the indemnity that will he due hy the country that shall become the owner of the territory will have to be paid to the other, according to the Treaty of 1883 ; and, fifth, what securities shall be stipulated as to this payment. It was agreed, at the same time, to postpone until later the study of the regulations that would cover the practical application of these essential bases. The study of the first point was taken up, it being maintained by the Minister of Foreign Relations that all the inhabitants of the territory that should meet certain requirements of age, residence, civil state, et cetera, should be regarded as qualified to take part in the vote; and, by the Minister of Peru, that only Peru- vians, born in the territory or that reside in it ought to be permitted to vote, provided they possess certain personal qualifications. Although, for this purpose, some of those personal requirements were indicated, on the part of one and of the other, the deliberation was confined in the main to the point as to whether the inhabitants that should fulfill the conditions of time, of residence and others, or only native persons of the territory and Peruvians, although not born but re- sident in it, might take part in the vote, the determi- nation of the other requirements being postponed until later. After a series of conferences in which, on the part of the Minister of Foreign Relations and on the part of the Minister of Peru, respectively, the necessary considerations and bases were adduced, without its being possible to arrive at an accord, it was agreed to submit the point to the arbitral decision of the sovereign of a friendly power. 140 Next was taken up the consideration of the require- ments that might be exacted of voters, and as an understanding was not reached regarding them, either, after a prolonged deliberation, it was also agreed to submit them to the same arbitrament. The same careful study was devoted to the point as to whether the vote should be public or secret, without an agreement being reached. It was decided to submit it also to an arbitral solution. In view of the essentially scientific and juridical nature of the subjects comprised in the foregoing points, it was deemed expedient by common consent, not to reproduce in this memorandum the arguments adduced on the one side or the other, inasmuch as it would have been impossible to do so in an ample and complete manner, and as it would be necessary that they be set forth and developed before the arbiter. As to the designation of the arbiter, it was agreed that it should be the Government of Her Majesty the Queen Eegent of Spain, of whom would be solicited opportunely the acceptance of the office through the medium of the plenipotentiaries that the two coun- tries might accredit to it. Through the medium of these same plenipotentiaries, the two Governments would solicit of the arbiter an early expression of her decision. After the other points were analyzed, and the reg- ulations of the plebiscite acts were studied, there was formulated, by common consent, the following plan of a convention, of which the Minister of Foreign Eelations took one copy and the Minister of Peru, another, in order that, in the next conference, if no point should merit reconsideration, to proceed to sign it after the presentation and exchange of the respec- tive powers : 141 The Governments of the Eepublic of Chile and the Eepublic of Peru, desiring to reach a definitive set- tlement, in respect of the dominion and sovereignty of the territories of Tacna and Arica, in conformity with the Treaty of 'Peace of October 20, 1883, and to strengthen the relations of friendship between the two peoples by the elimination of a question that has vexed them for a long time, after the examination and cer- tification of their respective powers and after finding them to be sufficient, adopted the following convention, designed to carry into effect Article III of the afore- mentioned Treaty of October 20, 1883 : Article I. To the decision of the Government of her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain, whom the high contracting parties designate in the capacity of arbiter, the follow- ing points are submitted: 1. Who has a right to take part in the plebiscitary vote designed to determine the definitive dominion and sovereignty of the territories of Tacna and Arica; and what are the requisites of nationality, sex, age, civil state, residence, or any other that must be pos- sessed by the voters; 2. Whether the plebiscitary vote shall be public or secret. Article II. A directive board, composed of one representative of the Government of Chile, one representative of the Government of Peru and a third party designated by the Government of Spain, will preside over the acts and take the necessary steps to carry the plebiscite into effect. The third party designated will serve in the capacity of chairman of the board. This board will have authority: 1. To make up and publish a general register of all those that may have a right to vote? 2. To settle all difficulties, doubts and questions that may arise in respect of the listing, voting and other acts of the plebiscite; 142 3. To make a general scrutiny of the votes, based on the partial results obtained at each of the voting- tables; 4. To announce the general result of the vote, com- municating it immediately to the Governments of Spain, Chile and Peru; 5. To issue all orders and instructions necessary to the better accomplishment of the plebiscitary acts de- fined by the present Convention. All the decisions of this board will be determined by a majority vote. In case of a division, the opinion of the third party designated by the Government of Spain will prevail. Aeticle III. Not later than forty days after the announcement of the decision of the arbiter to whom Article I refers, the Governments of Chile and Peru will proceed to ap- point their representatives. The directive board will establish quarters in the city of Tacna and it will begin to function within a period of ten days reckoned after the third party, who shall be designated by the Govern- ment of Spain, shall be present in that city. Aeticle IV. There will be four registration committees or boards ; one in Tacna, one in Tarata, one in Arica and the other in Lluta. These committees will be composed of : 1. One appointee of the Government of Chile; 2. One appointee of the Government of Peru; 3. One commissary, appointed by the directive board of the plebiscite, who will serve in the capacity of chairman. The aforementioned committees will establish quar- ters, not later than eight days after the installation of the directive board in Tacna, and they will function for forty consecutive days, from ten in the forenoon until four in the afternoon. Daily, when they cease their labors, they will place at the bottom of the last 143 name inscribed a note signed by all their members, in which shall be given the number of persons listed during the day. The pages of the register in which the inscriptions shall be made will also* be signed by all the members of the committees. The resolutions of the inspecting committees will be adopted by a majority vote, and their resolutions will be appealable to the directive board. The committees will inscribe in the registers all per- sons that shall so request and that shall have a right to vote, according to the decision of the arbiter des- ignated in Article I, and they will issue to them reg- istration certificates, which those registered must show in the act of voting. Whenever the board shall refuse to inscribe the name of a person, it must note in the minutes of the session of the day the name of the person rejected and the cause of his rejection. The person to whom reg- istration shall be denied will have a right to require a copy of that part of the minutes, authorized by the members of the committee. Not later than forty-eight hours after the conclusion of their functions, registration committees will de- liver the registers and other original documents to the directive board. Article V. The directive board will determine, on the basis of the arbitral decision, the means whereby shall be proven the possession of the qualifications, which, ac- cording to the said decision, voters must have. Article VI. The directive board will cause to be published the registers within ten days of their reception, according to the alphabetical order of the surname of the per- sons listed. This publication will be made in the news- papers of Tacna and Arica, and on placards that will be posted in the most public places of Lluta and Ta- rata. 144 Within fifteen days after the said publication, per- sons that shall have been refused inscription may ap- pear before the directive board; and charges that any person may make against the registration of unqual- ified persons may be presented to the directive board. After that period, no claim will be heard, and the reg- ister will be definitively constituted, with the con- ditions that the board may have established; all of which will be published immediately in the form pre- scribed in the first section of the present Article. Article VII. Ten days after the final closing of the register, the committees in charge of the reception and scrutiny of the votes will begin to function. These committees will be composed of the same per- sons that will have formed the registration commit- tees ; they will function for ten consecutive days, from nine in the forenoon until four in the afternoon, in the same places as the committees previously men- tioned ; namely : Tacna, Arica, Tarata and Lluta ; and they will adopt their resolutions by a majority vote, which will be appealable to the directive board. Every voter, at the time of voting, will present the same certificate that he will have received on register- ing, which will remain in the custody of the receiving committee, with the mark of cancelation, under the signature of all the members. On the other hand, the voter will be granted a written acknowledgment of having voted. Daily, the result of the voting will be noted in minutes, which in triplicate, will be kept and signed by the members of the committee, each of whom shall preserve a copy. Article VIII. Not later than three days after the conclusion of the receipt of the votes, the committees will deliver to the directive board of the plebiscite the minutes and other documents of the partial ballots. 145 Akticle IX. Six days after the voting shall cease, the directive board will proceed to make a general scrutiny, on the basis of the partial minutes, in public sessions and in a single meeting, until the proclamation of the result. Akticle X. The directive board will enjoy complete inde- pendence in the exercise of its functions and it may, with a view to guaranteeing order and freedom in all the acts of the plebiscite, demand of the authorities the aid of the public armed forces. Akticle XI. Neither the directive board nor the registration or receiving committees shall function save when all the members that compose them are present. If one of the members of the registration or receiving commit- tees shall be absent or incapacitated on the days on which they ought to exercise their functions, he will be replaced during his incapacity by the person that the representative that belongs to the nation or Government that appointed the one incapacitated may designate, with the exception of the presiding com- missary, whose substitute shall be appointed by the directive board. Article XII. If the result of the plebiscite be favorable to Peru, the representatives of the Government of Chile shall deliver over to the Peruvian authority the territories of Tacna and Arica within the maximum term of fif- teen days. Article 1 XIII. The custom-house of Arica will meet the expenses occasioned by the acts of the plebiscite in the ter- ritories of Tacna and Arica. 146 Article XIV. The fact that the registration and receiving com- mittees mentioned in the foregoing articles function in Tarata does not imply a renouncement on the part of Peru of the pending claim in respect of a part of that region, although this does not signify a design of claiming any indemnity for the time that Chile has occupied it. Article XV. The indemnity of ten million pesos' prescribed by Article III of the Treaty of October 20, 1883, will be paid by the country that shall become the owner of the provinces of Tacna and Arica on the following terms: one million within the period of ten days, reckoned from the proclamation of the general re- sult of the plebiscite; another million within the fol- lowing year ; and two millions at the end of each year of the subsequent four years. The sums referred to will be paid in Peruvian silver soles or in Chilean silver coin of the kind that cir- culated at the time when the Treaty of October 20, 1883, was signed. Article XVI. The total products of the custom-house at Arica are assigned for the payment of the indemnity men- tioned in the preceding article. Article XVII. Within the period of sixty days, reckoned from the exchange of ratifications of the present convention, the diplomatic representatives of the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Peru to the Government of Spain will solicit jointly from the latter the acceptance of the appointment to which Article I refers and the de- signation of the third party prescribed in Article II. 147 Abticle XVIII. Within the period of forty days, reckoned from the acceptance of the appointment by the arbiter, each of the high contracting parties will state its case in a written brief, which it will present through its pleni- potentiary, in order that, by means of it, and on the basis of the provisions of the Treaty of October 20, 1883, and of the present convention, it may announce its decision. The present convention will be ratified by the res- pective Congresses, and the ratifications will be ex- changed at Santiago, Chile, within the briefest period possible. In the next conference the Minister of Foreign Relations explained that, although His Excellency the President of the Republic and his other colleagues of the Cabinet had accepted the plan of the stipulated convention, he, personally, deemed it a duty of deli- cacy to abstain from signing it, because, as was well known, a ministerial crisis had supervened in the meantime. He thought it more correct to leave to the free and unbiased judgment of his successor the question of giving to the said plan the solemn charac- ter of an international engagement. The Minister of Peru declared that, as for himself, he upheld the plan in the form stipulated, and that he was ready to sign it whenever the Government of Chile might deem it proper, he lamenting, indeed, that the Minister of Foreign Relations was prevented from doing so on the ground of personal delicacy that he had explained, and the nobility of which he could do no less than respect. Two copies of the present memorandum were signed at Santiago, April 9, 1898, by the Minister Plenipo- tentiary of Peru on a special mission, Senor Don Guillermo E. Billinghurst, and by the Minister of 148 Foreign Relations of Chile, Sehor Don Raimundo Silva Cruz, they sealing it with their respective seals. GuiLLERMO E. BlLLINGHURST. Raimundo Silva Cruz. . Draft of Proceedings of Conference, Submitted by Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, on May 10, 1900. [Translation.] Met in the hall of the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Chile, on April 25 and May 3 of the present year, the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipoten- tiary of Peru, Senor Don Cesareo Chacaltana, and the Minister of the Department, Seiior Don Rafael Errazuriz Urmeneta, the former stated that he had solicited of the latter certain special audiences in order to discharge the mission that his Government had entrusted to him; and he added that, in opening this conference, he was animated by the same sentiments as those he had expressed in his address of reception. He also said that, without intending to precipitate procedures, he desired to arrive, in harmony with the Government of Chile and in a tranquil manner, at the earliest possible solution of the problem as to definitive nationality of .the territories of Tacna and Arica. The Minister of Foreign Relations replied that the Government of Chile was animated by equal senti- ments and purposes, and that he, on his part, would consider himself happy if in this conference they should attain success in giving to the said provinces a definitive solution that would be satisfactory to both countries. 149 The Minister of Peru proposed that the conference should assume the form of protocols, authorized by the signatures of the negotiators, and this was ac- cepted by the Minister of Foreign Relations. The Minister of Peru then expressed the just desire of his Government that this subject should be con- cluded during the course of the ordinary legislative sessions of the present year, to which there could be no objection, as both Governments desired to settle it as soon as possible. He added that it was, besides, necessary to overcome by some means the delays that had been occasioned and to end the disquietudes and excitement produced, both in Chile and in Peru, by the present abnormal situation and the passionate de- bates to which it gives rise, thus hindering not in- frequently the tranquil action of both Chancelleries. The Minister of Foreign Relations agreed to the necessity of not delaying the solution of the problem under consideration ; but, he added, as the definitive sanction of the respective scheme did not depend ex- clusively on the Executive Power, but also on the Leg- islative Chambers, it would be difficult for him to fix a period. Nevertheless, he added, the Chilean Govern- ment will try to see to it that the question shall be settled during the present year. At this stage, the conference was adjourned, in order to continue it on May 3, which was done in the following manner: The Minister of Peru explained that, in his opinion the natural and necessary basis of the convention relative to the procedure that ought to be followed in determining the definitive nationality of the provinces of Tacna and Arica was the Treaty of Ancon, and especially the rules provided in Article III the terms of which he recalled. Although Peru — he said — 150 set her signature to that Treaty under quite excep- tional circumstances, my Government believed that the clauses of the Treaty ought not to be disregarded in settling the difficulty indicated. He concluded by re- marking that he would have omitted this declaration if opinions that showed a tendency to ignore the per- tinency of the aforementioned Treaty, in the part re- called, had not been maintained recently. The Minister of Foreign Relations declared that the opinions of his Government coincided with those ex- pressed by the Minister of Peru. In the opinion of the Government Chile, — he said, — as was to be sup- posed, Article III of the Treaty of Ancon would have to be applied in formulating the bases of the plebi- scite as to the definitive nationality of the provinces of Tacna and Arica ; and he concluded by saying that, on this point, there could be no divergence of views between the Chancelleries of Chile and Peru. The Minister of Peru then affirmed that, being in accord on this point, he proposed in the name of his Government that the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol should be carried out, and to this effect he requested of the high powers of Chile its definitive sanction. He spoke at length in favor of this request and he adduced the following, which are given in outline, as the principal reasons: He recalled minutely the history of the negotiations carried on from 1892, opened by Sehores Larrabure y Unanue and Vial Solar, until the conclusion of the aforementioned one of the protocol, in the course of which not less than eight efforts at an arrangement on different bases had failed and in which an equal number of years had been employed. The Billing- hurst Protocol, he said, is the result of a series of efforts, the result of a long and laborious diplomatic 151 process, at the end of which the two Governments came to an agreement, after eliminating what each of them deemed incompatible with the fundamental in- terests of its country. If the protocol were put aside today, it would be necessary to go back to the begin- ning of an interminable and but little short of impos- sible labor. He explained also that if the protocol were aban- doned, in concerting new bases of arrangement, the Government of Peru would seek to obtain for its country more advantageous conditions than those that were assured in that compact, and that of Chile would attempt the same thing for its country. At all events, neither of the two Governments would resign itself to accepting for its nation conditions more unfavor- able than those in which the protocol placed it. The two Republics, in such a case, instead of drawing closer together, would become more widely separated from each other, and thus the impossibility of a new arrangement on different bases would become accen- tuated. He said, further, that, although the protocol in ques- tion did not meet the extreme demands of either of the countries, it kept alive the expectations of both, of the definitive acquisition of the territories of Tacna and Arica, and that it constituted, in conformity with the laws of modern civilization, an impartial and just arbiter to settle the differences that had arisen as to the manner and conditions of the plebiscite. If by a stipulated arbitration Chile exposed herself to seeing disregarded the rights and principles that she holds to be incontrovertible, the same would happen to Peru. What would be neither just nor acceptable in any case was that either of the two interested Govern- ments should attempt to constitute itself an arbiter to 152 determine by itself alone the manner and conditions of the plebiscite: He continued that, with the drawing up of the pro- tocol, several questions of importance had fallen into abeyance, and among them, the demands of Peru as to the occupation by Chile of a part of the province of Tarata, and the objections opportunely made by the former to the occupation by the latter of the prov- inces of Tacna and Arica after the ten years provided for in the Treaty of Ancon. These and others that present themselves to-day — such as the demand in respect of the schools of Tacna and Arica under the direction of Peruvian teachers — would be implicitly settled by the definitive sanctioning of the protocol. He concluded by pointing out that the Billinghurst- Latorre pact had been approved by the Executive Power and by both branches of the Legislative Power of Peru ; that the Government of His Excellency Senor Komana could not, without disregarding the results of the vote of the Chambers, still subsisting, let the aforementioned compact go by default; but, on the other hand, he sought to promote its definitive sanc- tioning. In respect of Chile, he added, this ought to be also the less difficult solution and the one more in harmony with the state of the case in the eyes of her higher authorities. The protocol, he said, now has the approval of the Executive Power and of the almost unanimous approval of the honorable legis- lators that composed the Senate of 1898. The Govern- ment of His Excellency Senor Errazuriz, with a firm- ness of conviction worthy of the high international interests in dispute, supported the Billinghurst-La- torre arrangement in the Chamber of Deputies and he again recommended its approval in 1899. It is natural to cherish the hope that he will make one more effort 153 to secure its approval in the Chamber of Deputies about to be inaugurated. In this way, some influence ought to be exerted by the last part of the aforemen- tioned document, in which it was stipulated that the convention would be ratified by the respective Con- gresses and the exchange would be effected in the briefest possible period. The Minister of Foreign Relations said that, as was known, the present Government of Chile had agreed to the adoption of this protocol and had striven to secure its approval in the Congress ; but, for reasons of a different kind, a moment had arrived in which there sprang up in the Chamber of Deputies so pro- nounced a current of opinion against the arrangement that, in order not to expose it to a conspicuous failure, he preferred not to urge with more insistency that the Chamber should express itself in a vote, and the Government decided to leave things in the state in which they stand today. He said likewise that it had not been concealed from him that in the course of the last year opposition to the protocol had increased in Chile, thus rendering the action of her Govern- ment difficult. Nevertheless, he added, it would be impossible to say at this moment what might be the opinion that would prevail in the next Chamber of Deputies. The Chamber had just been wholly renewed in its com- position, and many persons would enter it that had not belonged to it before. The Government would not be able to ascertain with exactitude, until the be- ginning of June, whether or not there might be a ma- jority favorable to the convention, and, consequently, whether or not it might be possible to count on its con- currence in sanctioning it definitively. He explained, furthermore, that his Government was not opposed, in any case, if Peru so desired, to 154 requesting of the Chamber of Deputies, in the month of June, as indicated above, the special sessions neces- sary to taking up the subject and settling it finally; that, since this decision would not depend on the Executive Power, but on the Congress, he would be unable, until after the Chamber of Deputies had ex- pressed itself, to give a reply as to the fate of the protocol. Referring to the questions pending between Chile and Peru, he said that, to those already enumerated, would have to be added the one relative to the claims of Chileans that had suffered damages in the War of the Pacific, provided for also in the Treaty of Ancon. The Minister of Peru explained that, in reality, the sanctioning of the protocol did not depend today on the Executive Power, but on the Chamber of Deputies ; nevertheless, his Government hoped that, inasmuch as such powerful motives as those already enunciated militated in favor of this sanction, the Executive Power of Chile Avould urge it opportunely with the same earnestness as that with which he had urged it on other occasions. As to the claims of the Chileans that had suffered damages, he said that he did not doubt that an equita- ble and satisfactory result would be reached after the fulfillment of this part of the Treaty of Ancon and in that relative to the plebiscite, and that on this subject a convention had already been signed. The Minister of Foreign Relations explained that certain steps had been taken by his Government in reference to the protocol, which it would not oppose ; but that, in order to define the attitude it would as- sume in the next sessions of the Congress and to give a clear reply, it would have to hope that this attitude would be determined in one of the early understand- ings in the Council of Ministers. 155 The view of this last declaration and of the cir- cumstances that the definitive sanction of the protocol would not depend on the Executive Power, which had already given its approval to it and* was supporting it, but on the vote of the Chamber of Deputies, it was agreed to suspend these conferences until the begin- ning of June, or earlier, if either the representative of Chile or of Peru should so request. Draft of Proceedings of Conference, Submitted by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to Minister of Peru in Chile, on May 26, 1900. [Translation.] On April 25, and May 3 of the present year, met in the hall of the office of the Ministry of Foreign Re- lations, the Minister of the Department, Don Rafael Errazuriz Urmeneta, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Peru, Seiior Don Cesareo Chacaltana, who,, in obedience to instructions of his Government, had requested the former to con- fer duly and in special audiences as to the object of his mission, which was to arrive at an early solution of the problem of the definitive nationality of the ter- ritories of Tacna and Arica. The Minister of Foreign Relations testified that he had acceded with pleasure to the immediate study of this question, he affirming that his Government was animated by the same spirit of cordiality that the Minister of Peru had expressed on the part of his, and that he also desired to settle as soon as possible a difficulty that interfered with harmony between the two countries. 156 The Minister of Peru requested that the conferences that might be held should be protocolized, and the Minister of Foreign Eelations agreed to this, with the understanding that a record should be made in the minutes, signed by each, of the agreements or dis- agreements that might arise over subjects of impor- tance that should be discussed. At the request of the Minister of Peru, the Minister of Foreign Eelations offered to solicit from the honor- able Chamber of Deputies an early expression as to the plebiscitary protocol of April 16, 1898. After this promise, it was agreed to adjourn the conferences for the present, and they signed, et cetera, et cetera. Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Re- lations of Chile. [Translation.] (Number 7.) Legation op Peru, Santiago, June 12, 1900. Mr. Minister: A few days after presenting my credentials as En- voy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, I had the pleasure of holding several conferences with Your Excellency, with a view to carrying out the instructions of my Government as to the best manner of effecting the plebiscite provided for in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon. In the first interview, held on April 25 last, I proposed the protocolization of our conferences, and Your Excellency was pleased to accept this suggestion ; but when the moment arrived to adopt the minutes or protocol of the first conference, we dissented as to 157 the form and scope that ought to be given to the document. Your Excellency has been of the opinion that only the final result of our deliberations, expressed in the form of simple agreements or disagreements, should be recorded; and you have seen fit to declare that, in accepting the protocolization, you did so with the understanding that no considerable development would be given to the minutes. For my part, I have made it clear to Your Ex- cellency that in proposing the protocolization I did so in order that, in the respective minute or minutes, a record should be made, not only of the final results of the conferences, but also of the declarations and arguments of importance, as is the custom in docu- ments of this kind. I think, besides, that it would be possible in this way to judge with accuracy, at any moment, of the grounds and scope of any agreement or disagreement. This regrettable divergency of opinions has caused Your Excellency not to accept the plan of minutes, which, in the form of a simple borrador, I deemed it proper to submit to your esteemed consideration, just as it has also caused me not to adhere to the counter- plan, which Your Excellency, in like manner, sub- mitted to mine. From alll this it has resulted that hitherto there has been left no record of the said conferences. My Government, in the meanwhile, was of the opin- ion that, granted the transcendent importance of the subject that has afforded material for our deliber- ations, I ought to leave a record of the verbal at- tempts made in its name and of the essential motives that have led it to undertake them. In order to ful- fill this duty, I proceed to recall the substance of what we have discussed in the conferences mentioned. 158 When they began on April 25 of the current year, I had the satisfaction of testifying that I was pro- ceeding in response to the same sentiments as those expressed to His Excellency the President of the Eepublic in my presentation address, and that, with no design of attaching undue importance to procedure, I desired to arrive, by agreement with the Govern- ment of Chile, in a tranquil manner, at a true solution of the problem of the future fate of the territories of Tacna and Arica. Your Excellency saw fit to say to me, with this object in view, that the Government of Chile was animated by identical sentiments, and that Your Excellency, on his part, would sincerely congratulate yourself, if we reached the solution of the problem referred to in a manner satisfactory to both countries. Immediately afterward, I proposed, as I have al- ready said, that the conference be protocolized, and Your Excellency agreed. I then laid stress on the just desire of my Govern- ment that the Congress of Chile should see its way to settling this affair in the course of the legislative sessions of the present year, both to prevent the difficulties inherent to the state of indefinite postpone- ment in which it had been left, and to put an end to the disquietudes, excitement and the passionate de- bates that are occasioned by every abnormal situation, which on some occasions hinders the tranquil action of the respective chancelleries. Your Excellency, agreeing to this opinion, explained that the Govern- ment of Chile also desired to settle, as soon as pos- sible, a difficulty that interfered with harmony between two countries, and that he would use all necessary diligence to attain the object in the course of the pres- ent year. 159 To this our first conference was limited. The sec- ond took place on May 3, in a manner that I shall proceed to indicate. In it, I began by saying that the natural and neces- sary basis of any convention relative to the plebi- scitary procedure that ought to be observed for the definitive settlement of the dominion and sovereignty of the territories of Tacna and Arica was to be found in the Treaty of Ancon, and, especially, in the rules prescribed in its Article III, the terms of which I recalled. Although Peru, I added, set her signature to this Treaty under quite exceptional circumstances, she ought not to disregard its provisions, in the opin- ion of my Government, in establishing the principles according to which the plebiscite should be carried into effect. I concluded by saying that I should have omitted this declaration, if opinions had not recently been advanced that tended to cause the application of that Treaty, in the portion recalled, to be ignored. In view of these declarations, Your Excellency took occasion to explain that the opinions of your Govern- ment were the same; and that, in its view, as was to be supposed, the Treaty of Ancon ought to be car- ried out in all its parts in determining the bases of the plebiscite; and you added that, on this point, there existed no difference of opinion between the Chancelleries of Chile and Peru. With this uniformity of opinion as a point of de- parture, I proposed, in behalf of the Government of Peru, as a means of fulfilling as soon as possible the part of the Treaty of Ancon that refers to the plebiscite, to push the so-called Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol, with a view to which I requested Your Ex- cellency to see to it that the Government should exert itself to obtain its definitive sanctioning on the part 160 of the Congress. I went to some length in supporting this request, and I adduced in its favor the consider- ations of which I proceed to give an outline. I explained, first of all, that the protocol mentioned had been the result of many and very arduous efforts. I recalled the negotiations successively undertaken from the time in which they were begun in the year 1892 by Senores Larrabure y Unanue, in the name of Peru, and Vial Solar, as a representative of the Government of Chile, until the understanding set forth in the different clauses of the convention was reached. I pointed out that, in the course of those negotiations, no less than eight efforts at arrangement on different bases had failed and an equal number of years had been employed. The Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol, I said, was the result of a long and laborious dip- lomatic process, at the end of which the interested Governments had reached an accord, after eliminating what each of them deemed incompatible with the fun- damental interests of its country, and that if it were cast aside, it would be. necessary to return to the be- ginning of a labor that had been wearisome, almost interminable and probably of negative results. I then showed that if the Billinghurst-Latorre Pro- tocol were rejected or abandoned, it would be little short of impossible to succeed in concerting new bases of arrangement. The Government of Peru, in the course of a new negotiation, would strive to obtain conditions more favorable than those mentioned in the said pact; and the Government of Chile would make a similar effort in its own behalf. At all events, neither of the Governments would resign itself to sub- scribing to conditions less favorable than those in which it had been placed by the protocol; neither would be disposed to stipulate requisites that would 161 render the situation of its respective country worse. The two Republics, in such a case, instead of converg- ing on the path of a definitive understanding, would increase the difference between them, thus preventing the possibility of a new understanding on different bases. I remarked also that, although the protocol does not satisfy the extreme exigencies of either of the countries, it keeps alive the claims of both to the definitive acquisition of dominion and sovereignty over the territories of Tacna and Arica, and it constitutes, besides, in harmony with the laws of modern civil- ization, an impartial and honest arbiter to settle the pending divergencies as to the manner and conditions of the plebiscite. If, because of the arbitration agreed on, rights or principles, incontrovertible in the opinion of Chile, may be disregarded, the same may happen in the case of Peru. From this point of view, the situation of the two countries has been made equal. What would in no case be just and acceptable is that either of the two countries should attempt to make of her- self the only arbiter to determine the manner and con- ditions of the plebiscite. What either of them might decide for herself, besides involving a procedure con- trary to what was provided in the Treaty of Ancon, would have the weakness of partiality inherent to every verdict pronounced by one that might consti- tute himself the judge of his own case. I recalled also that with the adoption of the Billing- hurst-Latorre Convention, several questions of im- portance had been left in abeyance, among others, the one relative to the occupation by Chile of a part of the province of Tarata, always regarded as un- lawful by the Government of Peru. This question and other questions that present themselves at the 162 present time — such as the one relative to the closing of the schools of Tacna and Arica presided over by Peruvian teachers — would be implicitly solved, or on the way to being so, in a short time with the de- finitive sanctioning of the convention mentioned. If this convention were not approved, those undertak- ings would have to enter, naturally, a new period of activity, with prejudice to the good harmony that ought to characterize the relations of the two coun- tries. I concluded by saying that the protocol had been approved by the executive and by the two branches of the legislative power of Peru ; that, for this reason, in addition to those already adduced, my Government considered itself under obligation to secure, by all the legitimate means within its reach, its definitive sanction; that, for Chile, this solution was also the less difficult one and the one most in harmony with the state of the affair in respect of her higher author- ities, inasmuch as the protocol already had the ap- proval of the Executive and that of the Honorable Chamber of Senators; that the Government of His Excellency, Sefior Errazuriz, with the firmness of con- viction worthy of the elevated and extensive inter- national interests under discussion, had seconded the arrangement in the legislature of 1898 and had re- iterated his recommendation that it be adopted in that of 1899; that it was natural to cherish the hope that the same Government would make a new effort to secure the respective approval of the Chamber of Deputies soon to be installed; that only in this way could there be any explanation of, or any effect from, the final part of the aforementioned protocol, in which it was stipulated that the convention would be ratified by the respective Congresses and an exchange effected within the briefest possible time. 163 In response to my request, Your Excellency said that unquestionably the Government of His Excellency Senor Errazuriz had contributed to the adoption of the protocol and had exerted itself to secure its ap- proval in the Congress ; but that, for various reasons, there had arisen in the Chamber of Deputies in 1898 so pronounced a movement of opinion against the arrangement that, in order not to expose it to an un- questionable defeat, it was preferable not to urge with more insistence an expression by that Honorable Chamber. Your Excellency also told me that he could not affirm at that moment what might be the prevail- ing opinion in the Honorable Chamber of Deputies, which had just been totally renewed, by reason of which many persons that had not belonged to it for- merly would enter its membership in the capacity of representatives. The Government, Your Excellency added, could not learn until after this Chamber should be constituted whether or not there would be a major- ity in favor of the convention and whether or not it would be able to obtain its support in favor of its definitive sanctioning. In spite of all this, Your Excellency saw fit to offer to request the Honorable Chamber of Deputies to ex- pedite its decision as to that convention. Your Ex- cellency added that he saw no objection to requesting of it the special sessions necessary to taking up the subject, and that, inasmuch as the awaited resolution did not now depend on the Executive, but on the Honors able Chamber of Deputies, he would be unable to give me new and certain data as to the fate of the protocol until after the meeting of the Chamber. Your Excellency, referring in an incidental manner to questions pending between Chile and Peru, said that, to those indicated by me ought to be added the 164 one relative to claims by Chileans that had suffered damages in the War of the Pacific. I replied, on my part, that it was true that the definitive sanctioning of the protocol did not depend on the Executive Power, but on the Honorable Chamber of Deputies ; but my Government trusted — since there existed such powerful motives in favor of its ap- proval — that the Executive Power of Chile would urge it opportunely with the same earnestness as that with which it had been urged on other occasions. As to the claims of the Chileans that had suffered damages, I explained that I did not doubt that an equitable result would be arrived at, with the fulfillment of this part of the Treaty of Ancon and of that which re- fers to the plebiscite, and in reference to this mat- ter, as I recalled, a convention had been signed. Your Excellency insisted on his previous declar- ations and on the offer to request of the next Con- gress an early settlement of the affair, without ex- pressing with precision what would be the attitude of the Government in respect of the debate in the Honorable Chamber of Deputies, in spite of my effort to gain a clear and categorical reply in reference to the particular. In view of the circumstance that the definitive sanc- tioning of the protocol did not depend on the Executive, who had already given to it, and still grants it his approval, but on the vote of the Honorable Chamber of Deputies, it was agreed to postpone the designation of special days for the continuation of the conferences, as they could be renewed whenever either the representative of Chile or that of Peru should so request. Subsequently to the two conferences mentioned, I had the honor to discuss this subject with Your Ex- 165 cellency, frequently and at length, and I have always insisted on the necessity and expediency of the Honor- able Chamber of Deputies' approval of the Billing- hurst-Latorre Protocol in the course of its sessions of the present year, in order to put an end to this delicate and difficult subject. The foregoing narrative is based, as is to be sup- posed, on my own recollections; but I am persuaded that in it is reflected with fidelity, especially in the part that concerns myself, what occurred in the con- ferences mentioned. I am ready, nevertheless to rectify any error into which I may have involuntarily fallen. Before concluding this communication, Your Ex- cellency will permit me to leave it on record, in sup- porting my petition as to the approval of the Billing- hurst Latorre Protocol, that I passed over reasons that might militate in its favor and stated it only from the point of view of Chilean interests or Peru- vian interests. It may be understood that, in con- certing the arrangement alluded to, th$ represent- atives of the two nations, avoiding the method of ex- treme demands, which would have made all agreement impossible, took their stand on the grounds which, in their judgment, best harmonized the interests of the two countries. The efforts of my Government are addressed to preventing the abandonment of that situation, the destruction of that harmony and the postponement of the fulfillment of this part of the Treaty of Ancon to an uncertain and indefinite future. I ought also to explain to Your Excellency that, as the only object of the present communication has been to place on record the essential part of our con- ferences, I have deemed it unnecessary to enter into details as to motives that have served as a basis of 166 the petition that I formulated. I therefore reserve the right to amplify them duly, if my Government should deem it necessary to do so, when the time comes to decide this question in the Honorable Chamber of Deputies. I take this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the sentiments of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Cesareo Chacaltana. To His Excellency, Senor Don Rafael Errazuriz y Urmeneta, Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru. [Translation.] (Number 13.) Ministry of Foreign Relations, Lima, July 10, 1900. Mr. Minister: On March 12th, last, and on my initiative, I had the honor to confer with Your Excellency on the orders which the political authorities in Tacna and Arica had adopted with regard to the Peruvian schools, whose operation had just been prohibited. I laid before you, at great length, the reasons which, in my judgment, made the order for immediate closing, issued by those authorities against said schools, indefensible, by virtue of which, and believ- ing that the Government of Chile would not ratify it, I asked Your Excellency to condescend to obtain its revocation. After Your Excellency made it known to me that you were not acquainted with the affair, nor had any- thing been communicated to you in regard to same, 167 you were good enough to offer to take it under con- sideration immediately bringing my request to the knowledge of your Government, in order to give me a reply in the shortest time possible. As two months had passed without obtaining it, it was again necessary for me to trouble Your Excel- lency, making an appointment for a second conference which was held on the 23d of last May. Already Your Excellency's Government had ratified the order for the closing of those schools, after taking up the matter in Santiago; but at the same time it had been shown to our diplomatic representative, Sr. Chacaltana, who had occasion to deal with the affair in an incidental way, that the resolution adopted should not be taken as conclusive, and that the Intendant of Tacna had been called to that city, in order to make a study as to whether it was possible to modify it in any way. With this data, which Sr. Chacaltana hurried to send me, and as sufficient time 'had passed for the said modification, I made it plain to Your Excellency, in the aforesaid conference of May 23d, that the object of it was to know, definitely, if the measures adopted against our schools were conclusive. I summed up to Your Excellency that my desire to know what course to pursue in this respect arose, not only from the natural interest with which I was following the course of the matter, but, especially, from the neces- sity for me to draw up in writing, my Government's complaint in defense of the closed schools, and I did not wish to address the respective note to Your Ex- cellency, but in case it was now evident that the course undertaken would not be receded from, then I would find myself urged on by the aim to diminish, as much as was possible for me, the difficulties which obstruct both Governments in the situation. 168 By reason of this, Your Excellency explained to me, as you did in our conference of March 12th, the little which you knew about the matter, and were good enough to offer to request the true and complete data in order to place yourself in a position to give me the reply which I asked for. A month and a half has passed, nevertheless, since then, and neither have I received, nor has the Gov- ernment of Your Excellency introduced, any modifi- cation to the order for closing the schools, now being effected with its express ratification, a circumstance which, much to my regret, prevents me from any longer deferring the present note, in order to make it emphatic and clear in writing that, as I informed Your Excellency since our conference of the 12th of last March, the closing of the Peruvian schools in Tacna and Arica, is, in the opinion of my Govern- ment, contrary to the laws of Chile and, consequently, contrary to the Treaty of Ancon, which dictates their force and effect in these territories. According to the Chilean law of November 24, 1860, the only requisite for the teachers for the opening of the schools of primary instruction is that they prove, by the testimony of two creditable persons, that they have good character and habits, a formality which has been fulfilled for a long time back by a large part of those who govern the Peruvian schools in those provinces, and by virtue of which there had been granted to them the corresponding license for the opening of their schools. As to those who had neglected it and therefore did not hold the license, they made haste to request it, offering that testimony within the time which the administration of Tacna pointed ont for that purpose, in the decree of last February 9th, in compliance with which the first 169 showed the licenses which they held, with the request that they be confirmed, as they had a right to expect, having already complied with the only requisite de- manded by the law. Neither the one nor the other were heeded in such candid and legitimate petitions, whose determination was submitted to the Government at Santiago, and, without even expecting it, as was natural, that that decision would be expedited, the Intendant of Tacna, on March 6th, last, actually ordered the immediate closing of all Peruvian schools in both provinces; a situation in which they were kept because of the later approval of the order to close by Your Excellency's Government. The text of the decree or resolution issued to that effect not having been published, it is not proper for me to refute the reasons which, accordiug to the data given to the press, have formed its foundation; but, whatever they may be, there is no doubt that, to the prejudice of our nationals, the liberal laws of Chile on public instruction have been violated, laws in harmony with her Constitution, which recognizes to all the right of teaching, and under the protection of which the schools that have been closed worked pub- licly and without any hindrance. My Government, notwithstanding its sincere desire to avoid offensive discussions, would fail in an un- avoidable duty if, in view of this fact, it did not make clear what it deems contrary to the obligations con- tracted for by Chile in the Treaty of xVncon. . In fact, the latter sets down, in Article III, as a guarantee indispensable for our nationals living in Tacna and Arica, that during the occupation those provinces would be governed by Chilean legislation, which does not permit Chile to violate her general 170 Jaws thus not keeping up to the stipulations. Peru did not agree to the temporary occupation of those territories, leaving its inhabitants liable to be gov- erned by laws or administrative orders of exception, but to the protection of enlightened legislation which would give a real guarantee to. all their rights; their Government, which is obliged to protect its nationals, cannot therefore, remain indifferent to the measure recently adopted against the schools conducted by Peruvians, by means of which, making the odious exception, those in the territory where they were born would be deprived of a right which the laws of Chile recognize in nationals and foreigners. Your Excellency's Government, doubtless under- standing the obligations which the occupation of those provinces imposed upon it, should have, hitherto, com- plied with and enforced the laws to which they are subject, and, it is really deplorable that, on the eve of resolving their definitive status, there should have been adopted odious orders such as the one which now holds my attention, and others which do not cor- respond to a precarious possession, thereby exciting the public sentiment in both countries, with damage to their smooth and cordial operation advised by both Chancelleries. Kindly, Mr. Minister, accept again the assurances of my high and distinguished consideration. E. DE LA RlVA AgUERO. To His Excellency, The Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile. 171 Minister of Chile in Peru to Minister of Foreign Rela- tions of Peru. [Translation.] (No. 47.) Legation of Chile, Lima, July 11, 1900. Me. Minister: There has been received by this Legation Your Ex- cellency's note dated the 10th instant, and numbered 13, in which Your Excellency gives a brief story of the Conferences, which you held with the undersigned on March 12th and May 23d of the present year, oc- casioned by the measures which the authorities of Tacna and Arica, and then the Government of Chile, deemed it advisable to take with respect to the estab- lishments of primary instruction, governed by Peru- vian teachers, in the said provinces, Your Excellency, then, cites lengthy accounts, tending to show that the closing of the Peruvian schools in Tacna and Arica, is, in the opinion of Your Excellency's Government, contrary to Chilean legislation, and, consequently to the Treaty of Ancon, which dictates its force and effect in those territories. And lastly, after relating the development of events which, by reason of this, have taken place in the said provinces, Your Excellency concludes by declaring that it is deplorable that, on the eve of resolving the definitive status of Tacna and Arica, the Government of Chile should have adopted odious orders, such as the ones which it has approved, and others which do not correspond to a precarious possession, thereby exciting the public sentiment in both countries, with damage to their smooth and cor- dial operation advised by both Chancelleries. It would have been very gratifying for the under- signed to start to fully answer the statements con- 172 tained in Your Excellency's note, showing the facts and antecedents which have existed on the intention of his Government, for deciding to adopt, after careful examination, the measures relative to the closing of the said schools ; as well as the legal considerations which authorizes this procedure; but, as Your Excellency does not fail to comprehend, the problem of Tacna and Arica, and all the incidents which are related to it, have been for a short time back and still are the sub- ject of study and discussions in repeated confer- ences held between the Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile and Sr. Cesareo Chacaltaria, authorized repre- sentative of Your Excellency's Government. This fact of the negotiation of this delicate matter having been well started in Santiago, the undersigned does not deem it right nor prudent to open in Lima, a similar discussion, which would naturally result in disturbance and misunderstandings between our Chancelleries, which today, as Your Excellency under- stands, it is in every way discreet and expedient to avoid. The undersigned takes this occasion to again renew to Your Excellency the sentiments of his highest con- sideration and esteem. Angel C. Vicuna. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. 173 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Pern in Chile. [Translation.] (Number 583.) Republic of Chile, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Santiago, July 12, 1900. Mr. Minister: I have had the honor to receive Your Excellency's courteous communication of the twelfth of June, just past, and I beg Your Excellency to have the goodness to excuse the involuntary delay of my reply, which must be attributed solely to the excessive work that has fallen to my lot during recent days, as Your Ex- cellency is aware. In the note to which I reply, Your Excellency sees fit to give a circumstantial narrative of the conferences Tield with the undersigned in the hall of his office on April 25 and May 3 of the present year ; and, although I do not need to pause over the minute account of what occurred in them or over subjects we had the pleasure of discussing, I desire, nevertheless, on my part, to confirm or to explain some of the opinions that Your Excellency places on record. In truth, after agreeing, at Your Excellency's re- quest, to the protocolization of the conferences we were to hold — an agreement at which we arrived on very imprecise terms — there arose between us a dif- ference of views as to the manner of proceeding to the stipulated protocolization. Your Excellency, attaching to the agreement a very broad scope, conceived it to be necessary that we should sign extensive minutes, in which would be in- corporated, with amplitude and detail, all the sub- 174 jects that had been material of our conversation or study. On my part, as I attributed to it a more restricted scope, I declared that I had accepted Your Excellency's suggestion under the opinion that we should place on record, in the said protocols, the subjects of importance that we might discuss, the agreements at which we might arrive, or the disagree- ments which, unfortunately, might arise between us. This bad understanding having arisen as to the interpretation of the covenant, which anyhow has neither importance nor gravity, and it not having been possible to come to an agreement as to the drafting of the protocol we agreed that Your Excellency ad- dress to this Chancellery a communication containing a report of what had happened in the previous meet- ings, and this is the reason for Your Excellency's note, to which I now have the honor to reply. My Government, as I have been pleased to explain to Your Excellency on several occasions, is intensely interested in bringing to a conclusion, as soon as pos- sible, the prolonged discussions and negotiations de- signed to arrive at a solution of the problem of the definitive nationality of the territories of Tacna and Arica, and in the maintenance of cordiality between our respective countries in a stable and sincere manner. As to the latter particular, I am pleased to emphasize the fact that, like the Government of Peru, my Government is also animated by a friendly design and best wishes for an early and satisfactory settle- ment of all the difficulties. In the conference of May 3, Your Excellency was pleased to inform me that the opinion of Your Excel- lency's Government, the natural and obligatory basis of any convention as to the plebiscitary procedure that ought to be observed for the definitive settlement of 175 the dominion and sovereignty over the territories of Tacna and Arica was the Treaty of Ancon, and especi- ally the rules prescribed in its Article III. On my part, I had the honor to show that my Government has no desire to disregard the loyal ful- fillment of the Treaty of Ancon, by which it considers itself bound as by all other existing treaties and con- ventions, and hence that Your Excellency ought not to entertain any doubt as to this point. With this basis as a point of departure, Your Ex- cellency proposed, as a means to an early fulfillment of the said Treaty, to push the Billinghurst-Latorre protocol by requesting, to the effect, that my Govern- ment should secure the definitive sanctioning of it by the National Congress. I think it unnecessary to insist on the extensive con- siderations on which Your Excellency considered it opportune to base his request, and I must confine myself to reproducing here some of the thoughts ex- pressed by the undersigned in reply to those Your Excellency included in his courteous communication. Without desiring to declare myself as to the es- sence of the subject, that is, as to the merits of the protocol mentioned, I set forth that, in spite of the efforts of the Government of 1898 to obtain its ap- proval, it was impossible to ignore the fact that there had developed in the membership of the Honorable Chamber of Deputies of the time so active an op- position that all the good will and all the effort of the Government had come to naught against it. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the Minister insisted on behalf of the Government of Peru that the approval of the said protocol should be obtained from that branch of the Congress, the undersigned promised Your Excellency to go to the Chamber on an 176 early and opportune day to request of it definitive expression. It is true that Your Excellency endeavored on several occasions to obtain an explicit declaration from my Government as to the attitude it would assume in the discussion, and that the undersigned, on grounds frequently adduced, the repetition of which would be unnecessary, always confined himself to promising what has been said. It is equally true that, in reply to Your Excellency's assertion that there existed several difficulties be- tween the two countries, I added that we also had pending the claim of Chileans that had suffered damages in the war of 1879, and I explained the neces- sity of the Congress of Peru's approving the con- vention of arbitration, which was approved long ago by the Government and the Congress of Chile. The course of diplomatic negotiations being then subordinated to the future decision of the Honorable Chamber of Deputies, independent of the actions of the Chancelleries at that time, we both agreed to ter- minate the conferences for the moment, without pre- judice to renewing them later, at the request of either of the two plenipotentiaries. With the sentiments of my most distinguished con- sideration, I am, Your Excellency's most humble servant, R. Errazuriz Urmeneta. To His Excellency, Senor Don Cesareo Chacaltana, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipoten- tiary of Peru. 177 Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Af- fairs of Chile. [Translation.] Santiago, October 8, 1900. Me. Minister: In view of the disputes before the judges of Tacna and Pisagua, on the ownership and location of the borax deposits of Chilcaya, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru sent a communication to the Charge d 'Affaires of Chile, Sr. Carlos Luis Hubner, dated January 15th of the current year, in which he formu- lated certain reservations intended to safeguard, in all emergencies, the rights of Peru. It was stated in the aforementioned document that the Government of Chile could not proceed to the de- termination of the boundaries of the territories situ- ated to the north of the ravine and River Camarones, if thereby the integrity of said territories were affec- ted in any way; that the demarcation asked for by the parties interested in the borax deposits, should be made with the intervention of Peru, which country maintains the expectations derived from Article III of the Treaty of Peace of 1883 ; and that the demarca- tion recognized in this pact for Tacna and Arica is the same which said political circumscriptions had per- manently, which could not be affected, not even in a temporary way, by the resolutions of the Government of Your Excellency. In the past, before the departure to the north of the commission presided over by Sr. A. Obrecht, I had the opportunity to remind Your Excellency, in your office, in a verbal and friendly way, of the said de- clarations of the Peruvian Government. I was induced to do this as much by the possibility that at any 178 moment a final resolution might be adopted as by the reports and arrangements recently effected with re- gard to this matter, in some of which it was endeavored to outline conclusions contrary to those established in the Treaty of Ancon. With this object, Your Excellency saw fit to ex- press to me the assurance that whatever resolution would be passed in this matter would be passed with the exclusive purposes of internal administration, with- out affecting international order, respecting the ex- pectations and rights derived from the Treaty of An- con; an assurance which had been given in like form by Sr. Hubner in his answer to the Chancellery of Lima. In spite of this, until I am in receipt of new in- structions from my Government, to which I have given an account of the recent negotiations to which this matter has been subject, I consider it my duty to re- cord, in writing, once more the reservations made and maintained by Peru with regard to the fixing of the boundaries between Arica and Pisagua. At the same time, I beg to call the attention of Your Excellency to the circumstance that in discussing the fixing of the boundary with exclusive purposes of in- ternal administration, the Government of Chile can- not subject any part of the territories situated to the north of the ravine and Eiver Camarones, over which it does not exercise dominion and definite sovereignty, according to the Treaty of Ancon, to the same rules and conditions as the territory situated to the south of the aforementioned ravine and river. I hope that Your Excellency will be good enough to take into account the previous observations, in- spired by the desire to safeguard the legitimate in- terests of Peru which might be involuntarily affected, 179 with the purpose of avoiding difficulties in the onward march of our respective countries. I take this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excel- lency my highest and most distinguished considera- tion. Cesaeeo Chacaltana. To His Excellency, Sr. Rafael Errazuriz Urmeneta, Minister of Foreign Affairs. Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. [Translation.] (No. 25.) Legation of Peru in Chile, Santiago, November 14, 1900. Mr. Minister: The Government of Your Excellency, as if it en- deavored to correct inexplicable omissions, has adopted a series of agreements, some of which have been ful- filled and others of which are in process of being car- ried out, relative to the political and administrative re- gime of Tacna and Ariea, endeavoring to induce the Peruvian population of those provinces — hitherto op- posed to any change of nationality — to take new courses in their aspirations for the future. An enterprise as difficult as it is laborious has been undertaken, with special zeal, in the last ten months, that is, six years after the expiration of the term of the provisional occupation of Chile, according to the Treaty of Peace of 1883 ; eight years after there was arranged by agreement, at the initiative of Peru, the 180 form and conditions of the plebiscite ; seventeen years after subscription to the above mentioned pact; and twenty years after the aforementioned provinces were placed under the government and administration of the Chilean authorities. The Government of Your Excellency seems to have the purpose of realizing in a few months that which was not intended or could not be carried out during a period of twenty years. Said agreements, either because they are considered untimely and too late, or because they are considered contrary to the stipulations of the Treaty of Ancon, or because there are attributed to them tendencies ex- tremely imperative, or because it is supposed that they are destined to restrain the legitimate expansion of public sentiment, or because, lastly, all these consider- ations at the same time have shaken the national con- science of Peru, have originated mistrusts among the nationals of our respective countries, have made diffi- cult at times the action of their respective Chancel- leries, and, resounding far beyond the boundaries of the two nations, have started to infuse into the mind unfounded doubts on the possibility of compromising high and permanent interests of two peoples closely united by remarkable periods in their historical past, during which they have fulfilled their destinies in the best harmony. Several of the agreements were objected to in due course in the name of my Government, to which they have appeared either incompatible with the regime of legality to which the above mentioned territories are subject, or incompatible with the rights accruing to Chile by virtue of a simple temporary occupation, de- pendent upon the eventualities of a plebiscite. Some of these objections were formulated only verbally. My Government, decided to proceed in in- 181 ternational matters within the confines of a well under- stood moderation, prefers, when circumstances permit, to affirm its rights and claim them in the least vexatious form possible. My Government, moreover, expected that the Government of Your Excellency, convinced of the inefficacy of its measures, would abandon the pur- pose of continuing them for an indefinite period. But since time is passing, since our negotiations re- main in statu quo, since the the rigor of certain meas- ures is wont to be accentuated by the over-stepping of authority on the part of subalterns, and since the high personnel of the offices of the Ministers has recently undergone changes, it being therefore possible to incur in the forgetfulness of some verbal arrangement, I have been directed by my Government to address that of Your Excellency in order to state in writing our claims and to obtain, in a friendly manner, the corres> ponding solution. Among the measures of greater importance, the clos- ing of the schools of Tacna and Arica governed by Peruvians, as well as the refusal to grant to these the required permission to exercise their profession, are conspicuous. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, in his communication of July 10 of the current year to the Minister of Chile in Lima, showed the incompatibility of said measure with the principle of freedom of educa- tion guaranteed in its greatest amplitude by the funda- mental Charter of this Republic and the Chilean law of November 24, 1860 ; and he deduced, without greater effort, that it was in violation of that which is stipulated in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, according to which the aforementioned provinces do not remain sub- ject to exceptional proceedings, but to the regime es- tablished by Chilean legislation. 182 In one of my conferences in the month of April with the honorable predecessor of Yonr Excellency, Sr. Errazuriz Urmeneta, I advanced this argument ver- bally and further stated to him that the Peruvians domiciled in Tacna and Arica could not be in worse condition than that of the foreigners residing in Chile ; that the doctrine of prescinding from Chilean laws to proceed in accordance with powers derived from in- ternational law, praised by the Attorney-General of the nation, as it is publicly known, was equivalent to establishing the regime of martial law, bringing things back to the state in which they were on the day follow- ing the military occupation and forgetting the exist- ence of a treaty ; that the abuses of the teachers, upon being proved, should be punished in accordance with the laws of Chile, but not injuring interests and legiti- mate rights ; that, lastly, I was calling attention to the fact that only after about twenty years had it been found necessary to correct in an unusual manner the abuses of the Peruvian teachers. Something must now be added. One of the objects of this and other measures to which the present com- munication refers has been, according to the opinion of authorized persons and the contents of official docu- ments, that of swaying towards Chile the current of opinion favorable to Peru, endeavoring to awaken, in consequence, in the new generations sentiments of ad- herence to the first of those countries. Chile, accord- . ing to this version, has the right to put into play all sorts of legitimate influences to convert into reality its hopes for the acquisition of the territories of Tacna and Arica. "Without denying this right invoked, I must observe that the measures prohibited by the laws of Chile, by the Treaty of Ancon, and by the principles relative to the freedom of education do not belong to the category of influences qualified as legitimate. 183 If the children who are now being educated and over whom influence is endeavored to be exercised were called upon to take part as voters in the approaching plebiscite, said measures, without being justified, would have some explanation from the practical point of view ; but these children cannot, at present, by rea- son of their age, exercise the rights of suffrage in any political order, either international or internal; they will hardly be able to do so within ten or twelve years. Will the realization of the plebiscite be delayed until then f And if the spirit of the coming generation were not sufficiently ductil, as assuredly it will not be, to change the sense of their patriotic zeal, will the coming of new generations which offer prospects of better re- sults be awaited? Has Chile or Peru entertained pre- conceived purposes to defer to so distant a future the realization of the plebiscite! Founded on recent and solemn declarations made by the Heads of the States in their messages and by the Chancelleries of both countries in their annual reports, I may affirm that such purposes do not exist; those who maintain the opposite falsify the meaning of the two Governments. The realization of the plebiscite is every day more imminent and urgent ; such is the declared will of said Governments, tired of useless discussions which ex- haust the energy of their people and hinder them from arriving to the so-much desired honorable outcome of their differences. If there is no will nor reason to delay the plebiscite, it is useless to rest the hopes of success on the influence exercised upon the school-teachers of today, and it is equally useless to maintain the schools under an ex- ceptional regime. I must record an antecedent, favorable in itself, to the claim of my Government. The communication of 184 the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru was not answered in its essential part by the representative of Chile, Mr. Vienna, who excused himself from discus- sing the fundamental part of it, alleging, through an error of conception, that the matter was being dis- cussed in Santiago, when in reality it was being dis- cussed in Lima. My Government, without accepting what was asserted, agreed to transfer the negotiations to this capital and furnished me, consequently, with the necessary instructions. I then addressed myself, in writing, under date of August 10th to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, stating to him that, according to the state of affairs, it behooved the Government of Your Excellency to answer the communiaction of Sr. Riva-Aguero. That honorable official limited himself, in his reply, as Sr. Vicuna had done, to answering the arguments formulated in the name of Peru ; he limited himself to state to me, with regard to the closing of the schools: "my Government, as Your Excellency knows, is also considering the question of creating a definite situation in regard to this matter ; and I shall make it a point of duty to bring about a prompt solution, and I can assure Your Excellency that it will be inspired, in any case, by the sentiments of justice and true harmony which must govern the relations of two friendly and neighboring countries." According to this, the actual situation of the schools is not definite ; it is an abnormal and temporary situa- tion, destined to be succeeded by another one regular and permanent. Such declarations, worthy of a fore- sighted Government, were made to me in the month of- May in a verbal form. At that time, the Intendant of Tacna, Sr. Palacios, was called to Santiago with the object, among others, of obtaining new information which would allow him to adopt a conciliatory and just 185 line of conduct. Sr. Palacios, after remaining many days in Santiago, returned to Tacna, and no resolution was adopted, nor has been adopted, up to the present time, notwithstanding that almost one year has passed since the closing of the schools. Therefore, I must make it clear that the aforemen- tioned arguments in the name of Peru in support of her claim, not having been contradicted, subsist in all their vigor; and that there also subsists the offer of the Government of Your Excellency to replace the temporary measures with definite ones, inspired by sentiments of harmony and justice. My Government expects in the near future the solution referred to, which assuredly will consist in restoring to Peruvians the enjoyment and exercise of their rights, of which they have been deprived, and in annulling the regula- tions of exceptions against them. Permit me to remind Your Excellency, in this con- nection, that one of the most efficacious means to main- tain close bonds of solidarity between nations, in their forward march along the road of civilization and pro- gress, consists in endeavoring to raise continually the standard of intellectuality of their respective peoples. The light of science, irradiating with the greatest pro- fusion possible, from the most humble schools or from the great centers of learning, will continue to dissi- pate in the future, as it has done in the past, the errors and prejudices which give rise to no little dissensions between countries. With remarkable ability, Bluntschli has declared in his "Codified International Law": ' ' Science contributes considerably to the establishment of international law and causes it to be respected. It is obliged to prepare its ulterior development and to extend its progress.' ' To this work of civilization and common interest, the Peruvian teachers have dedicated themselves. Their 186 beneficial task, without being developed towards ends of narrow exclusiveness, has been most meritorious, if there is taken into account the fact that in some of the districts in which the Government of Your Excel- lency had not found it convenient to establish schools, they alone have accomplished during twenty years, without omitting effort and sacrifices, the noble mis- sion of imparting instruction to Peruvians and others, without distinction of nationality. Because of this, my Government, without excusing the abuses which they might have incurred, protects and defends their claims. The Government of Your Excellency also found it convenient to appoint a commission entrusted to re- port, after a study, on the boundary line between the old Peruvian departments of Tacna and Tarapaca, or, more exactly, between Arica and Pisagua; and in taking this step, there has not been taken into account the just observations of my Government destined to prevent possible and vexatious divergencies. The aforementioned boundary line is formed, ac- cording to the Treaty of Peace of 1883, by the ravine and the River Camarones ; it separates the territory of Tarapaca, whose dominion has been ceded to Chile, from the territories of Tacna and Arica, not ceded as to ownership, and the definite fate of which is subject to the contingencies of a plebiscite. Said line, there- fore, has an international character. Any misunderstanding relative to its location may be solved by agreement of the contracting parties. Neither one of them, in the absence of the other, can usurp the power of marking out this line or altering it in accord- ance with its own criterion. In order to dispel doubts which have arisen, it has been necessary to solicit the cooperation of Peru. Furthermore, this line separated unalterably for many years, within territory exclu- 187 sively Peruvian, the same political circumscriptions whose boundaries are now endeavored to be defined; and in this way the actual province of Tarapaca passed to the power of Chile. My Government, for this rea- son, is in a very propitious position to appreciate with certainty the origin and course of it, which constitutes a new and powerful reason not to prescind from its approval. The Chancellery of Lima claimed this intervention, and addressed itself, in consequence, in a communica- tion dated January 15th of the current year to the Chilean Charge d'Aff aires in Peru, who was good enough to answer in satisfactory terms, although they were altogether too general. Upon proceeding recently to the fixing of the divid- ing line mentioned, there were sustained by several secondary officials opinions not in conformity with that established in the Treaty of Ancon ; and, for that rea- son, I addressed to that Department my communica- tion of October 8th, ratifying the previous declarations of the aforementioned Chancellery. I deemed it con- venient to state in that document that, even though it was endeavored to fix the boundaries for reasons of interior administration, it was not possible to prescind from the intervention of Peru. In effect, none of those territories lying to the north of the Camarones Kiver, over which Chile has no defi- nite dominion or sovereignty, may be subjected, in their internal regime, to the same rules as the terri- tories located to the south of said ravine. There must therefore be perfect conformity between the bound- aries which are adopted for reasons of interior admini- stration and those already established in the interna- tional order. It is natural to attribute to the last two recent changes which have taken place in the personnel of the 188 Cabinet, the fact that my aforementioned communica- tion has not been answered up to date ; but having con- fidence in the honest sincerity of the purpose of this Government, I rejoice in the hope that, in any event, when this matter is solved the demarcation of the po- litical circumscription of Tacna and Tarapaca will be altered. It is my duty, meanwhile, to call the attention of Your Excellency, as I shall later do, to the irregular proceeding in this matter, which undoubtedly will be corrected. By supreme decrees of November 3, 1885, and August 28, 1888, several villages were incorporated in the Chilean department of Pisagua, which, under the Peruvian regime, according to the law in force, be- longed to the district of Codpa in the province of Arica. Having segregated these villages from the ter- ritory over which Chile does not exercise definite sovereignty, they have been included in those over which it exercises complete dominion. The irregularity of this measure, to say the least, is supported by the Chilean authorities of those re- gions themselves, as well as by the Governor of Arica, Sr. Montt, and the Intendant of Tacna, Sr. Palacios. The former, in a report of March 15th last, referring to the well-known petition of Sr. David Mac Tver, con- tends, among other things : that the boundary between Arica and Pisagua is fixed by the Treaty of Ancon, the Peruvian law of December 1, 1868, by virtue of which the littoral province of Tarapaca was created, sepa- rating it from the department of Moquegua, and by the Chilean law relative to the establishment of the provinces of Tacna and Tarapaca; that within said ravine there exist many villages: that those situated to the north of the bed of the River Camarones always belonged to Arica, and those located to the south of 189 that river belonged to Pisagua; that this legal situa- tion was modified by the decrees of the Executive before referred to, by virtue of which there were taken from Arica and incorporated in Pisagua the villages of Guancarane, Pachica and Esquina; that these decrees are opposed to the laws creating the provinces of Tacna and Tarapaca, in Article 37, Part 5 of the Constitution of the country and to that stipu- lated in the Treaty of Ancon. The Intendant Palacios, confirms the report in the most expressive manner and states : "By virtue of the study the undersigned has made of the atlas of Paz Soldan, referred to by the petitioner; by means of information received from persons well acquainted with these locali- ties; by the letter and spirit of the laws estab- lishing the provinces of Tacna and Tarapaca, as well as the supreme decrees which mark the ter- ritorial comprisals, I am convinced that the Gov- ernor of Arica, in his conclusions, is in the right on a well founded and well proven basis. ' ' The least alteration in the boundary line marked out by the Treaty of Peace must be avoided, as is shown, and for identical reasons it is advisable to leave without effect the above-mentioned decrees of 1885 and 1888, in that part which refers to the villages segregated from Arica. In any case, Peru is not rec- ognizing the effects of any measure by which the in- tegrity of the territory may be impaired, the definite fate of which is subject to a plebiscitary voting. I am commissioned also to call the attention of Your Excellency to the concessions of beds of borates and other substances made to private enterprises in the territories of Tacna and Arica and to the announced project of ceding guano-beds and of giving nitrate de- posits by means of a lease or sale. 190 Such concessions, in view of their object, can be granted only by the owner of the territory, by the one who exercises a permanent and absolute sovereignty; by the owner who has the power to dispose of the soil and its wealth. To simple occupants, as Chile is in this case, the right to act as complete master is not given, nor is the right to compromise the territory for the future which does not belong to them accrue to them. Immediately after having signed the Treaty of Peace, it could have made temporary concessions of a certain order which would not amount to the aliena- tion of the soil; then, there was assured Chile the ex- ercise of a limited dominion for ten years ; but today, the subsistence of her authority subject to the con- tingencies of a plebiscite of early realization, the con- cessions of dominion cannot be explained, and in no case can they extend their effects beyond the time of occupation. The spirit of the considerations above explained is founded on the mining legislation of modern peoples. According to the Mining Code of Chile the State, as owner of the land, is also owner of all the mines, and founded on this title, it grants to private individuals the perpetual ownership of them, on the condition of paying a certain amount annually. But with regard to Tacna and Arica, over the soil and mineral wealth of which Chile has no perfect dominion, she cannot in any way transmit the perpetual ownership of the mines. In 1892, the Government of Your Excellency was on the point of entering into a contract with the concern of Firth & Co., for the purpose of extending the rail- road of Tacna. As the concession,, according to the project of the law referring to it, was to extend much beyond the month of March, 1894, the Charge d'Af- 191 f aires of Peru, saw fit to object to it. In a communi- cation dated December* 10, 1892, addressed to the Chancellery of Santiago, he formulated this declara- tion : a* * * T j le p eruv i an provinces of Tacna and Arica being only temporarily occupied, my Gov- ernment does not consider it in accordance to law for Chile to enter into contracts or to dictate dis- positions whose effects may extend to a period beyond that indicated for the occupation in the Treaty of Peace of 1883.' ' This same declaration is hereby renewed, in so far as is applicable to the concessions of mineral owner- ship. It has also been endeavored, and it is still being endeavored, to carry to an end in Tacna and Arica projects of colonization and immigration. On August 31, 1899, one of the honorable predecessors of Your Excellency recommended in writing to the Inspector General of Lands and Colonization, a serious study of the possibility of establishing national colonies and of extending and improving means of irrigation. To- day, references are made to new initiatives on the part of the Delegate in Tacna, Sr. Guerrero Bascunau, and there is considered as probable the investment of a respectable sum of money in enterprises of this kind in the valleys of Tacna, Lluta, Vitor and Azapa. Colonization, according to means provided for by laws, decrees and contracts sanctioned in Chile, rests, as in every country anxious to be populated, on the basis of granting the colonists lands under an owner- ship title, either a gratuitous or an onerous one, with a long term for payment ; in both cases, there is alien- ation of land. "With this spirit, there were enacted the laws of December 4, 1866, and of August 4, 1874, 192 the supreme decrees of December 28, 1889, regulation of the Office of Lands and Colonization, and of Sep- tember 10, 1899 ; and obeying the same purpose, a con- tract of colonization was celebrated with Mr. Charles Colson on February 14, 1896, and approved by law of December 22, 1899. Therefore, the sale of these public lands, the funda- mental basis of a great enterprise of colonization, — a powerful inducement to form stable populations, — can only be effected by the owner and sovereign of the land, but not by Chile, a simple occupant thereof. In the international order, as well as in the civil order, only the owner has the right to use, enjoy and dispose of things. The simple .possessor, in whose title it is stated that full and definite dominion is not to be trans- ferred, is in reality, in the most favorable event, but a mere usufructuary; and if as such, the rights to use and to enjoy may be exercised, under no circumstances, falls the right of disposal. The great projects of colonization affects the future more than the present ; they may modify the industrial and ethnologic organization of the people and alter their moral physiognomy. Said projects are improper to the limited action of a temporary regime, the con- ductors of which have no certainty as to the duration of their authority. It seems more natural to reserve them to the nation which may acquire, through the measures provided for in the pacts in force, the defi- nite dominion and sovereignty over the territories in question. My Government reserves itself to under- taking enterprises destined to improve the condition of these regions, if, as it fundamentally hopes, they are reincorporated to Peru by virtue of the plebiscite ; but it is not disposed to recognize obligations and re- sponsibilities derived from the alienation or long-term renting of public lands, that may now be effected. 193 Another of the measures adopted has consisted in transferring to Tacna the seat of the First Military Zone and the consequent concentration of troops in that locality. My Government does not wish to discuss the constitutional power of the President of the Ke- public to dispose, to organize and to distribute the armed forces as he may see fit; but, without ignoring it in the least, it considers that there are reasons meriting attention, in the field of conveniences, at least, opposed to the proceeding above indicated. In July of 1885, the territory of the Republic was divided into three military zones, and it was resolved that the first zone would have as its military center the city of Iquique. In January of 1896, a decree was enacted regulating the zones, Tacna being expressly considered as an integral part of the zone and Iquique was retained as the military seat thereof. In May of the same year, there was fixed the proportion in which the units of the army were to be distributed, and there was ordered, in connection with the first zone, the stationing in Iquique of a regiment of cavalry, and a battalion of infantry, the stationing in Antofagasta of a battalion of infantry, and the placing in Copiapo of a regiment of artillery. It was not deemed advisable to maintain any force of importance in the territories of Tacna and Arica. Four year later, without anything demanding the presence in said places of a numerous army, this dis- tribution was altered and there was transferred to Tacna the staff of the first zone, without taking into account the central location of Iquique, its great ad- vantages as a commercial city and its resources. Such a measure, of a character essentially military, was ac- centuated in April with the order transferring to Arica the ironclad Almirante Cochrane and the tor- 194 pedo boat Ingeniero Mutilla, on which are located the artillery and torpedo schools. Even though the River Sama, located to the south of those territories, was the definite boundary between Chile and Peru, the concentration of forces in Tacna could not be explained. Much less can it be explained if it be considered that it is only a provisional bound- ary whose safety has not been threatened, not even re- motely, either previously or now. The laws of the countries whose political institu- tions are based on liberal and democratic principles, prohibit, out of respect of free suffrage, the concentra- tion of military forces at the time of elections at the places where they are to take place. Is not the obser- vation of this same rule fitting in the international order if it be necessary to appeal to the free vote of the people? If for internal effects, the presence of public forces in the circumstances above mentioned is reputed dangerous, cannot this be applied also for the good effects of the exterior policy? According to that, there cannot be denied the advisability of reducing the forces existing in Tacna and Arica to a number indis- pensable for maintaining order and public safety, as has happened without any inconvenience for about twenty years. With this reduction, the misgivings of the occupying people will be allayed; difficulties, excitements and personal disagreements, always very lamentable and vexatious, will be avoided, and the Government of Your Excellency will save expenses and lasting instal- lations, which are but little in harmony with temporary character of the occupation. New consideration has been given also to the old project destined to render independent the ecclesiastic service of Tacna from the Diocese of Arequipa, estab- 195 lishing to that effect an apostolic vicarage. The Holy See, which would have to be consulted in this case, will not assuredly consent to second it, informed as it now is that Chile does not exercise definite dominion and sovereignty over those territories. It is advisable, however, to leave a well founded record of the way of thinking of my Government. In Peru, as in Chile, the Catholic Church lives and develops under the pro- tection of the secular regime of patronage. In accord- ance thereto, the civil governments, in the territorial circumscriptions permanently subject to their domin- ion, intervene in the establishment and dissolution of dioceses and parishes, in creating vicarages, apostolic or otherwise, in the provision of ecclesiastical benefits and in other functions closely connected to the tempo- ral mission of the States. Patronage, moreover, whatever be the source from which it is derived, is an attribute closely united to the exercise of national sovereignty. Its action over cer- tain churches subsisting while sovereignty lasts over the territories in which they function, is transferred only when the sovereignty is absolute and permanent. With regard to Tacna and Arica, neither has Peru ceded nor Chile acquired the definite dominion and sovereignty ; the time has not arrived therefore to sup- pose extinguished on the part of Peru the functions of patronage in connection with those churches. The inconveniences arising from the continuation of the present state of things, on the other hand, are not felt ; there have been no inconveniences during the last twenty years and there will be none in the future. In any event, is it worth while to change this regime for another of brief duration, if, as it is generally sup- posed, the plebiscite proves favorable to Peru? Some will not fail to support this measure, because 196 they believe it is destined to put into play the means of religion to direct the consciences along the road of determinate solutions. But I am sure that this does not form part of the intentions which inspire the inter- national policy of your Government. To its illustri- ousness the fact is not concealed that since the expira- tion of the Holy Alliance, which pretended to make of Christianity an instrument of rivalry between coun- tries, and, if religion is sometimes taken into account by international law, it is in order to strengthen and not to weaken the bonds of confraternity between peoples. Neither may I remain silent, according to the in- structions of my Government, as to the orders of the subordinate authorities of Tacna and Arica who ren- dered difficult or prevented on July 28th, the anni- versary of the independence of Peru, the natural mani- festations of patriotic joy on the part of Peruvian na- tionals as, notwithstanding that this was in connection with the date glorious for all nations, which, by action of united efforts, were raised to independent life at the beginning of the present century. I am happy to declare that when I denounced such unbelievable conduct to the then Minister of the In- terior and Foreign Affairs, this official ordered on two consecutive occasions, by telegraph, that the commem- oration of the aforementioned anniversary be per- mitted. Unfortunately, this order was not duly re- spected, and my compatriots, feeling unjustly and vex- atiously hostilized, refrained from fulfilling one of the most sacred duties of patriotism. I must also state that part of the Chilean press, seconded by persons who looked into the future with penetrating vision, strongly censored the conduct of said authorities and asked the Government to take measures of just repara- tion, w T hich I assume will be done. 197 There may be added as reasons for the just resent- ment and alarm among the populations of Tacna and Arica, the badly covered hostility directed against the Peruvian elements on the part of the above mentioned subordinate officials; as well as their ardor and per- sistence, ineffective up to the present time in endeavor- ing to induce the Government of Your Excellency to undertake the liberticide enterprise of stilling, with measures of violence, the voice of the press of those regions. If to what has been stated are added the moving to Tacna of the Court of Appeals of Iquique ; the project reduction of the import duties through the custom- house of Arica ; the declarations of the honorable rep- resentative of Chile in Bolivia relative to the purposes of this nation with regard to Tacna and Arica ; the pro- longed and undue occupation of a part of the Peruvian province of Tarata, and the indefinite delay of the ple- biscite, it may be seen that, independent of the irregu- lar action of the subordinate authorities, there seems to predominate the purpose of subtracting from the rule of common legislation the provinces of Tacna and Arica in order to subject them to an exceptional regime. In the opinion of some, Chile must employ these measures in order to secure a favorable decision with regard to the plebiscite, because of the nitrate deposits existing in said provinces. Already in 1898 the Gov- ernment of Your Excellency obtained from Peru, in case the voting would be favorable, the generous com- promise of not exploiting the nitrate except under fis- cal conditions, analogous to those in force in Chilean territory; but my Government refused to agree to a subsequent application of the Government of Your Ex- cellency to obtain the protocolized promise of not 198 adopting any measures with regard to the exploitation or transference of the dominion of the deposits, with which the monopoly of Chile might be impaired.. The Chancellery of Lima explained on this occasion that the matter was outside the stipulations destined to give fulfillment to the Treaty of Ancon; that the principle of unconditional sovereignty over those ter- ritories could not be sacrificed under any considera- tion; that the admission of such a doctrine would con- stitute an unfavorable precedent for the rest of the Peruvian territories in which nitrate deposits might be discovered; and that, finally, there existed no nitrate deposits susceptible to industrial exploitation. Today, we see with satisfaction that the intentions of Your Excellency did not have the exaggerated scope of an invitable condition. In effect, the Chilean Chan- cellery, in an implicit manner, and important centers of opinion in an expressed manner, have just disap- proved the opinion of one of its distinguished diplo- mats who, referring to the Bolivian littoral, had stated: that the coast is rich and is worth many mil- lions, which we already knew. We keep it because it is worth something, that if it were worth nothing, there would be no interest in its preservation. It is not, therefore, the value of the territories, according to the sane criterion of the Government of Your Ex- cellency, which must be resolved, in itself alone, the international questions pending, but the strict fulfill- ment of the treaties celebrated. It has also been stated that Chile must keep these territories in view of the safety of her frontiers, not sufficiently defended if the definite boundary were fixed at the ravine of Camarones; and that she could not, therefore, fail to follow the course which she herself has recently traced. 199 Although I do not believe that this opinion will be shared by the high counsels of the Government of Your Excellency, I must record that there is opposed to it the very important one of Sr. Boonen Rivera, who, re- ferring to a report on the above-mentioned ravine, has stated : "Because of its central position with regard to the other valleys, and because of the great dis- tance which separates them from the other neigh- boring valleys, it constitutes a bulwark which, strongly occupied, could completely defend the province of Tarapaca from any invasion by land." The lack of safety, moreover, cannot in itself serve as a reason or pretext to claim dominion over the terri- tories of others. Sr. Andres Bello, the object of well deserved respect, commenting more than half a cen- tury ago on the dangers of such a theory, states in his "Principles of International Law": "States are wont to make use of various pre- texts to seize the territory of others ; the ordinary and most usual is that of its own safety which is in danger, as they say, if these or those natural boundaries, which would protect them against for- eign invasion, are not taken. But to grant peoples such an indefinite right would be the same as to authorize them to rob themselves arbitrarily, and • instead of cementing peace, no rule could be more fecund of discords and wars." There can not be concealed from Your Excellency, on the other hand, the contrary effect of the largest number of the aforementioned measures, especially that of the exaggerated severity with which the sub- ordinate officials comply with them. There are feel- ings which are strengthened by adversity, which take 200 new life and gigantic growth by struggles, which are enlivened by the least appearance of compulsion; one of them is patriotic sentiment. Thus is explained why, at the present time, among the population of Tacna and Arica there is as strong or even a stronger deci- sion than formerly in favor of the Peruvian Father- land. When the Treaty of Peace was signed, it was not thought that Chile remained authorized to put into play her influences with the object of winning the votes of the population of Tacna and Arica for a longer period than ten years, and much less for an indefinite period of time. Within a decade, Chile, could do what- ever has been within the sphere of her rights in order to secure the indicated object ; but the period once ter- minated, the broad scope of the powers exercised by it has no plausible explanation. The Treaty of Ancon, it is true, submitted to an experiment the aforemen- tioned provinces, but within a fixed period, which ter- minated March 28, 1894 ; and there is no reason to pro- long this experiment, much less with the rigor now being displayed, for an indefinite period. The ac- ceptance of an indefinite extension would be equiva- lent to admitting that the plebiscite should be realized only, when Chile had obtained the complete assurance of the favorable realization of her aspirations, in which case the term fixed beforehand would have served no purpose. In 1894, when the Chilean Chancellery was in the care of the Honorable Sr. Sanchez Fontecilla, the Government of Your Excellency solicited from that of Peru an extension of the period of occupation of Tacna and Arica until March 28, 1898. This petition, in it- self, shows that even in the conception of the Govern- ment of Your Excellency, the approval of Peru was necessary in order to continue exercising authority in 201 those territories, after 1894, in a form altogether legit- imate. One of the easiest means to bring about a quick and friendly settlement of these lamentable differences con- sists in holding the plebiscite at once, in the form agreed to in the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol. Thus would cease the provisional situation of Tacna and Arica, the source of the difficulties and differences be- tween our two countries. Without practical effect, the series of attempts made by Peru since 1892 up to the present time for the arrangement of this funda- mental matter, Chile not having disapproved the pro- tocol above indicated and nothing new having been proposed since April, 1898, in which month this one was celebrated, its definite sanction imposes itself as the best means to arrive at the conclusion of this long period of disagreements and anxieties, which obstructs the regular development of both nations. In any event, but especially if the protocol is re- fused or if the pending solution with regard to it is delayed, my Government is confident that out of re- spect for the good harmony of our respective countries, in honor of the laws under the guarantee of which the territories of Tacna and Arica are placed, and in ful- fillment of what was provided in the Treaty of 1883, there will be reestablished the lawful regime in those territories, leaving without effect the measures con- trary to it and without enforcement the projects which would tend to disturb it. I am sure that the Government of Your Excellency has proceeded in accordance with sincere convictions and high purposes. On this account, I have faith that, avoiding any error, thanks to the considerations above set forth, it will make amends, acceding to the sugges- tions of its own rectitude. Actions have taken a cer- 202 tain course due perhaps to the impulses of an exag- gerated patriotic zeal ; but once the excitement of such a respectable feeling is calmed, I have no doubt that justice will be given to the friendly demand of Peru. I take pleasure in offering to Your Excellency on this new occasion the sentiments of my high and distin- guished consideration. Cesakeo Chacaltana. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. No. 32. [Translation] Legation of Peku in Chile, Santiago, December 15, 1900. Me. Minister: Under date of November 14, last, I had the pleasure to address to Your Excellency a communication des- tined to make evident the unjustifiableness and in- advisability of the series of measures of transcendent character recently adopted, or in process of being adopted, on the political and administrative regime of the Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica, notwith- standing that they are subject only to the precarious and temporary jurisdiction of Chile, which should have ceased in March, 1894. As was natural, I concluded by asking Your Excellency, out of respect for justice, for the promises in force between our countries, for the principles of international law and for the precepts of Chilean legislation itself, to abrogate those meas- ures and to abandon the plans destined to carry them out. 203 A month has passed, and Your Excellency has not favored me with an answer. Neither has Your Ex- cellency answered my communications of previous and subsequent dates relative to the projected fixing of boundaries between Arica and Pisagua, with regard to which there is evidenced by certain persons an un- usual desire to induce the Government of Your Ex- cellency to act against the territorial integrity of Arica, with the exclusive object of depriving this ter- ritory of a large part of its natural wealth, in order to incorporate it to the now Chilean district of Pisagua. The prolonged silence of Your Excellency would be considered as the assent of the Government of Chile to the just demands of my Government, if it had agreed with the adoption of reparation agreements, with the reestablishment of the nationality in the regime at present in force in the territories of Tacna and Arica, and with the clear purpose of leading both countries to the immediate realization of the plebiscite agreed to in the Treaty of Peace of 1883, with which object the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol was prepared. But under the protection of this silence, the initial impulse of the measures above referred to has not been only continued in all its vigor, but there is intended, apparently, the immediate adoption of new measures. Thus, the daily papers have announced the early in- vestment of about eighty thousand pesos in the con- struction in Tacna of a building for the courts and the offices of the Intendancy, and of more than fourteen thousand pesos in the city supply water. This re- veals the purpose, on the part of Chile, still to pro- long, for an indefinite period, and as it has prolonged in fact for nearly seven years, an occupation which legally terminated in 1894. Since this is in connection with delicate matters, which are vexatious and susceptible of leading to the 204 most serious misunderstandings, this Legation has en- deavored to set forth as many arguments as possible to support the claims which it has formulated, and a reply in accordance therewith has been expected. Not having received this reply in any sense up to the present time, and there being prolonged, mean- while, a situation prejudicial to the valuable and sacred interests which my Government has the duty of helping and protecting, I address myself to Your Ex- cellency with the object of requesting Your Excellency to be good enough to reply to my aforementioned communications, either acceding to the just demands which I have formulated or making manifest the rea- sons which the Government of Chile may have to per- mit to continue in force the measures to which the de- mands refer. I have the honor to reiterate to Your Excellency the sentiments of my highest and most profound consid- eration. Cesareo Chacaltana. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Peru in Chile. [Translation.] (No. 1153.) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Santiago, December 18, 1900. Mr. Minister: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of the note of Your Excellency dated the 15th instant, in which Your Excellency requests this department to reply to 205 your previous communication of November 14th, con- taining extensive observations on several measures adopted by the Government of Chile in the territories of Tacna and Arica, and to the notes of Your Excel- lency previous and subsequent to November 14th, rela- tive to the projected fixing of boundaries between the departments of Arica and Pisagua. It has been far from the intention of the undersigned deliberately to delay his reply to the above-mentioned notes of Your Excellency, or much less to incur the discourtesy of leaving them unanswered. Your Excellency knows that the Government for some time has been passing through circumstances somewhat abnormal owing to the almost constant ab- sence from the capital of His Excellency the President of the Eepublic and the frequent changes which the personnel of the Cabinet has suffered. Your Excellency also knows that on the dates on which Your Excellency addressed your aforementioned communications, either the Cabinet was in a period of crisis or the undersigned had been for only a few days in charge of the portfolio of Foreign Affairs. Lastly, Your Excellency is not ignorant of the fact that more than ten days ago the members of the pres- ent Cabinet presented their resignations, and since that date they have been able to attend only to the urgent and daily business of their respective depart- ments. In these circumstances, which the Government has not been able to avoid or correct, Your Excellency will find the true and only explanation for the lack of reply which Your Excellency notes and which the under- signed also deplores. Even though it would not have been an easy task to explain to Your Excellency the reasons which justified 206 and advised the adoption of the measures of an ad- ministrative character taken by the Government in the departments of Tacna and Arica, subject to the legal and administrative dispositions that rule in the other departments of the Kepublic, this department has not wished to proceed without making beforehand a care- ful study of each one of the measures which Your Ex- cellency has deemed to be outside the scope of the powers which accrue to Chile while she continues in the occupation of those territories, or contrary to the rights which the Peruvian nation believes to have over them. This procedure was the one which best answered the purpose of taking duly into account the observations of the Government of Your Excellency, of giving at- tention to all those which the Government might accept by reason of courtesy, equity, or deference toward Peru, and of manifesting and proving that none of the measures which have been the subject of claims formu- lated by Your Excellency has the character of hostility or of violence which is attributed to them, nor do they amount absolutely to an exception in the regime to which the public administration of the country is sub- ject. It was, therefore, necessary to reach agreements in the counsels of the Cabinet relative to the measures which have originated in the several departments and then to give to Your Excellency the reply which would be in accor.d with said agreements. This is what the department has not been able to bring about thus far, owing to the circumstances pointed out, which oblige it to limit itself at the present time to give to Your Excellency a brief explanation of the involuntary delay which has occasioned the last note of Your Excellency. 207 In closing, I must reiterate to Your Excellency, in general terms, the assurance that the measures to which the observations contained in the communication of Your Excellency of November 14th refer, involve no other purpose than that of taking care in a suitable manner of the administrative progress of the depart- ments of Tacna and Arica. With regard to the pro- jected fixing of boundaries between Arica and Pisagua, I must state to Your Excellency that the respective antecedents are found at the Ministry of the Interior and that the resolutions which that Department may dictate on the matter will refer only to the interior regime of Chilean territory or that legitimately oc- cupied by Chile. As soon as the situation of the G-overnment becomes normal, this department will send to Your Excellency a careful and detailed reply on all the points set forth in the communication of Your Excellency, and I hope to answer fully and satisfactorily the observations therein contained. Aside from this, this being in connection with deli- cate questions, which are vexations and susceptible of leading to the most serious misunderstandings, as Your Excellency believes, the undersigned does not deem justified the pressure which is embodied in the last communication of Your Excellency, so much more so as the Legation of Peru has full knowledge of the cir- cumstances to which I have referred in this communi- cation. I renew to Your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration. Emilio Bello. To His Excellency, The Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Peru. 208 Report of Committee on Foreign Affairs Submitted to the Chilean Chamber of Deputies on January 14,1901. [Translation.] Honorable Chamber: The protocol negotiated with Peru on April 16, 1898, for the purpose of fulfilling Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, has been submitted to the consideration of this Honorable Chamber since August, 1898. Many and lengthy sessions were devoted to the dis- cussion of the said agreement, and it was only at the session of September 24th that the general idea of negotiating with Peru in order to resolve as to the conditions under which the plebiscite that is to decide as to the final nationality of Tacna and Arica is to be held, was approved. But the intense opposition that some of the stipulations of the agreement mer- ited, made impossible its ratification, solicited by the Executive, without introducing modifications in it that would have to be the subject of new negotiations. Since that date, not any progress has been made in the discussion, which has remained suspended un- til the Minister of Foreign Relations again has asked for a decision upon the part of the Honorable Chamber. After reviewing the facts of the case, your Foreign Relations Committee esteems that it is of manifest convenience for both countries that the primordially important question that the Protocol of 1898 submits to the decision of an arbitrator, be settled directly between the respective Governments. The Commit- tee also considers well-founded some of the remarks made in the course of previous debates, that are, in great part, in complete accord with the propositions 209 made to the Peruvian representative by the Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile during the negotia- tions preliminary to that agreement. Besides, as the idea of negotiating with Peru re- garding plebiscite conditions, is already approved in general, the Committee believes that not any useful purpose would be accomplished in continuing the dis- cussion of the protocol, as any proposed modifications thereto could not be adopted without first being dis- cussed and accepted by both Governments, in nego- tiations that are of the exclusive resort of the De- partments of Foreign Relations. In order not to hinder the action of the Executive, tending toward the reaching of an agreement between both countries, it is preferable to send the facts to the Minister of Foreign Relations so that he may initiate new diplomatic negotiations. To this effect, your Committee on Foreign Relations has the honor of proposing the following Bill: "Taking into consideration the different ideas expressed in the course of the debate, and es- pecially the advisability that exists in order that the Governments of Chile and of Peru should settle directly between them the questions sub- mitted to the decision of an arbitrator by the Protocol of April 16, 1898, the Chamber resolves that the facts be sent to the Executive, in order that new diplomatic negotiations tending to the fulfillment of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, may be initiated. " Santiago, January 14, 1901. Miguel Cru- chaga, Francisco A. Pinto, Manuel Salinas, Guil- lermo Pinto Aguero. ' ' 210 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Peru in Chile. (Number 68.) [Translation.] Republic of Chile, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Santiago, January 19, 1901. Mr. Minister: I proceed to give Your Excellency the reply re- peatedly requested by Your Excellency as to several administrative measures adopted by the Government of Chile in the departments of Tacna and Arica. In my former communication, under date of De- cember 18, last, I explained the reasons that had pre- vented me from giving Your Excellency an immediate reply and that counseled not replying precipitately, in order previously to make a careful study of the antecedents of each of the measures adopted by the different departments of State, which furnished material for Your Excellency's remonstrances. In possession to-day of all those antecedents, it is proper for me to give Your Excellency the necessary explanations. I trust they will carry conviction to Your Excellency's mind that the acts of my Govern- ment are the result of lofty sentiments of rectitude and respect for the rights of others and that they are in accord with the strict fulfillment of its duties, among which the first of all is the defense and main- tenance of its own rights. Under date of February 9 of last year, the Intendant of Tacna issued a decree that received the approval of the Government, by which he exacted of the directors of private establishments for primary in- struction compliance with the provision contained in 211 Article XVI, Section 3, of the Law of November 24, 1860. Pursuant to this decree, there had appeared a number of requests from different private establish- ments for primary instruction for the respective per- mits of the administrative authority to continue func- tioning lawfully. After the submission of these requests — with all the necessary antecedents relative to the conduct ob- served by the teachers of the schools presided over by Peruvians and supported or subventioned by Peru — to the consideration of the Government, it was decided by the Department of Public Instruction to refuse the respective permits, it having in view there- for strong and well founded reasons. Article I of the Law of November 24, 1860, provides that "primary instruction will be given under the direction of the State/ y Article III of the same law provides that the history and geography of Chile shall be taught in the schools. It is the duty of the Government to see to it that the teaching that may be imparted in the public and private schools shall be in no wise contrary to the Constitution of the State, which establishes the fun- damental principle of national sovereignty. Well then: from the antecedents that the Govern- ment has collected as to the procedure observed in the private schools of Tacna presided over by Peru- vian teachers, there appear substantial facts of a very serious character, some of which are equivalent to a genuine violation of the penal law. The Government has been able to learn that in the twenty-three private schools that existed in- Tacna, neither the history nor the geography of Chile was taught, and, on the other hand, sentiments of hostility 212 toward Chile were inculcated in the pupils: they sang only Peruvian hymns, in the verses of which Chilean occupation was qualified as "a brutal yoke/' and in this way was carried on a campaign of propa- ganda against our country and of disregard of the national sovereignty. The measures adopted were applied, consequently, in the only manner open to the Government, and they are in complete conformity with the administrative and legal powers of the Executive. They do not constitute an exceptional procedure, for, if the facts that give rise to them had occurred in any other department of the Republic, they would have been issued in a similar form ; and, being applied with greater strictness, even the action of the public ministry would have been required to punish the crim- inal responsibility of such as might be deemed guilty of an attack on the sovereignty of the state. Nor are the measures adopted in respect of the private schools of Tacna equivalent to a disregard of the right possessed by every person to engage in teaching in the manner he may prefer, provided he respect and observe the legal provisions to which the inhabitants of that province are subject. The Government could not limit this right save only in so far as it is under obligation to see to it that it should be properly exercised. In other respects, the Government concerns itself with the due satisfaction of the needs of public in- struction in Tacna and Arica, and it recognizes the civilizing influence which, there as everywhere, it is designed to exercise on the progress and culture of the people. It was in view of this design that well trained teachers have been sent to Tacna and Arica, .that new 213 schools, of a kind and number that would render private initiative unnecessary and much less so the participation of any other Government than that of Chile, were established, and, finally that a girls' high school, included in the budgetary law of the present year, was created. To these measures alluded, doubtless, my pre- decessor, Seiior Errazuriz Urmeneta, when he ex- plained to Your Excellency that my Government is engaged in creating a definitive situation, and that it would make it a duty to push the solution, that it might be, in any case, based on the sentiments of justice and true harmony that ought to characterize the relations of neighboring and friendly peoples. The steps taken by this Government to define or clear up the boundaries of the departments of Tacna and Arica in order to determine the jurisdiction of the authorities charged with pronouncing on questions of public and private interest of which they must, respectively, take cognizance, have given rise to divers and repeated observations by Your Excellency. Your Excellency holds that the dividing line of the departments mentioned possesses an international character, because it lies at the point of separation be- tween the territory of Tarapaca, definitively in- corporated with Chile, pursuant to the Treaty of Peace of 1883, and the territory of Tacna and Arica, whose definitive future is subject to the contingencies of a plebiscite. Your Excellency deduces from this interpretation that it is impossible to disregard the participation of Peru in the determination of the boundaries of the departments mentioned, even if such be for the purpose of internal administration. 214 The undersigned is not unaware that, if it were a question of denning the boundary between the Chilean territory of Tarapaca and the territories of Tacna and Arica, in order to determine how far Chilean sovereignty extends, a case would have arisen that would have given to all the governments concerned in fixing the boundary a right to intervene. Inasmuch, however, as the measures adopted by this Government are designed solely to resolve dif- ficulties of an internal order, which have to do with the competency or incompetency of the authorities to take cognizance of matters that fall within their jurisdiction; and still more, as these measures are de- manded by private individuals that are interested in establishing their rights in a legal manner, there would be no reason to attribute to the resolutions adopted by the Department of the Interior in respect of the affair any other scope or any other significance than that of an administrative measure intended to meet the requirements of a good public service in the departments of Tacna and Arica. Nor could it be supposed that the delimitation of the boundary that separates two departments of the Republic, by means of a supreme decree, is to be re- garded as an extraordinary measure that transcends our lawful control. The decrees issued previously on this same sub- ject substantiate the same. The Treaty of Ancon is a law of the Republic of Chile. In it are fixed the boundaries of the province of Tarapaca and those of Tacna and Arica subject to Chilean legislation. Every measure addressed to determining the sphere of action of the authorities, or to settling disputes or difficulties that may arise in the realm of internal ad- 215 ministration are of the exclusive competency of the Government of Chile, which possesses the same powers in Tacna and Arica as, in pursuance of the legislation of the country, it exercises in the rest of the Republic. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is not a question of set- tling* a dispute as to boundaries with the Government of Peru, which has not presented itself, but of settling disputes that have arisen in the internal or admini- strative realm, the undersigned holds that there is no ground on which to attribute to this subject an international character. Moreover, I must place it on record that hitherto the question has been under study in the Department of the Interior, to which the solution of it pertains. Your Excellency also notes — as acts opposed to the sovereignty of Peru in Tacna and Arica, as long as these territories are merely occupied by Chile — the concessions of deposits of borax and other mineral substances, as well as the rental or sale of nitrate lands made by the Government, in conformity with laws in force in the Republic. Your Excellency believes that concessions of this character may be granted only by the owner of tbs territory, the one that exercises permanent and ab- solute sovereignty, the one that has the right to dis- pose of the soil and its wealth ; and not by the simple occupants, to whom it is not given to accomplish acts of seigniory, and who do not possess the right to encumber the territory throughout a future that does not belong to them. Your Excellency seems to forget that Clause III of the Treaty of Ancon subjected to Chilean legislation the territories of Tacna and Arica, and, that, in con- sequence, our laws prevail there without any limita- tion whatsoever and in the same manner as in the other provinces of the Republic. 216 Your Excellency considers that Chile may not per- form acts that presuppose the complete exercise of sovereignty. According to such a theory, this Government could not administer justice, impose taxes or perform in Tacna and Arica any of the acts that pertain properly to the exercise of sovereignty, and therefore it could not assume charge of the administrative services in those territories, which, in such a case, would be aban- doned to their own fate. Among the faculties of administrating a territory, pursuant to the laws of the country, is included that of making concessions of mines and deposits of mineral substances, and that of renting or disposing of fiscal lands for exploitation, cultivation or coloniza- tion. To stimulate the progress and development of pro- duction, wealth and commerce in the territories sub- ject to the administration and laws of Chile is one of the fundamental duties of the Government. Might it be affirmed that what the Governments de- sired when they signed the Treaty of Ancon was to keep Tacna and Arica in a state of stagnation by dis- regarding their needs, their industries, their natural and progressive development? Furthermore, what evil could result from conces- sions for exploiting mineral substances, which all pri- vate individuals, without distinction of nationality, may solicit in Tacna and Arica, as well as in any other department of Chile? Can there be anything in this that would contradict the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Ancon or that would in the slightest degree wound the national sen- timent of Peru? The undersigned holds there is not. and, on the contrary, he considers that whatever may be the de- 217 finitive fate of the territories whose nationality will be settled by the stipulated plebiscite, it is Chile's duty, and one that she will be able duly to perform, to give thought to the means which, according to our legal regime, she deems adequate to the proper ad- ministration of the departments of Tacna and Arica, the well-being of their inhabitants and the prosperity and progress of those territories. The remonstrances that Your Excellency formulates in respect of the scheme for the extension of the rail- way from Tacna to Arica — now T pending the consider- ation of the Congress and taking the same course as all similar solicitations — as well as the objections Your Excellency raises in respect of important plans for irrigating the fertile valley of Tacna, which are being studied with real interest by this Government and the realization of which would be of the greatest benefit to that region, are sufficiently answered by the general reasons that I have just adduced in the fore- going paragraphs. I deem it unnecessary to add that the plan of col- onizing the lands, to-day untilled, of the valley of Tacna, is, in the main, subject to the irrigation of the valley itself and is of the greatest importance to the future of that locality. The removal to Tacna of the seat of the First Mili- tary Zone, and of the Court of Appeals that functioned in Iquique, has also been considered by Your Ex- cellency an extraordinary and an inexplicable measure, designed to have an undue influence on the acts that are to take place when the moment arrives for the decision in the plebiscite of the fate of the depart- . ments of Tacna and Arica. If Your Excellency recognized the constitutional power possessed by the Executive to effect this re- 218 moval, nothing would have to be added in reply to Your Excellency's observations, were it not that I deem it expedient to place on record the reasons in behalf of a good service that have counseled the measure to which I allude. Climatic conditions and greater facility of supplies that are to be found in Tacna render more expedient the quartering of troops at that place and more economical their provisioning. This last circumstance would be sufficient of itself to justify the policy of the Government. As for the rest, the time has not yet arrived for proceeding to the plebiscitary vote, nor is it proper to consider a menace to freedom of suffrage the presence of the army there, which now and later will always be a guaranty of public order and tranquility, as it has been at all times in the elections that have been held in the country. What our laws prohibit is the drafting and quar- tering of the national guards or of the conscripts at the time of the elections, but not the temporary sta- tioning of an army at the place where an election is to be held. As to the removal of the Court of Justice, it will be sufficient to remind Your Excellency that it func- tioned formerly in the city of Tacna, and that if it has recently been decided that it should again have its seat in that city, this fact is solely on the grounds of a good judicial service. Your Excellency's attention has also been attracted by the renewal of the old plan designed to free the ecclesiastical service of Tacna and Arica from the Diocese of Arequipa by establishing to that effect an apostolic vicariate. 219 Your Excellency recognizes that in Peru, as in Chile, the Catholic Church lives and is developed under the auspices of the secular regime of patronage. This principle being established, it only remains to ascertain to which of the two Governments pertains the exercise of patronage for the provision of eccles- iastical functions and benefices in tjie territory that Chile occupies pursuant to the stipulations of the Treaty of Ancon. If the Treaty of Ancon placed the territories of Tacna and Arica under the dominion of the Chilean Constitution and laws, it would seem unquestionable that the President of the Republic must use there the special faculty that is bestowed on him by the Con- stitution of the State in Article LXXXII, section 13, which says : "13. To exercise the faculties of patronage in respect of churches and ecclesiastical benefices and persons in conformity with the law. ' ' The fact that the Government has not made use of this faculty hitherto — in spite of the irregular con- duct that has been observed by ecclesiastical func- tionaries in Tacna and Arica in respect of Chile by becoming the most active and constant elements of propaganda against the interests and rights of this country — in no way vitiates the constitutional power that His Excellency the President of the Republic has a right to exercise as long as the Constitution and laws of the Republic are in force in Tacna and x\rica. If, too, the right possessed by the Government to interfere in the provision of ecclesiastical func- tionaries and benefices in that territory is perfectly clear, the plan of putting it into execution is wholly justified by the necessity of offsetting the attitude 220 assumed by the parish priests and of correcting a situation that is belittling to the prestige and au- thority that the Government must maintain in the departments of Tacna and Arica. Your Excellency's claim in respect of what has oc- curred in connection with the celebration of the an- niversary of Peruvian independence is lacking in foundation. It is not true that the authorities of Tacna and Arica hindered or prevented Peruvian citizens from celebrating the twenty-eighth of July in any manner whatsoever. This is what occurred: the president of a labor union invited the Intendant to a patriotic festival that was to be held in the Municipal Theater. However, as in the program appeared twice the singing of a hymn to Tacna, in which the Chilean occupation is quali- fied as "a brutal yoke," the Intendant explained to the president of that society that it would be impos- sible for him to be present at the festival and that it would be belittling to his dignity to attend it if the hymn to Tacna were not changed for the national hymn of Peru. The president mentioned that he would consult the members of the executive com- mittee of the union as to the proposed change; and as the reply he received was couched thus — "in view of the objections that the authorities raise to the festival — " they desisted from holding it. A state- ment of these facts is sufficient to disprove the charge that it has been attempted to make against the author- ities of Tacna and that Your Excellency, doubtless ill informed, accepts in Your Excellency's note of No- vember 14. As to what Your Excellency calls the "liberticide enterprise of silencing the voice of the press in those 221 regions," it is only necessary for me to say here that hitherto no measure has been adopted that has tended to restrain the excesses of the Peruvian press in the province of Tacna, although the Government is aware that it is subventioned by the Government of Peru and that the violent attacks directed against the Government of Chile and the Chilean authorities of the locality are already too frequent. It is not a little strange that Your Excellency should formulate a charge such as the one that I have just analyzed, when the law to which the entire press of Chile is subject is not even in force in Tacna, inas- much as the jury that would have cognizance and pronounce decisions in respect of accusations for crimes of the press has not been established tnere. The bill presented to the Congress to reduce the custom duties at Arica has, as its sole and exclusive object, the fostering of the commerce of that terrritory and the improvement and facilitation of the life of its inhabitants; and if the Government of Chile is interested in looking after the progress and welfare of the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica, it is to be supposed that the Government of Peru would have at least an equal interest. The undersigned therefore remarks nothing in this paragraph that can serve as a basis of a remonstrance by Your Excellency's Government. Your Excellency also refers to the declarations of the honorable representative of Chile in Bolivia as to the purpose of Chile in respect of Tacna and Arica. I deem it unnecessary to make myself responsible for the declarations that the Minister of Chile in Bolivia may have made incidentally in a com- 222 munication addressed to the Government to which he is accredited. Your Excellency will not fail to agree that only the declarations of the Chancellery of Chile through its official organs can enable Your Excellency's Govern- ment to judge of the purpose and the policy of the Government of Chile and that our representative in Bolivia is not an authorized organ in respect of ques- tions pending with Peru. Finally, Your Excellency protests to this Chancel- lery against the indefinite postponement of the plebi- scite stipulated in the Treaty of Ancon, against the delay caused in the despatching of the Billinghurst- Latorre protocol and against the retardation of the solution of the problem of Tacna and Arica and the wresting of these provinces that Your Excellency at- tributes to Chile. The explanations contained in this note in respect of each of the charges formulated by Your Excellency show clearly that all the administrative measures adopted or on the way to adoption by my Government are within the constitutional and legal faculties of the Executive. -None of these measures implies hostility to or dis- regard of, the rights of Peru, or runs counter to the stipulations of the Treaty of Ancon. The most of them are designed to stimulate the development of the territory and to secure the well-being of the in- habitants and to assure their prosperity and future aggrandizement. By these legitimate means — applying her laws and keeping within the realm assigned to her by the Treaty of Ancon — Chile is seeking to strengthen her chances for the definitive dominion of Tacna and Arica. 223 She will spare no effort to fulfill the mission im- posed on her in respect of those territories by the Treaty of Ancon, in a manner that will render her worthy of the confidence and gratitude of their in- habitants. While respecting the rights and the legitimate ex- pectations of Peru, my Government will continue to minister to the interests and needs of the present departments of Tacna and Arica to the full measure of her powers, and the contigency that they may pass later under the dominion of Peru, together with all the benefits that have accrued to them from the well meaning and progressive undertakings of the Chilean administration will not diminish its activity. The Government of Chile has cherished no design of postponing indefinitely the solution of the problem of Tacna and Arica, nor may Your Excellency's Gov- ernment justly charge it with having done so. The agreement about the Billinghurst-Latorre Pro- tocol is the most conclusive proof that this Govern- ment has carried its good will in respect of Peru beyond what was possible within the constitutional limitations within which it would have exercised its action in order to arrive at an understanding with the Government of Peru. Your Excellency is aware that the protocol men- tioned encountered insuperable obstacles among the membership of the Honorable Chamber of Deputies, when it was submitted to its consideration in 1898, and that the efforts made by the Government to obtain its approval have been inefficacious. As the discussion of the protocol has been inde- finitely postponed, different circumstances, inde- pendent of the will of the Government, have delayed a pronouncement by that branch of the legislative 224 power, thus producing the consequent paralyzation of the negotiations subject to the sanctioning of that protocol by the Chilean Congress. The recent motion adopted by the Chamber of Depu- ties, when it again took up the consideration of the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol, has put an end to this uncertain situation that hindered and delayed the ef- forts that should have been carried forward by both Governments with a view to settling the problem as to the territories of Tacna and Arica. The Chamber of Deputies did not give its approval to the protocol of April 16, 1898, because it considers that it ought to be modified in some of its provisions, and it has voted to send the antecedents to the Gov- ernment in order that it may take steps to introduce the necessary modifications, thus opening fresh nego- tiations to this effect with the Chancellery of Peru. The question that so greatly interests and preoc- cupies the Governments of Chile and Peru has re- mained at this stage. It would be neither just nor in keeping with the truth to blame either of the Governments for not hav- ing arrived sooner at a definitive solution and one that would have consulted the interests of both countries. It is to be hoped that the wholesome designs that characterized the Chancelleries in their former nego- tiations will be pushed with an equal spirit of peace and harmony in the efforts that should be undertaken once more in order to seek an agreement that will render possible the loyal and honorable fulfillment of the stipulations of the Treaty of Ancon. As the will of the Governments is pledged in this sense, it will not be, in the opinion of the undersigned, so difficult an undertaking to arrive at a definitive' 225 understanding that will be, at one and the same time, the first step toward the reestablishment, upon the foundation of a close and sincere friendship, of the cordiality of relations that ought to exist between sister nations destined to move unitedly along the highway of the future. I renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my most distinguished consideration. Emilio Bello. To His Excellency, Senor Cesareo Chacaltana, Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraor- dinary of Peru. Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Rela- tions of Chile. [Translation.] (Number 7.) Legation of Peru in Chile, Santiago, January 30, 1901. Mr. Minister: I have had the honor to receive Your Excellency's note of the nineteenth of the present month, in re- ply to. mine of the fourteenth of November, both rela- tive to the measures recently adopted in respect of the provinces of Tacna and Arica. As the con- siderations adduced by Your Excellency have not succeeded in disproving the justice of the remon- strances of Peru, I am compelled to insist upon them. In order to justify the closing of the private schools directed by Peruvians, Your Excellency appeals to Article I of the law of November 24, 1860, according to which primary instruction must be given under the 226 supervision of the State; to Article III of the same, which prescribes the teaching of history and geog- raphy of Chile; and to the duty of the Government to prevent all instruction contrary to the political Constitution. Primary instruction ought certainly to be imparted under the high direction of the State; but the very law mentioned by Your Excellency specifies the limi- tations of this general principle in respect of given cases, in order to safeguard private rights and in- terests. One of these limitations is contained in Ar- ticle XI, thus: schools maintained by private indi- viduals or by tuition fees paid by pupils are subject to the inspection established by the present law, in re- spect of the morality and order of the establishment, but not in respect of the teaching that may be imparted in them or of the methods that may be employed. This provision is confirmed by Article XXIX of the same law and by Article III of the general regulations of primary instruction. What has been noted is sufficient to disprove Your Excellency's arguments in respect of the interference of the authorities in the matter of instruction in primary schools. I will add, however, a few words as to the failure to teach the history and geography of Chile. Article III, invoked by Your Excellency to justify the charge, refers only to schools supported by the State, which are classified as elementary and superior, and it then determines the kind of teaching that must be supplied in each of them. In keeping with this order of ideas, Article XLIII of the regulations of primary instruction divides schools into public and private ; it considers as among the former those supported by the public funds ; and 227 as among the latter those maintained by private funds. Article XLIV adds: "the public schools are divided into elementary and superior. In the former will be taught, in the same way, the branches indicated in section 3 of the aforementioned article and others that the Government may designate." Section 3 of Article III provides the teaching of the history and geography of Chile in the superior public schools. The last classification, as may be seen, and the sub- sequent specification of the branches that must be taught in the elementary and superior schools do not refer to them, inasmuch as they are not subject, ac- cording to what has already been set forth, to official inspection in respect of instruction and methods. As to morality and order: how have they been attacked in the schools directed by Peruvian teachers ! Your Excellency has not seen fit to explain how in a sufficiently concrete manner. Your Excellency limits yourself to quoting, in support of your assertion, two words of a hymn, the intercalation of which in the same might have been prohibited without the necessity of resorting to the extreme means of closing the schools. According to the aforementioned law and regu- lations — the binding rules of the authorities in re- spect of primary instruction — a person may only be deprived of the right to exercise the teaching function in the following cases : when he shall not be credited, by the testimony of two reliable persons, with the leading of a correct life and the possession of good habits ; when he is under indictment or condemnation for a crime the author of which may be subject to corporal or degrading punishment ; when he has been discharged for a proven cause that involves his moral- ity and habits; and when he suffers from some physical defect. 228 Well, then: the Intendant of Tacna and the Gov- ernor of Arica, in issuing their decrees of February, 1900, based their action exclusively on the fact that some teachers had not complied with the requirements X^rovided by Article XVI of the law of 1860, which are limited to a proof of correct life and habits, on the testimony of two reliable persons. None of the other causes indicated were adduced at the time, nor have they been alleged since then. Nothing was said in those decrees as to the failure to teach the geography and history of Chile, nor of the dissemination of doctrines contrary to the Con- stitution of the State, nor of infractions of the penal law. In both decrees there was an offer, besides, to renew the permits to those that should prove that they had fulfilled the required conditions. The Peruvian teachers easily established, within the period indicated, their legal aptitude to direct private schools, and then, instead of their being granted the permits offered, the closing of their establishments was prolonged under the pretext that the respective process had been transmitted to Santiago for con- sultation. Since, in the light of the law and of the regulations of the case, it was impossible to decree the definitive closing of the schools, an expedient was adopted for making a careful investigation in order to discover other grounds that might serve to justify the measure. In this process, the principal parts of which Senor Errazuriz Urmeneta had the goodness to read to me in his office, had been brought together reports in which the Peruvian teachers were charged with sev- eral offenses not previously formulated by the author- ities of Arica and Tacna. 229 The Attorney-General of the Supreme Court, that is, the highest representative of the public ministry, in spite of these recent charges, did not consider the Executive authorized, in conformity with the existing laws, to order the definitive closing, nor did he accuse the teachers of infractions of the penal law. The said functionary participated, nevertheless, in the adoption of the projected measure, and he maintained, to that effect, the doctrine that the Executive Power — in the exercise of his peculiar faculties derived from the principles of international law — might dictate, in the said provinces, measures designed to suppress denounced abuses, without reference to the general laws of instruction. The Government approved, com- pletely, the opinions of the Attorney-General and in- structed the Intendant of Tacna, in pursuance of them, to keep the Peruvian schools definitively closed. The measure was sanctioned therefore, not in the name or in fulfillment of the existing laws in respect of primary instruction, but in obedience to the principles of in- ternational laws, although they are applicable only in cases of military occupation or under the rule of martial law. Your Excellency's Government, without a firm point of support in this affair, has fathered, successively, two incompatible doctrines: first, the insufficiency of the laws of instruction as the basis of a decree in favor of closing and the necessity of appealing to faculties derived from international laws; and, after- ward, the defectiveness of the said laws for the object indicated. However, by neither of them, as I have shown in my former communication and the present one, has Your Excellency been able to justify the closing to which allusion has been made. 230 The Government of Chile, as Your Excellency ex- plains to me, has sent to Tacna and Arica well trained teachers and has created new schools. It is to be lamented that Your Excellency's Government was not able or did not deem it expedient to adopt these measures until twenty years after its authority had begun to prevail in the aforementioned regions; and it is equally regrettable that they should have been adopted after the expiration of the period of legal occupation, after the Peruvian teachers had been deprived of their rights and at the moment in which the definitive incorporation of the said provinces with Chile was being prepared for by means of acts in violation of the Treaty of Peace. According to Your Excellency, it was to those measures, doubtless, that Senor Errazuriz Urmeneta referred when he spoke with me of the plan of creat- ing, in this respect, a definite situation and one that would lead to a just solution. I regret to dissent from Your Excellency's opinion. I never discussed with Sehor Errazuriz Urmeneta whether Chile could or could not found schools; this point was never a subject of controversy between us, and the op- portunity never arrived to express the opinion of my Government on the subject. Our conferences and ex- changes of notes, like those that took place in Lima between Senor Riva Aguero and Vicuna, turned solely on the necessity of restoring to the Peruvians the exercise of their rights in respect of teaching. The situation in regard to the teachers and their respec- tive schools was the one deemed undefinable, pre- carious and deserving of being remedied in confor- mity with justice and a good intelligence between our respective countries. There seemed at the time to exist the design of acceding to demands of Peru. 231 Unfortunately, to judge by the tenor of Your Ex- cellency's note, the Government of Chile wholly re- fuses all purpose of reparation; the principle of the freedom of instruction and the exercise of the teaching profession will continue to be illusory in so far as Peruvians are concerned. My compatriots of Tacna and Arica will continue to be in their native land, not definitively incorporated with Chile, subject to a regime contrary to law, exceptional and restrictive ; they will be reduced to the painful alternative of either submitting unconditionally to the said regime or to abandoning their own soil in order not to be reduced to the most deplorable extremes of poverty and suf- fering. My Government, compelled to support the lawful rights of Peruvians, without authorizing therefor any abuse, does not accept these proceedings, which are in violation of the Treaty of Ancon and of the very laws of Chile. Your Excellency does not admit that the Govern- ment of Peru ought to appear as a party in the new demarcation of boundaries between Arica and Pisagua, on the ground that it is a question of composing difficulties of a purely internal order, relative to the competency or incompetency of the Chilean author- ities and to the rights of private individuals. In no case, however, even in solving a problem of internal management, is it permitted to disregard the international character of this question. The au- thority of Chile, even in respect of internal affairs, may not be exercised in the territories north of the river and gorge of Camarones to the same extent as in those that lie to the south of the said line. The former are subject to a simple temporary occupation, and the latter to a definitive dominion ; over the former 232 it has been lawful for Chile to exercise only the rights of the possessor and usufructuary while over the latter she may exercise the powers inherent to com- plete seigniory ; in the former she has not been able to, and she can not, make perpetual concessions of public lands or of wealth related to the soil; and in the latter she has been able to and can ; in the former, political laws have no application through which is expressed the exercise of a permanent and definitive authority, such as those relative to the election of the President of the Republic, senators and deputies ; and, in the latter, they have; in the former, in short, Chile acts as a simple administrator with limited faculties ; and in the latter, as an owner and sovereign. If, in tracing the new dividing line, there should be added to Pisagua — as has been attempted and is already done — territories that belong to Arica, the legal status of the latter would be substantially al- tered; the authority and rights of Chile would be un- duly extended in respect of them. If, in respect of internal management, Chile were empowered to ex- ercise over both territories identical faculties, Your Excellency's argument would have some force; but as these faculties have very different amplitudes, the new declaration is a subject of no importance to my Government, nor may the right to participate in it be denied it. Besides, the reports issued by Chilean functionaries as to the location of the borate mines of Chilcaya, in determining the boundaries between Arica and Pisa- gua, have taken as an essential basis for their dis- sertations what was established in the Treaty of An- con. Thus have proceeded the Governor of Arica and the intendant of Tacna, the engineers Renjifo and Pi- zarro and the astronomer Obrecht. It is a question, 233 according to this, of determining the meaning and scope of that international Treaty, and therefore Peru, one of the signatories of the convention, ought not to be disregarded. In other respects Your Excellency does not con- tradict my opinion as to the decrees of the Govern- ment of Chile, according to which, with detriment to the territorial integrity of Arica, were added to this province and are incorporated to-day with the Chilean district of Pisagua, the hamlets of Guancarane, Pa- chica and Esquina. I ought to suppose that Your Excellency considers well founded in this respect the claims of Peru, and I ought to hope for the early derogation of the said decrees. At all events, the possibility of falling into errors of this kind, pre- judicial to the rights of a neighboring nation, and the necessity of preventing them show, once again, how urgent it is that Peru and Chile should together pro- ceed to the determination anew of the dividing line between Arica and Pisagua. Also, Your Excellency attempts to justify the per- petual concessions of mining appurtenances and public lands designed for colonization, as well as sales or rentals for periods of any length. Your Excellency appeals, with this object in view, to Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, according to which the territories of Tacna and Arica remained subject to Chilean legis- lation. As a consequence Your Excellency says "our laws prevail there without any limitation whatsoever and in the same manner as in the other provinces of the Republic." This is not wholly correct. The authority of Chile is subordinate, in its exercise, to two conditions that restrict it: to her character as a mere precarious possessor and to the duty of ad- justing her acts to Chilean legislation. The laws of 234 Chile exist in Tacna and Arica, not to uphold the rights of an absolute and permanent sovereignty, but the rights of a temporary occupation. Just as in the pri- vate realm, the simple holder for a limited time pos- sesses faculties much more limited than the proprietor, although both are subject to the dominion of the same legislation, so also in the present case Chile has over Tacna and Arica, as a mere possessor, rights much more restricted than over her own territories, in spite of the fact that both are governed by an identical legislation. The signatory nations of the Treaty of Ancon, when they subjected the authority of the occupant to Chilean legislation, purposed to prevent the exercise of an absolute and arbitrary power; but they did not en- tertain the design of constituting definitively a new sovereignty ; they referred the resolution of this point to a subsequent plebiscite. In a word, Chile, as a simple possessor, and not as an owner and sovereign, was subjected to Chilean legislation. Hence she could administer as well as use and enjoy things until 1894; but she might never dispose of them. Therefore she might grant mines and public lands validly only until the date indicated; but she might not and she may not grant perpetual and absolute dominion over them. The foregoing reasons are applicable to the pro- jected extension, as far as San Francisco, of the rail- way between Tacna and Arica: a line in respect of which a purpose to buy it is now attributed to Chile. Chile has not possessed and does not possess the faculty to encumber those territories with obligations and responsibilities beyond the ten years of her legal occupation. She would impose such incumbrances, 235 nevertheless, if at the present time she should make contracts of long duration on the said railway line. When Your Excellency refers to the removal to Tacna of the first military zone originally established at Iquique, Your Excellency explains the measure by appeal to conditions of climate and to the greater facility of supplies in that city. In spite of what has been set forth by Your Ex- cellency, I have a right to affirm that climatic and economic reasons were of a secondary character; the principal design of this measure, as well as that of other measures adopted almost simultaneously with it, is that of bringing about the so-called Chileaniza- tion of those regions. The Minister of Foreign Re- lations, in his Memorial to the Congress of 1900, in- dicated as much in the following manner : " in the mean- while, the Government, making use of the rights that the Treaty of Ancon itself confers upon it, has pro- ceeded to adopt, in respect of Tacna and Arica, a series of measures that will place Chile in a favorable position for the holding of the plebiscite.' ' The concentration of military forces has had there- fore this principal and admitted object; and it is al- ready known what may be expected from the inter- meddling of armed forces when it is a question of voting. "As for the rest," Your Excellency adds, "the time has not yet arrived for proceeding to the plebiscitary vote." This is not the opinion of my Government. That moment has arrived, according to the Treaty of Peace, since 1894. Hence Peru has striven, from 1892 until the present time, to procure the adoption of the convention under which the plebiscite would be effected ; and precisely because the time to carry it into effect has arrived since 1894 does my Government 236 today consider the reestablishment of the state of legality that existed at that time necessary to its exe- cution. Your Excellency attempts to justify the projected creation of an apostolic vicariate in Tacna and Arica. Your Excellency says, indeed, that these provinces are under the dominion of the Chilean Constitution and laws, and therefore that the President of the Re- public must exercise in them the faculty designated in Section 13 of Article LXXXII of that Constitution. Your Excellency has lost sight once more of the circumstance that Chile, because of her character as a mere administrator and possessor, does not legally exercise the rights of a permanent and definitive sov- ereign in the places mentioned. Her authority has been temporary and restricted; and to-day it is exer- cised with an insufficient title, because the one con- ceded her by the Treaty of Ancon lapsed in 1894. Well, then, the rights of patronage are related, because of their origin and importance, to the exer- cise of a permanent, stable, complete and definitive sovereignty. These rights may be exercised, accord- ing to the rules prescribed in the civil and ecclesias- tical realm, only by the true sovereign of the ter- ritory; and Chile does not possess this character, nor will she possess it until she shall triumph in a law- fully effected plebiscite. Your Excellency explains what occurred in Tacna and Arica on the memorable date of the Independence of Peru in order to excuse the improper attitude of the respective authorities. Unfortunately, my infor- mation does not coincide with that which has been supplied to Your Excellency. According to the latter, the Peruvians voluntarily refused to celebrate the anniversary of their country only because the In- 237 tendant of Tacna had declined to attend a festival to which he had been invited. The explanation is untrue at every point. The Peruvians of Tacna and Arica have celebrated the twenty-eighth of July during the Chilean occupa- tion with more enthusiasm than ever. If they did not do so in 1900, thus breaking the rule observed in earlier years and in spite of their anticipatory prep- arations, it was, doubtless because they yielded to the exigencies of a force superior to their wills. On July 25, it was announced to me from Arica that the Chilean authorities had prohibited the use of Peruvian flags on the twenty-eighth and that they were preparing to prevent all patriotic manifestation. I brought the news to the attention of the Minister of Foreign Relations, who felt impelled to order, by telegram, that permission should be granted for every kind of manifestation that might not compromise public order. On the morning of the twenty-eighth it was an- nounced to me that the authorities persisted in their refusal, for the concessions made by them were in- significant and valueless. When this new information was brought to the knowledge of the Minister of Foreign Relations, he immediately reiterated his former telegram. In spite of this new order, private individuals were not permitted to raise the Peruvian flag on their houses: a circumstance that I op- portunely communicated to the Minister. Your Excellency may rest assured that the Peru- vians of those places only abstained from manifesta- tions of patriotism on the great days of Peru when, as on the date indicated, they were prevented by force. They, because of their very situation, feel to-day, with an especial vehemence, the necessity of demon- 238 strating the maintenance of their indestructible ties with the Peruvian nation and their irrevocable de- cision not to be separated from her. As to the press, I need not add anything to what has already been said. I did not asseverate that Your Excellency's Government had adopted repres- sive measures; rather, I affirmed the inefficacy of the efforts made to induce it to disregard the constitu- tional guaranty relative to freedom of thought. It is to be hoped that in the future, Peruvian citizens may continue to enjoy the exercise of their rights in this realm without other restrictions than those im- posed by the Chilean law. As to the removal of the Court of Appeals from Iquique to Tacna, the projected reduction of duties on infports through the custom-house at Arica, the alarming declarations of the honorable representative of Chile in Bolivia, to which I might add now the measures conceived by the Chilean Delegates in Tacna : all of them are characterized by the same illegality, because they imply the exercise of a permanent sov- ereignty and because they were adopted or projected when Chile's rights as an occupant had expired, and with even greater reason, her faculty to alter the existing normality during' that period. Peru does not discuss the advantages or disad- vantages of the measures in respect' of the prosperity of those regions. The purpose that has informed them is sufficient to cause her to request their revocation, not to mention their manifest incompatibility with the Treaty of Peace. As to the indefinite postponement of the arrange- ments designed to carry into effect Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, I refer in all respects to my note of the nineteenth of the current month. In it I showed, 239 on the occasion of the recent vote of the Chamber of Deputies on the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol, that, in spite of the incessant efforts of Peru, it has been impossible in nine years to reach any agreement, be- cause Chile has rejected all the combinations proposed, including arbitration. With the rejection of the protocol mentioned, things have returned to the state in which they were in 1892. This seems to confirm the unswerving purpose of Chile to postpone the plebiscite until she might hold it under conditions that would inevitably cause the triumph of her hopes. My Government will take no part in the carrying out of that policy, prejudicial to its most legitimate rights, and against which it has taken a stand in advance. The rejection of the protocol — although it has brought to an end, as Your Excellency says, an un- certain situation, born of a state of postponing every agreement as to the said Treaty — has created another situation charged with the alarm and distrust, that disturb the good harmony and tranquillity that ought to exist between our respective countries. I regret not being able to accept, as Your Excellency suggests, the absolute irresponsibility of the Government of Chile for not having arrived at a definitive solution. The history of the negotiations carried on hitherto proves the contrary; and even to-day, after the re- jection of the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol ignorance exists as to what may be the combination contemplated by Your Excellency's Government designed to re- place the proposals successively rejected in the course of the last nine years. Your Excellency hopes that in the future the spirit of peace and harmony will be maintained with a view to the loyal and honest fulfillment of the stipulations of the Treaty of Ancon. 240 Peru has never deviated from this line of conduct, in spite of the disillusionments suffered in the course of the negotiations. She is disposed to follow it in- variably; but she exacts, as a pledge of equity and justice, the derogation of the measures adopted in respect of Tacna and Arica, in order not to attribute to the plebiscite the character of an imposition. There is no ground on which to consider exaggerated my Government's estimate as to the measures de- scribed, which have been the object of unfavorable opinions even within the membership of the Chilean Congress. Indeed, the Honorable Deputy from Os- orno, in the session of June 5 last, expressed himself thus: "I must declare that, although so much applause has been bestowed on the removal of the Court, the closing of the Peruvian schools of Tacna and Arica and the transfer of a large part of our army, I do not count myself among those that approve of the adoption of those measures, and this because I know that it is impossible to nationalize in a quarter of an hour a territory that was left in abandonment for nineteen or twenty years. To achieve the nationalization of those territories, it would have been necessary to begin by rendering the Chilean administration attractive by means of a brilliant personnel." In view of the considerations set forth and of others contained in my note of November 13, regarding which Your Excellency has said nothing, I again re- quest, in the name of my Government, the revocation of the measures adopted in respect of Tacna and Arica. I renew to Your Excellency the sentiments of my most distinguished consideration. Cesareo Chacaltana. To His Excellency, Senor Don Emilio Bello Codecido, Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. 241 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Peru in Chile. [Translation.] (Number 159.) Republic of Chile, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Valparaiso, February 18, 1901. Mr. Minister: The observations contained in Your Excellency's note of January 30 last, in reply to that of this de- partment addressed to Your Excellency on the nine- teenth of the same month, revealed a deplorable dis- agreement that exists between that Legation and the undersigned in respect of the interpretation or understanding of the stipulations of the Treaty of Peace, in the portion that refers to the rights that the said Treaty conferred on Chile in respect of the territories of Tacna and Arica. Your Excellency denies to the Government of Chile the right to adopt those measures, the principal ob- ject of which is to cause the sovereignty of the State to be respected, to maintain order and to enforce the recognition of its sovereignty in the territory that it occupies and administers by virtue of a solemn treaty. Your Excellency holds also that it is unlawful for the Government of Chile to adopt measures designed to stimulate the progress of the territories it ad- ministers with an unquestionable title and to con- tribute to their most urgent needs, and Your Excel- lency attempts to set up unacceptable distinctions be- tween the faculties that pertain -to the Government of a country and those that would be characteristic of a simple occupant with a precarious or eventual title. Finally, Your Excellency insists on believing that the right of occupation possessed by Chile in respect of Tacna and Arica legally expired on March 28, 1894, on which date terminated the ten years designated in the Treaty of Ancon for the celebration of the plebi- scite. This Chancellery can not accept the limitations that Your Excellency, on behalf of his Government, strives to impose on the faculties, which, within the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Ancon, belong legitimately to Chile. It would be unprofitable to continue to discuss the legality and correctness of the measures adopted by this Government in Tacna and Arica, in order to as- certain whether they ought to be revoked or not. The Government of Chile has adjusted, and will continue to adjust, its conduct to the provisions of the Treaty of Ancon, which it has been able to respect and to fulfil at all times, and it can not revoke resolu- tions that it has issued for a sound reason and in the -?se of faculties that may not be denied and that it is incumbent on it to exercise. There would be no practical object in discussing again the point relative to the closing of the schools of Tacna in the light of the provisions of the law of 1860. If in those schools propaganda has been made against Chile, if sentiments of hatred toward this country have been inculcated in their pupils, if in this way the authority and rights that Chile exercises have been denied, these considerations alone are sufficient to justify the measure of public order that the Gov- ernment is under, obligation to dictate in any part of the national territory in which such acts occur. The same would be true of all the measures adopted by the Government in respect of other functionaries whose conduct might be opposed to order or to the sovereignty of the State. 243 The other measures that Your Excellency calls ' i Chileanization ' ' and which, nevertheless, belong properly to the administrative action of the Execu- tive, were all analyzed in detail and sufficiently ex- plained in my communication of January 19. Never- theless, Your Excellency protests against all of them and remonstrates against them to this Chancellery because he considers them beyond the limits of the restricted and precarious sovereignty, which, in Your Excellency's judgment, Chile exercises in the prov- inces of Tacna and Arica, and because the right of occupation granted her by the Treaty of Peace of 1883 had legally terminated. I must consider separately this double objection, which does not rest on any of the clauses of the Treaty, the only law that regulates and defines the obligations and rights of the countries that signed it to establish the reign of peace in them. Chile obtained two im- portant concessions in the Treaty of Peace celebrated with Peru in respect of the territories that constituted the former Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica. The first of them consisted in the right to retain in her power those territories, which, until that moment, she had occupied under a war title; and the second, in the faculty of administering them in har- mony with her own laws, which were to continue in force thereafter, instead of the laws of Peru. The political and legal condition of the former Peru- vian provinces, whose especial regime was determined in an unmistakable manner by the Treaty of Ancon, was consequently modified. In this famous Treaty was granted to Chile a greater extent of rights and expectations since on her was bestowed the occupation of the territory and its administration, without other limitation than that 244 of governing in harmony with her own laws, and to Peru was granted only the expectation of recovering provinces which the consequences of an unfortunate war had separated from the dominion of her au- thorities and her laws, in a plebiscite that would de- termine the nationality of those provinces. Granted this fundamental antecedent, it is evident and unquestionable that Chile has the right to per- form all the political and administrative acts that are authorized by the national laws. If Chilean laws are the sole manifestation and exercise of the sov- ereignty of Chile, it is also evident and unquestionable that in this case it is not an affair of an incomplete or restricted sovereignty, in spite of the circumstance that the rights of Chile are subordinated, in respect of their future exercise, to the holding of a plebiscite. It is indubitable then that, according to the regime established in the Treaty of Ancon, Chile preserves her character of sovereign in Tacna and Arica until the plebiscitary vote would modify the present situa- tion. The full exercise of sovereignty is not incompatible with the eventuality that the territory in which it is exercised may pass later under the dominion of an- other nation. Because the mere fact that the ter- ritory of Tacna and Arica is subject to Chilean legislation, the exercise of Chilean sovereignty, with- out the limitations that Your Excellency attempts to establish, was recognized. I now proceed to examine the point relative to the right of Chile to continue to occupy the territories of Tacna and Arica after the expiration of the ten years designated in the Treaty of Ancon for the hold- ing of the plebiscite. According to the interpretation that Your Excel- lency gives to Clause III of the Treaty of Peace, the 245 ten years fixed in it for the holding of the plebi- scite determine also the period of Chilean occupation, and Your Excellency believes, therefore, that the said occupation must have ceased legally on March 28, 1894. Your Excellency adds that the Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile in 1894 gave this same interpre- tation to the Treaty, when he explained, in a con- ference celebrated with the representative of Peru in Santiago, the purpose of the Government in re- questing of Peru a prorogation that Your Excellency's Government has never been disposed to accept. It is unquestionable that the Treaty of Ancon either did not for see the contingency that, after the expira- tion of the period of ten years, the plebiscite would not be held, or that it did not desire, in that emer- gency, to modify the situation in the territories the occupation of which was granted to Chile. On either hypothesis it is necessary to come to the conclusion that nothing authorizes the demand that Chile deliver to Peru territories that may only be acquired by virtue of a plebiscitary vote that shall be favorable to her, since this would simply be equivalent to as- suming as settled at once, in her favor, the question that is to-day in dispute between the Chancelleries of Chile and Peru and that affects great interests of both countries. In order that the delivery of the territory occupied by Chile may be effected, it is necessary that the con- dition indicated in the Treaty shall be fulfilled, it is necessary to determine previously the definitive nationality of the said territory, or," rather, it is neces- sary that there shall be a new agreement between the interested Governments that shall modify the pro- visions of the Treaty of Peace. The acceptance of the theory upheld by Your Ex- cellency would be tantamount to annulling, leaying 246 without effect or at least altering substantially those provisions, and suppressing, for the exclusive benefit of Peru, the advantages that they conferred on Chile, to strengthen her claims to the definitive dominion of Tacna and Arica. Indeed, if consideration be given to what may have been the purpose kept in view by the negotiators of the Treaty of Ancon in conceding to Chile the right to continue to occupy the territory of Tacna and Arica and of administering it in pursuance of her laws, it may easily be understood that my country could not rob herself of these rights, just as it has not shirked the obligations that are inherent to their exercise, unless an express provision of the Treaty of Peace should so establish or unless a new conven- tion, as solemn as that Treaty, should be adopted. There is no record in the archives of this Chancel- lery of any proposal such as the one Your Excellency attributes to the Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile in 1894, Senor Sanchez Fontecilla, to prorogue the period of ten years established by the Treaty of Peace. With all credit to Your Excellency's veracity and to the correctness of his information, I must sup- pose either that it is a question of a bad understand- ing of the words uttered in a conference by Senor Sanchez Fontecilla to which was attached a scope or meaning different from the one they possessed, or that they might have to refer to the study of a new arrangement for changing the date of the plebiscite or for seeking a different solution of the problem rela- tive to the fulfillment of Clause III of the Treaty of Peace. Chile therefore retains in her power the territories of Tacna and Arica with a perfect right and for a very just reason. The period of ten years was set 247 forth in order to designate a date after which the plebi- scite was to be held, and not to cause to cease an occupation that pertains to Chile, until a plebiscitary decision adverse to her might be reached, and that she may not pass on to an unknown authority, not de- termined in the very Treaty that granted the said occupation. Whence is derived then the demand of Peru that Chile shall abandon the territories she occupies pur- suant to the Treaty of Ancon and that she shall return them to the Peruvian dominion without the necessary title, which can only be bestowed upon her by the will of their inhabitants expressed in a plebiscite? Your Excellency, however, formulates still another charge against this Government, and I ought to take it into consideration here in order to answer it and in order to reply, at the same time, to the observations of Your Excellency's note of January 19, last. Your Excellency, referring to the resolution re- cently adopted by the Honorable Chamber of Deputies of Chile in respect to the Billinghurst-Latorre Pro- tocol, expresses the judgment that is as impassioned as it is unjust regarding the meaning of this vote and the design entertained by this Chancellery as to the problem of Tacna and Arica. The undersigned must reject energetically the opinions that Your- Excellency advances relative to the proceedings of this Government,* when Your Ex- cellency considers that they are designed to put into practice a dilatory and arbitrary policy and one op- posed to every principle of equity and justice. Your Excellency bases his affirmations on the fact that the protocol adjusted on April 16, 1898, by the plenipotentiaries Senores Billinghurst and Latorre in order to carry into effect the plebiscite stipulated in 248 the Treaty of Peace of 1883 were not sanctioned in the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, and on the unfavor- able result reached, by the earlier negotiations which, for the same purpose, had been carried on in 1892, 1893, 1894 and later years. There is no justice whatsoever in Your Excellency's charge in attributing to Chile the design to frustrate any arrangement that might tend to an early, friendly and equitable solution, in order to leave to time the work of incorporating the territories in question de- finitively with Chile. Numerous antecedents exist in the Chancelleries of Chile and Peru that testify to the efforts made by Chile on different occasions to arrive at a settlement honorable to both nations. If the negotiations have suffered a slow development and at times considerable interruptions, this fact may not be laid at Chile's door, but it ought to be explained loyally by appeal to events which, in one and the other country, have occurred independently of the will of the Governments. If, too, the same negotiations have not reached a con- clusion entirely satisfactory to Peru, this is due, not to the evil intentions attributed to Chile, but to the necessity that the latter is also under to safeguard her interests, her rights and her legitimate claims. My Government does not shrink from a friendly understanding or' spare its efforts to secure an early settlement of the problem pending. It has always been disposed to seek the way of reconciliation and harmony, and in this realm it has gone, as I have already had occasion to express to Your Excellency, beyond the scope of its constitu- tional powers. The vote of the Honorable Chamber of Deputies in reference to the Billinghurst-Latorre protocol, after 249 the prolonged and agitated discussion to which it gave rise within its body, when it was submitted to its con- sideration in 1898, and after the unyielding opposition to its approval that it displayed at that time, can not have surprised Your Excellency's Government. It must have been the natural consequence of the judg- ment formed by that branch of the legislative power as to an international convention which, in its opinion, did not sufficiently safeguard the interests of the country, and which conceded to Peru more than Chile could legitimately concede to her. Its meaning has been none other than that of signifying the necessity of opening new negotiations and of stimulating the action of the Government for the purpose of seeking to introduce into that convention the necessary mod- ifications to enable it to obtain legislative sanction. Consequently it is demonstrated that the Govern- ment of Chile has carried its good will in respect of Peru as far as to conclude a pact that was wholly favorable to the interests of that nation, and that the charge that Your Excellency formulates as to the intentions and proceedings that Your Excellency at- tributes to it is unjustifiable. It would be a vain and ungrateful task to continue in the 1 3alm of recriminations and reciprocal charges. My Government, inspired by sentiments of friendly confraternity and peace, invited Your Excellency's to abandon the harsh and odious realm in which Your Excellency, unfortunately, has sought to place the discussion of the problem relative to the wisest and most correct form that ought to be given to the fulfilment of clause III of the Treaty of Ancon. The interests and expediencies of the two countries will be better consulted by the calm and dispassionate study of the true situation that the conventions that brought the state of war to an end assigned to each 250 country, and of the rights that each ought to uphold without permitting herself to be carried away by the exaggerations of patriotic sentiment, which, although worthy of all respect, contribute at times to the per- turbation of the serene judgment of statesmen. In the realm of equity and justice, our respective Chancelleries are to find the accord that will enable- the two countries to settle honorably their present difficulties and to reestablish between them the most complete and frank cordiality of relations. I renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my most distinguished consideration. Emilio Bello. To His Excellency, Senor Don Cesareo Chacaltana, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo- tentiarv of Peru. Minister of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Be- lations of Chile. [Translation.] (Number 9.) Legation oe Peru, Santiago, March 7, 1901. Mr. Minister : The matters relative to the measures adopted by the Government of Your Excellency in the territories of Tacna and Arica and the indefinite postponement of the plebiscite provided for in the Treaty of Peace of 1883, have been sufficiently discussed between that Ministry and this Legation. Having explained, on my part, the way of thinking of my Government in connection with these matters, I have nothing new of importance to add to what 251 was made manifest in my earlier communications. It is my duty, however, to briefly rectify some of the ideas expressed in the communication of that Min- istry of the 18th of last month. With regard to the closing of the schools governed by Peruvian teachers, that Department has preferred not to take into account the guarantees granted, in the matter of education, by the law of November 24, 1860, to persons of all nationalities; it insists only in accusing the teachers of having inculcated into the pupils sentiments of hatred against Chile and of having ignored the authority and the rights of this Republic. My Government, as I have stated repeatedly, de- fends the legitimate rights of Peruvians, recognized and protected by the laws of Chile. If any abuse has been practised, it does not intercede with im- punity, but neither can it accept that* in order to curb them, the guarantees granted by said laws be disre- garded absolutely. If penalties of a summary and simply administrative form cannot be imposed upon the authors of the greater transgressions, much less can action of this kind be taken in connection with teachers who, as shown in my communication of Jan- uary 30 th, last, have given no cause whatever to war- rant their being discharged or being refused the neces- . sary permission to exercise their honorable mission. Moreover, the teachers have not ignored the author- ity and rights of Chile granted her by the Treaty of Ancon. They have lived subject and resigned to the consequences of that pact, without renouncing, for all that, the right to declare their invariable senti- ments in favor of Peruvian nationality. There is no teacher of honorable and lofty views who does not endeavor to inculcate into his pupils sentiments of 9*9 love and self-denial in favor of their fatherland. This is one of the most elementary and sacred duties. If, in fulfilling it, they have been guilty of unbecoming exaggerations, they should have been curbed accord- ing to law, but not in any other way. In order to justify the other measures adopted in Tacna and Arica, the communication of that Ministry affirms that Chile obtained two important concessions in the Treaty of Peace celebrated with Peru, and adds : "The first consisted in the right to retain in its power those territories occupied up to that time under a military title. " In order to give this concession its true scope, I must add, on my part, that the right to keep the above mentioned territories was not for an indefinite period but for the limited period of ten years, which terminated on March 28, 1894. Article III of the Treaty of Peace, clear and explicit on this point, reads textually : "The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, bound on the north by the Sama River, from its source in the cordilleras conterminous with Bolivia, to its outlet to the sea ; on the south by the ravine and River Camarones ; on the east by the Republic of Bolivia ; and on the west by the Pacific Ocean, will continue in the possession of Chile and subject to Chilean legislation and authorities for a period of ten years, counted from the date of the ratification of the present Treaty of Peace.' ' The term of occupation is definite, as may be seen, and was not to exceed ten years. The indefinite oc- cupation advocated by the Government of Your Ex- cellency is incompatible with the agreement of a fixed time. The rights of Chile as an occupant ceased on March 28, 1894. In order to weaken the inevitable force of this argu- ment, the honorable predecessor of Your Excellency has stated that Chile cannot return to Peru the above mentioned territories since that would amount to giv- ing at once, as decided in favor of Peru, that which must be effected by the plebiscite. That is not so, however. Peru, in contending that Chile is unduly oc- cupying the provinces of Tacna and Arica, has not pretended and does not pretend to make an abstrac- tion of the plebiscite. This act would always be car- ried out in the form agreed upon by both Govern- ments. If the fact of Chile's continuing to possess them, contrary to that which was expressly provided, is not an impediment, in the judgment of the Govern- ment of Your Excellency, to the holding of the plebi- scite, why must the fact that Peru possess them be so? Peru, notwithstanding, disposed as it has been, to place itself on the ground of conciliation, prescind- ing its incontestible rights along these lines, proposed in 1893, as I recalled in my communication of January 19th, the delivery of the aforementioned territories to a third power in order to undertake the plebiscite under its guarantee; which was not accepted by the Government of Chile. According to the same note of that office, for the delivery of the territory occupied by Chile, the ful- fillment of the condition provided for in the Treaty would be necessary, that is, the previous determina- tion of the definite nationality of the above mentioned territories. The Treaty of Peace has not subjected in any of its clauses the term of Chilean occupation to the realiza- tion of the plebiscite ; it subjected it only and exclu- sively to the already completed period of ten years. 254 It likewise affirms that there is no record, in the tiles of the Chilean Chancellery, of the proposal made by Sr. Sanchez Fontecilla in order to obtain an exten- sion of the Chilean occupation until 1898, the as- sertions contained in my previous communications in this regard being attributed to a wrong interpretation of the words pronounced by that official. T can affirm that no such misinterpretation has ex- isted. That proposal is contained in the official docu- ments proceeding from the Peruvian Chancellery, pub- lished about five years ago in the Report of Foreign Affairs of that country, and in the newspapers of Lima. It must have been known by the high officials of the Government of Your Excellency, and its ac- curacy has not been contradicted up to the present. In fact, the Plenipotentiary of Peru in Chile, Sr. Ribeyro, in giving an account to his Government of a conference with Sr. Sanchez Fontecilla, in a com- munication dated September 28, 1894, stated the fol- lowing : 1 'He indicated to me, in the course of the con- ference, that Sr. Lira had instructions to request from our Chancellery an extension of the period of occupation, only in order to relieve the wor- risome pressure that the situation imposed upon the question; but without prejudice to negotia- ting and to realizing the plebiscite and to deliv- ering the territory, in accordance with its result, even before the expiration of the extension granted. ' ' "I limited myself to state to him in this connec- tion that I did not know what answer my Govern- ment would give to this indication, if it were made to it ; but that, on my part, I thought that it would not be accepted, and that I even seemed to recall that a suggestion made before relative to the same matter, in a confidential way, had not been consid- ered." 255 Sr. Ribeyro, in a communication dated October 19th of the same year, added: ' ' Sr. Sanchez, in answer to my inquiries, began by stating that, in our previous conference, he had forgotten to show me a memorandum, or aide memoire, which contained the series of proposals which, in his judgment, could serve as bases for discussion, pointing out to me that they were in the form of questions, in order that, if they were accepted in this form or in another, they be con- verted, without further procedure into a proto- col which would abridge them as a formal cove- nant." " He proceeded, then, to show me the memo- randum containing the eight proposals above in- dicated, reduced to the points that I have com- municated to Your Excellency in my telegram of the 28th ultimo and in my communication, No. 70, of the same date. Among them is the pro- posal relative to the indemnity, the amount of which is left blank, and that which refers to the extension oft the time of occupation up to March, 1898, if I am not mistaken in the month, because of the short time we have at our disposal." In a communication dated October 23d of the same year, Sr. Ribeyro expressed himself in the following way: " After having received at the legation the mem- orandum of the proposals or bases which Sr. Sanchez Fontecilla sent me and a copy of which I enclose herewith, I requested, etc." At the end of this communication the aforemen- tioned memorandum was published in the mentioned Report of Foreign Affairs, the seventh proposal of which reads as follows i "The term of ten years agreed upon in Article III of the Treatv of Ancon is extended up to March 28, 1898." 256 As Your Excellency may see, the accuracy of my declarations is insured not only by the reports sub- mitted in due course by the Peruvian Plenipotentiary, Sr. Ribeyro, but also by the text of a memorandum drafted and presented by Sr. Sanchez Fontecilla. Before concluding, I must state that I have not cherished, as the predecessor of Your Excellency sup- poses, the purpose of placing this discussion on harsh and odious ground. I have limited myself to oppos- ing with truth and firmness, but in due form, the illegal measures adopted in Tacna and Arica and their apparent purpose, as well as to requesting their ab- rogation. If in this there may be harshness or hatred, it is due undoubtedly not to the just demands formu- lated in the name of my Government, but to the char- acter of the facts which have originated them. These facts persisting, I uphold, in the name of my Government, the declarations recorded in my pre- vious communications. I renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my most distinguished consideration. Cesakeo Chacaltana. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to Minister of Peru in Chile. (Number 218.) [Translation.] Santiago, March 13, 1901. Mr.. Minister: Almost simultaneously with the receipt of your communication of the 9th instant, in which Your Ex- cellency requests an interview with His Excellency the 257 President of the Republic to present your letter of recall, there has been received the communication which on the 7th instant Your Excellency addressed to this Department with the object of making some rectifications to that which my honorable predecessor sent to that Legation under date of the 19th ultimo. Referring to the last observations of Your Excel- lency relative to a matter which, according to your statement, has been sufficiently discussed between that Legation and this office, I must limit myself to record- ing once more, the rectitude of the proposals which the Chancellery of Chile has observed and will con- tinue to observe relative to the fulfillment of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon. Notwithstanding the insistence of the Legation to attribute to Chile an attitude which is not in confor- mity with her right nor with the stipulations of the aforementioned Treaty, my Government judges that there exists no reason whatever that can justify the appreciations of Your Excellency. The bases on which the title of our country rests to continue in the occupation of the territories of Tacna and Arica antil there takes place the plebiscite which must decide their definite nationality, as well as those which have served as foundation for the several meas- ures of administrative order, are contained in the various communications of my honorable predecessor, especially in that of February 19th, last, and I find nothing in the recent communication of Your Excel- lency which has not been duly considered by the former. Proof was likewise given of the desires of my Gov- ernment to seek a prompt and friendly solution which would put an honorable end to the questions pending and would render closer the ties which bind Peru and Chile. 258 It would be especially gratifying to me to take up with Your Excellency such an interesting matter and to engage myself to carry out in its spirit, as that of your illustrious Government, the conviction that my Government is inspired only by a legitimate concep- tion of the rights of the Chilean people and the most sincere desire that they may not be found to be in contradiction to those ' which a sister nation believes to have. I lament, however, that the approaching and re- grettable departure of Your Excellency mil not per- mit you to cooperate with the undersigned in the work of peace and cordiality which he represents and serve the true interests of both countries. I take pleasure in renewing to Your Excellency the assurances of my high consideration. R. Silva Cruz. To His Excellency, The Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Peru. Circular of Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Ministers of Foreign Relations Abroad. Ministry of Foreign Relations, Lima, May 26, 1901. Mr. Minister: The war of 1879 between Peru and Chile, which the latter declared at the time when Peru, complying with the sacred duties imposed by American harmony, and the obligations of the treaty of defensive alliance of February 6, 1873, was interposing its friendly media- tion between Chile and Bolivia, ended with the Treaty 259 of Peace of October 20, 1883, which was forced upon Peru after its armies had been conquered, its fleet de- stroyed, and its sources of wealth carried away, when the economic destruction of the Republic was begin- ning to make that same military occupation of the ter- ritory, which Chile had continued for three years, im- possible. In this Treaty, besides the definitive surrender of the province of Tarapaca, whose wealth constituted an exorbitant indemnification of war, the following was set forth: "The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, bounded on the north by the Sama River, from its source in the Cordillera on the frontier of Bolivia to its mouth at the sea; on the south by the ravine and River Camarones ; on the east by the Republic of Bolivia; and on the west by the Pacific Ocean, shall continue in the possession of Chile, subject to Chilean law and authority, dur- ing a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date of the ratification of the present Treaty of Peace. After the expiration of that term, a plebis- cite will decide, by popular vote, whether the ter- ritory of the above-mentioned provinces will re- main definitively under the dominion and sov- ereignty of Chile, or continue to form a part of Peru. Either of the two countries to which the provinces of Tacna and Arica- may remain an- nexed will pay to the other ten millions of Chile silver dollars, or Peruvian soles of the same weight and fineness.' ' The design to take provisional possession of the territory, to which this clause refers, arose in Chile im- mediately after the military occupation of Tarapaca, as a means for assuring possession of this province, 260 overthrowing the military power of Peru for the time which was necessary in order that Chile might defy it without any danger. (Conferences of Arica and ses- sions of the Chilean legislative bodies of 1880.) The triumphs which Chile later attained awoke greater ambitions; and a year later, since 1881, the cession of Tacna and Arica was a demand presented as a condition necessary for peace, in the negotiations which were opened during the two years following. The constant refusal of Peru to agree to that condi- tion, which did not yet acknowledge the previously invoked necessity for preventing the possession of Tarapaca from being disturbed, showed Chile that it was impossible to bring about peace without reducing its demands to the terms of the clause set forth, ac- cording to which Peru maintains its dominion over the provinces of Tacna and Arica; Chile acquired the right to occupy them for ten years; and both agreed that the plebiscite should decide the nationality of those territories, at the end of the period of occupation. There it was also agreed that a protocol, which should be considered an integral part of the Treaty of Peace, should determine the way in which the plebiscite should be carried out and the terms and times on which the sum of ten millions fixed as indemnification, should be paid. One country or the other, then, must proceed with the performance of the postponed settlement, in the shortest time possible, before the time provided for the occupation should expire, that is, before March 28, 1894. Your Excellency knows the circumstances which, after signing the Treaty of Peace and in the years im- mediately following, prevented Peru from promoting the respective negotiations. To begin them then would 261 have been to expose the stability of peace to grave dangers. At this time there arose between Peru and Chile the vexatious discussions arising out of the demand of the creditors of the former that the foreign debt be can- celled, and from the opposition of the latter, notwith- standing the clauses of the Treaty of Peace, in consid- ering itself responsible for the payment of the debts guaranteed by the guano and the rest of the products of Tarapaca. This affair lasted from 1885 until 1892, disturbing the harmony in the relations of both states and, thereby rendering impossible the fulfilling of the plans for such delicate and grave negotiations as those which must lead to the execution of the plebiscite. That situation aided the design to disregard the pro- visions contained in the Treaty of Peace. And thus, at the time of organizing the delegations and subdele- gations, the way in which the provinces of Tacna and Arica were to be administered according to Chilean law, there was incorporated in the territory, subject to the temporary occupation of Chile, a part of the province of Tar at a, adjoining Tacna, with its towns and villages situated north of the Sama River, which is the boundary pointed out in Article III. In order to explain the transgression it was shown that the ravine by the same name did not belong to the real Sama River, but to another farther north, which the demarkation established by Peruvian law, which must be applied solely in this case, left very far from the territory given up to the ten years' occupation. Vainly Peru urged the evacuation of Tarata. Some of the documents attached show the efforts made to bring it about and how the indifference of Chile, which was as offensive and persistent as the former were legitimate and constant, frustrated it. 262 Years later, in 1889 and 1890, by reason of the diffi- culties in the cancellation of the foreign debt, the Gov- ernment of Chile thought that the time had arrived for obtaining additional advantages which it had not received in the peace negotiations, and repeatedly pro- posed to this Government the immediate giving up of Tacna and Arica, in exchange for the immediate pay- ment of several million soles ; a proposition which, as was to be hoped was firmly and unqualifiedly rejected. Things stood thus, and then in 1892, the Government of Chile, which was going outside of the Treaty which it also imposed, and in view of the refusal of Peru to accept any settlement which was not in strict accord with the provisions of that Treaty, celebrated on July 23, of that year, the protocol called Errazuriz-Bacourt. There, after disregarding previous compromises with Peru with regard to the rights of its creditors and of the authority to examine the assets for the distribution of the amounts which were deposited in the Bank of England, Chile attempted, in a way which is without precedent to dispose in favor of the French creditors of the sum of fourteen million soles, the amount to which Chile was proposing to raise the indemnity, if the territories of Tacna and Arica remained definitely included under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile. This pact, from which the tribunal which is function- ing in Berne originated, was timely protested by Peru, which later advised the Government of the Swiss Con- federation as to her way of looking at the subject and the limit to. which, in its judgment, the acts of that tribunal could go. In spite of the dangers which then existed, it was necessary to negotiate the protocol for the plebiscite restoring the provinces of Tacna and Arica, in order to put an end to a situation permitting incurred obliga- 263 tions to be overlooked and in order to eliminate the difficulties which might hinder, at the proper moment, the execution of that sovereign act, the date of which, according to the Treaty of Ancon, was then near. On August 10, 1892, the Minister, Sr. Larrabure y Unanue, addressed to the accredited Minister of Chile in Lima, Sr. Vial Solar, the invitation, and a few days later a memorandum, in which, considering the sug- gestions of the latter in regard to the means which he deemed most expeditious for solving the affair, the former proposed that Chile withdraw immediately from the territory of Tacna and Arica; that the im- portation of products from one country to the other in Chilean and Peruvian ports be free; that in the places of consumption of the products no taxes be paid aside from those which affected the respective na- tionals ; that the merchant ships of both countries en- joy the same privileges and exemptions ; and that Peru grant the Eepublic of Bolivia a joint custom-house in the port of Arica, and facilitate the construction of railroads and telegraph lines uniting the port of Arica or the city of Tacna with the territory of Tarapaca or the Bolivian frontier. The mere declaration of those fundamental plans shows the Peruvian sentiment with respect to Tacna and Arica, beside whose return to the national state any sacrifice seems small. Seven months passed, nevertheless, without the Gov- ernment of Chile giving a reply to the proposal ; at the end of that time, on April 4, 1893, the Minister, Sr. Chacaltana, reiterated, in such an imperative way, the invitation to proceed with the solemn performance of the protocol that Sr. Vial Solar accepted on the 8th, trying to exonerate his Government from the delays which the negotiations had suffered. 264 On the same day, Sr. Vial Solar believing, undoubt- edly, that it would not be possible to agree to the new invitation without expressing the opinion of the Gov- ernment of Chile on the bases presented by Sr. Larra- bure y Unanue, he communicated to the Ministry that "it w T ill not become a party to the designs of the poli- cies of his Government in renouncing the expectancies which Chile was assured by the Treaty of Ancon," and that although it favorably viewed the idea of negotiat- ing commercially with Peru "it did not believe that any reason exists which makes it advisable to treat with this subject in connection with the questions rela- tive to the definitive possession of the departments of Tacna and Arica. ' ' Your Excellency will find among the appendices the documents which show the negotiations carried on, from April until September of that year, between the Ministers, Senores Chacaltana and Jimenez, and the representative of Chile, Sr. Vial Solar; and see how fruitless they were, because the Government of Chile refused to agree to withdraw from the territory when the period of time, set forth in the Treaty, expired, a measure which the Ministry demanded, basing its de- mands on the terms of Article III and rejected the proposition of putting the territories under the au- thority of a third power which would preside during the carrying on of the plebiscite, a proposition made with a view to assuring the freedom of suffrage ; and demanded that the right of suffrage be given to all the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica, without distinction as to nationality, when only the natives of those provinces, domiciled in the same, were empowered to take part in the plebiscite. Chile's opposition to complying with the resolutions contained in the terms of Clause III followed the sug- 265 gestion to seek, in the level country, the modification of the Treaty. The Minister, Sr. Jimenez, proposed to Sr. Vial Solar that on the expiration of the period of occupation, the zone included between the Sama River and the Vitor ravine be delivered to Peru; that Chile continue in possession of the land bounded by the Vitor ravine and the Camarones ravine ; that Peru and Chile should dictate the procedure that should be observed, in their respective zones, for the execution of the ple- biscite; and that, if the result favored Peru, the nat- ural and manufactured products of Chile could be im- ported free from duty and not subject to any other consumption taxes than those set down for the re- spective nationals. This commercial concession was to last twenty-five or twenty years, according to whether both or the first of these two plebiscite pro- posals should favor Peru. This proposition was aban- doned as hopeless by Sr. Vial Solar in his communica- tion of September 26th of that year. In spite of the fact that the refusal to accept a plan of such a nature was enough to settle any doubts as to the objects of the Government of Chile with regard to Tacna and Arica, the Minister, Sr. Jimenez, proposed that there should be submitted to the immediate de- cision of a friendly government the two questions into which the disagreement had principally resolved itself, namely: which of the two countries had the right to occupy the territory of the provinces, after March 28, 1894, when the time set forth in Article III expired; and who had the right to vote in the plebiscite to which said clause refers? It is shown in the record of the proceedings of the conference of December 7, 1893, that Chile absolutely refused to submit to arbitration, as it did in 1879, at a time in which the use of this reasonable and humane recourse would have avoided war. 266 Yet, in the way of concession, disposed to make the greatest sacrifices, the Ministry went ahead seeking a solution until the agreement set forth in the communi- cations exchanged between Senores Jimenez and Vial Solar, on January 26, 1894, two months before the ex- piration of the period of occupation, was arrived at. It was agreed that the plebiscite should be held under conditions of reciprocity which both Governments may deem necessary for bringing about an honest voting which was the faithful and exact expression of the popular will of the provinces of Tacna and Arica ; that in case Chile should triumph in the plebiscite, Peru could advance her frontier from the Sama to the south bank of the Chero ravine ; 'that if Peru were favored, Chile could advance its frontier of the Camarones to the north bank of the Vitor ravine (a zone although poor in population and industry, is rich in mineral de- posits) ; and that the indemnification should be paid in the manner provided in the other clauses. This arrangement, accepted in full by Sr. Vial Solar, was rejected, nevertheless, by his Government a few months later. The Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile, Sr. Sanchez Fontecilla, thus informed the Pe- ruvian Plenipotentiary, Sr. Ribeyro, in the conference which they held on July 5, 1894, by which the latter be- gan new negotiations for determining the conditions of reciprocity under which the plebiscite should be held, when it was inevitable that that Chancellery would com- ply with said agreement. New negotiations immediately undertaken in Chile, by the same Sr. Ribeyro, for arriv- ing at some other forms of agreement, lasted from July until December, 1894. They were six months of fruitless discussion at the end of which it was seen that it was impossible to arrive at results. 267 Meanwhile, the time of occupation had ended, since March 28th, and the Government of Chile continued to occupy the provinces of Tacna and Arica, although now stripped of its authority of title which it had dur- ing the preceding ten years. Now being able to consent to this action, the Govern- ment of Peru drew up the reservation expressed in the note of Sr. Ribeyro, addressed the day before that date to the Chancery at Santiago, thus recording its non- responsibility in that situation plainly. While Peru was waiting for Chile to put an end to it, since it seemed that she (Chile) must have an in- terest in ceasing its unlawful occupation of those ter- ritories, the mission in charge of Sr. Maximo R. Lira, toward the end of the year 1894, came to make it clear that Chilean opinion in regard to the plebiscite agreed to in the third clause had not changed. In fact, Sr. Lira, who on August 3, 1895, had asked for an audience with the Minister, Sr. Candamo, in or- der to " discuss the basis of the protocol to which the third Article refers,' ' began by renewing the old and always rejected proposition that the provinces of Tacna and Anca be ceded to Chile ; refused forthwith to discuss the basis for the plebiscite while everything relative to the payment of the indemnification had not been agreed upon, a matter which, in the logical order, in the order of the treaty, and in the order of the facts, is not an antecedent but a consequence of the former ; then tried to have the third clause modified where it establishes periods for the discharge of the indemnifi- cation of the ten million, claiming that the payment was joined with the holding of the plebiscite and that Peru should give guarantees which would assure Chile of the immediate receipt of the entire sum ; and ended by declaring that the negotiations had failed because of the insolvency of Peru. 268 That was not true. The Ministers, Senores Can- damo, Porras and Ortiz de Zevallos responded to Sr. Lira, whose attitude seemed inconsistent with the fact that the singular wealth of Tarapaca, which puts nearly three million pounds sterling into the Chilean treasury annually, had been Peruvian; that the indemnification would be paid in full a few months after the holding of the plebiscite, the two last mentioned going to the extreme of consenting that the decision favorable to Peru should not be executed until the indemnity should be paid. The explanation of the conduct of Sr. Lira is shown by the fact that in May, 1895, he celebrated with the Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile, Sr. Barros- Borgoho, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia, Sr. Gutierrez, treaties in which Bolivia definitively granted to Chile the terri- tory which the latter occupies according to the Treaty of Peace, ratified February 4, 1884, and Chile was obligated to transfer to Bolivia the territories of Tacna and Arica, it being obliged to pledge all its forces in order to obtain definitive dominion, and to grant, if this design does not succeed, the Vitor or other analogous cove. Those pacts, against which my Government pro- tested as soon as it had notice of their existence, re- quired that Sr. Lira would close, in Lima, the way to- ward a solution conformable with the third Clause, and since the execution of the plebiscite had to frus- trate them the will of the province being purely Pe- ruvian. The negotiations which the Minister of the Republic at Santiago, Sr. Porras, made, were wrecked in the resolution which the Ministers of Foreign Relations of Chile, Senores Guerrero and Morla Vicuna, had 269 drawn up, identical with the one which Sr. Lira set forth here. Again it was confirmed by the peremptory and immediately rejected proposition of Sr. Morla Vicuna for putting an end to the matter, dividing the territory of the provinces into three zones — the north- ern part of Peru, the southern part for Chile, and sub- mitting the central part to a plebiscite, or else into only two parts, that of Tacna and that of Arica, in order to give the first to Peru and the second to Chile. Thus the months passed, without any events worthy of mention other than Peru's renewed efforts to ne- gotiate the protocol, when, under circumstances which America is acquainted with, it succeeded in getting Chile to decide to celebrate it. On April 16, 1898, the Plenipotentiaries, Sehores Billinghurst and Latorre, signed, in Santiago, the complementary protocol to the Treaty of Peace, submitting the questions relative to the plebiscite, to which no direct agreement could be reached by the negotiators, to the arbitral decision of Her Majesty the Queen of Spain. The convention was approved in the Peruvian Con- gress on July 13th; and on August 1st by the Senate of Chile, passirg immediately to the Chamber of Depu- ties of that country. Then the Chancellery of Santiago informed its Charge d'Aff aires in Peru, Sr. Benavides, that the dis- cussion which that branch of the legislative power had given to the protocol, showed that before its approval it was necessary that Peru should declare, that, if the plebiscite should favor it, the exportation of salpetre existing in the territories of Tacna and Arica should not be hampered by a tax smaller than that which Chile had established. Sr. Benavides, in his note of Septem- ber 9th, declared that he had requested it ; and on the 14th of the same month, the Minister of Foreign Rela- 270 tions, Sr. Porras, and the Plenipotentiary of Chile in Lima, Sr. Amunategui Eivera, celebrated an agree- ment in accordance with which "the beds of saltpeter which may exist in the territory of Tacna and Arica shall be exploited nnder conditions, as far as the Gov- ernment is concerned, similar to those imposed on the territory of Chile; both Governments being obliged, in the future, to act unanimously for the determination or reform of said conditions.' ' When it seemed that the difficulty was removed in this way, the same Sr. Amunategui Rivera communi- cated with the Ministry, on October 1st, that his Gov- ernment deemed it necessary that Peru should be obliged not to adopt, with regard to the saltpetre that may exist in the territories of Tacna and Arica, any measure regarding its exploitation, sale or trans- fer of dominion, which might in any way impair the monopoly which Chile has over this substance. The Minister, Sr. Porras, refused to grant a request which was so foreign to the third Clause and to the protocol of April, as being derogatory to the national rights. Even when those unexpected demands clearly showed the course that Chile proposed to follow, they did not reveal as much as the frankness of Sr. Blanco, Minister of Foreign Relations of that Republic. Re- plying to Sr. Benavides, who asked if the solution of the affair was next in order, he said that the Chamber of Deputies had occupied its regular sessions with the discussion of the protocol ; that the extraordinary ses- sions had been occupied by matters of greater urgency ; and that circumstances did not permit any hope, or even show the expediency for, requesting the discus- sion of the pact which had made such violent disturb- ances in this legislative body. 271 Immediately Sr. Blanco attempted to correct the dangerousness of his reply, and sent his communica- tion of January 2, 1899, in which he expresses, in the name of His Excellency the President of the Republic, that "if the protocol unfortunately were not discussed in the present legislative session, he will recommend that it be expedited at the time of the convening of the regular sessions in the coming month of June. ' ' The extraordinary sessions ended without taking up the protocol; and at the time of their convening in June, its despatch was recommended in the following terms : "In regard to the questions which still remain for us to settle in our relations with Peru and Bolivia, I ask the members of the Congress to pass judgment on the pacts which are submitted for its consideration, in order to put them into effect if they are worthy of a favorable vote. ' ' This and other legislative sessions closed without taking the Protocol of April under consideration. At the time when this hoped for and urgent decision as to this agreement was deferred, there was being advanced, in Tacna and Arica, a great plan for bring- ing about the conquest of those provinces. The action of Chile was rapidly directed toward public instruction, in order to bring about the closing of the schools directed by Peruvians; toward the ad- ministration of justice, in order to move the court of appeals, which had its seat in Iquique, to Tacna; to- ward the military service, in order to create the seat of the first zone there, bring in regular armies, and establish, on the waters of Arica, the schools which are held on the ships " Almirante Cochrane" and ll In- geniero Mutilla;" toward the development of those regions, to authorize concessions of mineral sub- stances, and lay plans for the colonization, irrigation, 272 and public works ; toward the ecclesiastical regime, in order to try to have the Holy See separate the parishes of Tacna and Arica from the Peruvian Diocese of Are- quipa, later attempting to have the Bishop admit the patronage of the President of Chile with regard to those benefits ; toward public patriotic demonstrations, in order to prevent the Peruvians from celebrating the memorable date of the national independence. The action of Chile was directed, in short, toward bringing about a powerful organization, whose forces would de- stroy Peruvian nationality in those provinces. Surely this will not be so, as, in the land where shines the glory of those who defended it " until the firing of the last cartridge,' ' no other interest than that of the Eepublic can prosper. The Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile, Sr. Errazuriz Urmeneta, took into account this state of affairs, when, in the memorial presented to the Con- gress inaugurated in June of last year, he said : i ' Meanwhile, the Government, making use of the rights which the same Treaty of Ancon gives it, has proceeded to take with respect to the territory of Tacna and Arica, a series of steps which place Chile in a situation favorable for the realization of the plebiscite and which, aside from this, will greatly contribute to the well-being and progress of those provinces, which should participate in all the benefits which a prosperous State pours over its territory. ' ' My Government, which could not indifferently wit- ness the carrying out of that demonstrative plan from which Chile formulated the decision to occupy the provinces indefinitely, on October 8th, last, ordered the 273 Minister of the Republic in Santiago, Sr. Chacaltana, to demand the repeal of the measures adopted (some of which my predecessor in this department, Sr. Riva- Aguero, had demanded) and the restoring of conditions in Tacna and Arica to their status on the day on which the ten-year period of occupation expired. On November 14th Sr. Chacaltana sent the respec- tive communication, of which the Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile acknowledged receipt on the 18th of this month — after having been asked for a reply on December 15th — saying that as soon as the situation of the Government became normal, he would reply in detail as to every point stated in those notes. Simultaneously with the postponement of the de- cision on the protocol, with the establishment of the forceful regime in Tacna and Arica and with the offers which the Government of Chile made to Sr. Chacaltana for recommending that that agreement be sanctioned, the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile in Lima, Sr. Vicuna, on September 21st, sug- gested to His Excellency the President of the Republic, the idea of an international agreement to carry out the conquest of Bolivia. Sr. Vicuna doubtless thought that he could escape the failure which had been made before the noble and active will of the head of the State, show- ing to this office, on the 29th of the same month, that the question of Tacna and Arica could be arranged by Peru granting those provinces to Chile, in exchange for an offensive alliance between the two States for declaring war on Bolivia, whose territory offered ample compensation for the expenses and efforts of the enter- prise. It is unnecessary to say that the proposition was peremptorily rejected. Notwithstanding this, Sr. Vicuna persisted, a few days later setting forth, after he had been advised 274 that it was impossible to hear another word on the subject, that Peru must give up all hope for the holding of the plebiscite agreed to in the Treaty of Peace. Always firm, and every day more justified, the efforts of Peru, for bringing about the approval of the protocol of April, continued until last January, when the Chamber of Deputies of Chile rejected it in its session of the 14th, after the Minister of Foreign Re- lations, Sr. Bello Codecido, had declared that his Gov- ernment, by asking that that convention be discussed preferentially, "had only wanted to obtain a decision of the Honorable Chamber.' ' The new situation created by the vote of the Cham- ber of Deputies, defeating the efforts made for nine years in order to make Chile fulfill the Treaty of Peace, and opposed to arbitration which was the only means for terminating the affair whose solution had not been found by way of direct agreement, made it necessary that my Government express to the Government of Chile the opinion which if formulated on the same, to which it must immediately adjust its actions. In com- pliance with the instructions sent for that purpose, Sr. Chacaltana advised the Chancellery at Santiago, on the 19th of the same month, that my Government con- sidered the rejection of the protocol as a new demon- stration of the futility of any effort to make Chile com- ply with the third Clause of the Treaty of Peace ; de- nied the existence of any title for the occupation of Tarata; affirmed the ineffectiveness of Chile's title for occupation of the provinces of Tacna and Arica since March 28, 1894; maintained that Chile had not been empowered to change the condition in which the prov- inces were then found; declared that whatever the later action of Chile with regard to the third Clause of the Treaty might be, Peru will not agree to a pleb- 275 iscite under conditions which involve the infraction of same; reserved the right to refuse new negotiations until the situation which existed on March 28, 1894, in Tacna and Arica, was reestablished; and threatened not to accept, with regard to the plebiscite, the conse- quences of acts which are contrary to the Treaty in force between the two nations. On the 22d, Sr. Chacaltana received the note, dated the 19th, from the Minister, Sr. Bello Codecido, in which, replying to the note which the former sent on November 14th, he states that "none of the measures import hostility to nor disregard of the rights of Peru, nor do they oppose the provisions of the Treaty of Ancon"; that "the greater part of them are directed toward impelling the progress of the territory, and procuring the happiness of its inhabitants and assur- ing to the territories prosperity and future aggrandize- ment ; ' ' that ' ' by those legitimate means, applying her laws and standing firm on the grounds designated in the Pact of Ancon, Chile is trying to guarantee the ex- pectations of the definite dominion of Tacna and Arica' ' ; that * ' she will not neglect to exercise any aid in fulfilling the mission which, with regard to those terri- tories, the Treaty of Ancon impels her to do, in a way that should make her entitled to the confidence and gratitude of the inhabitants " ; and that "his Govern- ment will continue to serve the interests and necessities of the present departments of Tacna and Arica to the extent of its powers, without the contingency that those territories — with all the benefits which the well dis- posed and progressive work of the Chilean administra- tion may have left there — might later pass to the do- minion of Peru, thus discouraging its action. On January 30th, Sr. Chacaltana replied. And, on February 18th, Sr. Bello Codecido sent him a new note in 276 which he stated, with regard to the measures taken in Tacna and Arica, that "the Government of Chile can- not revoke resolutions which it has made with proper motives, and employing powers which cannot be disre- garded and which belong to it to exercise"; with re- spect to the ineffectiveness of the title of occupation, the period of ten years having ended it, that ' ' Chile re- tains the territories of Tacna and Arica under its con- trol with perfect right and very just reason"; about its authority over these provinces, that "in Tacna and Arica Chile has no incomplete or restrained sover- eignty"; but that "it is maintaining its character as sovereign as long as a plebiscite voting does not modify the present situation;" on the objectives toward which the policies of Chile are aimed, that "it is not fair to attribute to that country the design to frustrate any settlement which might lead toward a prompt, friendly and equitable solution, in order to permit, at the same time, the work of definitively uniting the territories in question with Chile ' ' and that ' ' there are many ante- cedent events in the Chancelleries of Chile and Peru which show the efforts which Chile has made, on several occasions-, for arriving at a solution which was fair to both nations;" and lastly, with respect to ,the trans- gressions of Clause III, that ' ' the Government of Chile has conformed and continues to conform its conduct with the provisions of the Treaty of Ancon, which it has always respected and complied with. ' ' Sr. Bello Codecido had no difficulty in thus defining the exceptionally grave situation, in which the rejec- tion of arbitration, the execution in Tacna and Arica of the measures to which I have heretofore referred, and the inefficacy of the action of Peru to get Chile to agree that this affair should be terminated accord- ing to that which is law in both states, all contribute 277 to the violation of Clause III of the Treaty of Peace and the fundamental principles of public law. In March, my Government responded to this situa- tion of force by recalling the Legation which had been accredited in Santiago. These are the facts. My Government submits them to the impartial judgment of Your Excellency's Government, and de- clares : First. That Peru only desires the fulfillment of Clause III of the Treaty of Peace. Second. That it thinks its rights, according to that Clause, permit it to demand : (a) That the surrender of the territory belonging to the Province of Tarata should be brought about ; (b) That the authority of Chile in Tacna and Arica should end; (c) That the plebiscite should be held under the authority of a friendly power ; (d) That in the plebiscite only the Peruvian natives of those provinces, who have their domicile there, shall vote; (e) That the result of the plebiscite sFall be singular, that is, it must decide as to the future nationality of all the territory which the said Clause submitted to temporary occupation by Chile; and (f ) That notwithstanding the fact that either coun- try may be prepared to pay the indemnification imme- diately after the plebiscite, the dates for payment, to which the same Clause refers, shall be established. Third. That, in spite of the stability of Peru's rights, she has always been disposed to submit any question relative to the plebiscite to arbitration. Fourth. That it considers that the present status of the matter jeopardizes the future of the political in- terests of the continent. And 278 Fifth. That it is not responsible in any way for the beginning or maintenance of this situation. I take this opportunity, Mr. Minister, to give Your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Felipe de Osma. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Eelations of Report Presented by Director of Boundary Office of Chile to Minister of Interior of Chile. [Translation.] Boundaey Office, Santiago, October 1, 1903. Me. Ministek: By decree dated January 21st last, the Department under your charge ordered me to carry out the de- marcation of the northern boundary line of the prov- ince of Tarapaca, between the point called Arepunta and the Bolivian border. As in 1900, Senores Alberto Obrecht, Director of the Observatory, and Abelardo Pizarro had been ordered to report to your Department regarding the same boundary line, I proposed, in the first place, to study the report of the said commissioners to see whether I should limit myself to drawing upon the ground the line indicated by them, or whether it was necessary to carry out new investigations upon the ground, or to take into consideration other facts in the question, not considered heretofore. 279 Upon reading Senores Obrecht and Pizarro 's report (published in the Official Bulletin of November 29, 1900, pages 3840 and 3841) I came to the following con- clusions : 1. 1 agree with the said report to the effect that "the existing Treaties (that of Ancon, and the Truce Pact with Bolivia) do not set out with complete exactness the boundaries of the departments of Pisagua and Arica, \ ' 2. I agree in that "the complementary line must be set out in such manner that the dividing line be- tween the present departments of Arica and Pisagua, will approximate as nearly as possible the old boun- dary between the Peruvian departments of Tarapaca and Arica." 3. I consider that, taking into consideration only the cartographic facts in the question, as is done in the report, the solution indicated therein of following the ravines of Ajatama and Jaruma or Anocarire and of completing the boundary by means of a straight line as far as Puquintica, is quite correct. 4. Finally, I agree in general with the report, re- garding the approximate location of our eastern boun- dary with Bolivia in this part, following a line that will pass through Puquintica Hill and continue to the south, swerving a few degrees to the east. At the same time that I arrived at these conclusions, Mr. Minister, I became aware of the convenience and even of the necessity, of establishing upon unquestion- able bases the fixing of a boundary line that, although for the time being has no other aspect than that of an interprovincial line, may acquire in the near future the nature of an international boundary line. Now then, without losing sight of the fact that the geographical demarcation of the line in question, in 280 Peruvian and Bolivian maps, is a fact of importance, I attribute a much greater importance to the material demarcation which may have existed upon the ground. Likewise, recognizing the usefulness of the deter- mination of the position of four points of the boun- dary line on the ravine of Camarones, made by Sr. Obrecht, and that of the hills that surround the borate deposits of Chilcaya, made by Sr. Pizarro, I considered it indispensable to draw up a map, sufficiently com- plete and -in detail, of the section to be traced out, so that all the points that were to make up the boundary line, could be found therein without a possibility of doubt or ambiguity. I proposed, therefore, on the one hand, to send a commission to draw up the map upon the ground, and on the other hand, to collect and study all the facts of historical, traditional, legal, and administrative na- ture, tending .to solve the questions of the existence of an old colonial boundary between Tarapaca and Arica, and of the possible modification later of that boundary during the Peruvian administration, up to the moment of the cession of Tarapaca to Chile. The commission charged with the duty of drawing up the map of the territory, and of investigating as to the existence and identification of old boundary marks, was composed of the engineers Senores Anibal Con- treras and Victor Caro Tagle, and of the assistant, Sr. J. M. Espinosa. Upon the date of your decree, that personnel was still occupied in some work on the Argentine border, and could reach the Camarones re- gion only in the latter part of March (1903), carrying the following instructions : "Instructions to the Commission Investigating the Northern Boundary of Tarapaca. "1. A search, in the files at Pisagua and at Camiiia, must be effected for the documents re- 281 lating to the actual boundary line of the latter parish. "2. To search, in the files at Arica and at Codpa, for similar documents relating to this latter parish. "3. Having in mind the astronomical works of Obrecht, as well as the topographical works of Renjifo, Barrios, and Franz Germann, and carry- ing out the necessary verifying and complemen- tary operations, to fix the relative position of the following points: Hills : Anocarire, Chulluncayani or Chulluncane, Chuquiananto or Choquenanta, Surire, Pumire, Guaiguasi, Capitan, Llizcaya, Puquintica, Small white hill in Surire Lake (Oquecollo). Isluga Volcano. River junctions : Arepunta Junction of the Ajatama with each one of its tributaries. Junction of the Caritaya with the ravine of Mullure. Source of the ravine of Jaruma or Anocarire. Source of the Stream Sura-Sura or ravine Ama- rilla. Source of the stream Mullure. Source of the Guaiguasi; and all the boundary marks that may be identified. "4. To identify upon the ground, by means of old guides, each one of the marks, if possible, of the eastern boundary, from the mark Yurocsa on the north to Quimsachata on the south. 282 "5. To identify in the same manner the marks of the boundary between the parishes of Codpa and Camiiia, from Surire to Taltape. "6. To go over also, in so faras time may per- mit, the marks of the eastern boundary toward the south as far as the boundary mark of Hizo. "7. In the case of every boundary mark that may be identified, bearings shall be taken to place it, and inscriptions shall be placed on neighbor- ing rocks in order that it may be found readily. "8. To note specially the relative volume of water of each one of the tributaries of the River Camarones (above Arepunta), as well as the. per- manent or intermittent character of its system. Santiago, January 21, 1903. A. Bektrand." The Commission initiated its work under most un- favorable conditions. The entire personnel was taken down with tertian fever while crossing the valley of Camarones, and only Senores Caro and Espinosa were able to complete their work on the section between Arepunta and the Bolivian border in the Chilcaya re- gion. In the course of this report, the results of that work will be taken into consideration. I shall now pass on to consider in detail the ques- tions that must be solved in this report, to wit : 1. To elucidate as to what point the Treaty of Ancon gives an exact definition of the northern boundary of Tarapaca. 2. Facts regarding the colonial northern boundary of Tarapaca. 3. Facts regarding the period of Peruvian adminis- tration. 4. Determination of the present boundary line. In carrying out this investigation, I have before me not only the documents which were sent to me by 283 your Department with dispatch number 62, dated Jan- uary 20th, but many others which refer also to the eastern boundary of Tarapaca and which have been supplied to me by the Department of Foreign Re- lations ; a number of publications and maps of diverse origin; a certain number of old documents obtained through the administrative authorities and through private channels ; and finally, important investigations made upon the ground by reason of the suit carried on by several concerns that work the borate deposits of Chilcaya and of Surire. To facilitate referring to these documents in the course of my report, I have made the enclosed num- bered list of them. I. Determination of the Boundary According to the Treaty of Ancon. Senores Obrecht and Pizarro have already called attention in their report, to the fact that "the Treaty of Ancon does not determine, with complete preci- sion, the boundaries of the Departments of Pisagua and of Arica, because the Camarones River, or bet- ter, all the rivers of which the Camarones is com- posed, rise to the west of the Bolivian frontier. ' ' The undersigned not only concurs, but goes further, and affirms that it is deduced, from an examination of the text of the Treaty, that the signers thereof could not have intended that it should contain a precise determination of the boundaries of the province of Tarapaca, because if that were the case, it would re- sult that the determination given would not only have been incomplete but also inexact. In fact, Article II of the Treaty states: "The Re- public of Peru cedes to the Republic of Chile, perpet- 284 ually and unconditionally, the territory of the littoral province of Tarapaca, the boundaries of which are: on the north, the ravine and River Camarones; on the south, the ravine and River Loa; on the east, the Republic of Bolivia; and the west, the Pacific Ocean: " I do not believe it necessary to prove that "the territory ceded,' ' according to this clause > is the pro- vince of Tarata in its entirety, and that the phrase "the boundaries of which are * * *" is not a limit- ing phrase, but one purely descriptive and explana- tory. If any doubt could be entertained in this re- spect, it would be sufficient to dissipate it, to observe how inexact and geographically absurd it would be to give the meaning of a precise and complete de- termination of the southern boundary of Tarapaca, to the phrase: "On the south, the ravine and River Loa." The negotiators of the Treaty of Ancon could not ignore the fact that "the ravine and River Loa" never have been the southern boundary of Tarapaca, except for a very short distance. This has not been either the traditional or the geographic boundary, and even Peru never has pretended it to be such. It is sufficient, in this respect, to refer to the maps of Bollaert and Smith, of Ondarza and Mujia, of Hugo Reck, of Paz Soldan and of Barrera. According to Paz Soldan, the southern boundary of Tarapaca only cut the Loa a little above Quillagua ; according to the official map of Bolivia, that of Ondarza, the boundary coincided with the Loa, from the mouth of the river up to a point near Chacance; at all events, the Loa formed only less than one half of the southern boundary. I repeat that the negotiators of the Treaty of Ancon could not ignore this fact, and therefore the phrase: "on the south, the ravine and River Loa" could have only a general and merely descrip- tive meaning, and not a limiting one. . 285 And if this happened and must be granted with respect to the southern boundary, what right is there to give another interpretation or greater reach to the phrase, entirely analogous to the one that we have been discussing: "On the north the ravine and Kiver Camarones"? The province of Tarapaca was ceded uncondition- ally to Chile according to the Treaty of Ancon, with the northern, southern, and eastern boundaries that it had under Peruvian sovereignty, whether or not they are correctly, precisely, and completely expressed in the text of the said Treaty. This express intention of the Treaty of Ancon, would be defeated doubly if a restrictive meaning were given to the phrase "on the north, by the ravine and River Camarones"; it would be affected in the transversal direction to that line, that is, from north to south; and on the other hand it could be affected in the longitudinal direction, that is from west to east. The first of these aspects will be discussed with greater amplitude in the course of this report. But it is convenient to enter immediately upon an elucidation of the second, that is, can the northern boundary of Tarapaca extend to a point further to the west than the origin or source of the ravine or River Camarones, according to the Treaty of Ancon! This question is determined prima facie by the fact that the cession of Tarapaca was " uncondi- tional." If before its cession to Chile, the said prov- ince extended to a point further east than the ravine of Camarones, that is to say, if the Peruvian-Bolivian frontier at this point included a strip of plateau the waters of which did not fall into the Camarones, there is not anything to show the existence of a tacit agree- ment to the effect that this strip had been eliminated 286 from the unconditional cession of the territory of the province, and if that narrow strip really had been eliminated from the cession, it would continue to be- long to Peru, and not in any case would it have become Bolivian territory. These conclusions seem obvious. Yet the Minister of Bolivia in Chile, in his note of January 8, 1901, in which he criticizes the Obrecht-Pizarro report, de- clares that, according to the purport of the Treaty of Ancon, "the territory ceded to Chile must have, in all its latitude, as northern boundary the ravine and River Camarones, and no more." According to the same discernment, must be added, "and no less," and applying this Bolivian rule to the southern boundary of the same province, the Minister of Bo- livia would be forced to accept that "the territory ceded to Chile must have, in all its latitude, as its southern boundary the ravine and River Loa, no more and no less." If the Treaty of Ancon holds good for Bolivia upon the northern boundary, why should it not do so upon the southern boundary! If Bolivia is to benefit from the excluding and limiting character which she at- tributes to the phrase, "the ravine and River Cama- rones" seizing the strip of plateau which was for- merly Peruvian and which thus would be eliminated from the cession of Tarapaca to Chile, her Foreign Department must attribute the same excluding and limiting character to the phrase "the ravine and River Loa" and must consider included in "the territory ceded unconditionally to Chile" that strip which Bo- livia possessed between the Loa and her old frontier with Peru. This irrefutable conclusion certainly has not been contemplated by the Minister of Bolivia. In the same manner, another argument adduced by the Minister of Bolivia to prove that the entire 287 eastern boundary of Tarapaca must be found at the sources of the rivers that flow down to the Pacific, that is, at the watershed of the Andes, is refuted. The Minister says that that line (the watershed) is the only one "that corresponds to the judgment and to the plan of action that this Republic (Chile) has adopted as an invariable principle in fixing her in- ternational boundaries." The Minister of Bolivia is in error and introduces a confusion. Chile has not adopted any invariable principle respecting in- ternational boundaries; undoubtedly the Minister refers to the "invariable rule" which, according to a protocol signed in 1893 with the Argentine Republic, must be followed in fixing the boundaries along the Andes Mountains where Chile borders upon that Re- public. It may be affirmed without fear of contradic- tion that the negotiators of 1893 did not have any more intentions of establishing principles of demarca- tion with Bolivia, than did the negotiators of the Treaty of Ancon. The fundamental basis of Article II of the Treaty of Ancon must be maintained by Chile in all its en- tirety; all the territory which under Peruvian sov- ereignty made up the province of Tarapaca was ceded "unconditionally" to Chile. The examination that I have made of the text of the clause, shows clearly that the "mention" made therein of the limits of the province, was not and did not pretend to be, a precise and complete determination. Chile has the right and the duty to investigate which were those limits and of determining them, not accord- ing to the merely conferential phrases, or to de- finitions which are obviously incomplete, or much less to "invariable principles" dictated for other demar- cations, but exclusively according to the geographical, 288 traditional or administrative, antecedents peculiar to those limits. II. Facts with Respect to the Northern Boundary of Ta- rapaca during the Colonial Period. Under the colonial system, the district of Arica and the district of Tarapaca were dependencies of the Intendants of Arequipa. Each district was sub- divided into curacies, each composed of one head town and several small villages or annexes of the respec- tive curacies. The district of Arica was composed "of the city of Arica the chief city, and the towns of Belen, Cot- pa, Tacna, Sama, Tarata, Candarave, Ilabaya, the val- leys of Locumba and Ilo." (Tadeo Haenke, "Descrip- cion del Reino del Peru en 1793. ' ') The cosmographer, Doctor Cosme Bueno, in "El conocimiento de los Tiempos ,, (The knowledge of the Times) of 1765, gives some details about the cur- acies of the Bishopric of Arequipa. Respecting the curacy of Copta (Cotpa) he states: "It has 17 an- nexes, which are Pachica, Esquina, Timar Tgnabnar (Ticnamar), Sacsama (Sacsamar) Beflen (Belen) Pachania, Socoroma, Putre, Parinacota, Choquelimpe (Choquelimpie), Huayaquiri (Guallatiri), Sora, Po- conchile, Libilca (Livilcar), Umagata (Humagata)." About the district of Tarapaca, Sr. Antonio O'Brien in 1765 states as follows: "This district is composed of four curacies: first, that of Tarapaca which is made up of the annexes of Guarazina, Tilivilca, Guavina, Mamiha, Iquinca, Pasca, Macaya, and Huaza, the mines of Guantajaya, and the port of Iqueyquey; second, 289 that of Camilla, with the annexes of Chiapa, So- toca, Isluga, Cariquima, Minimini, Cara, and Pisagua; third that of Pica, with the annexes of Matilla, Chipana, Guatacondo Capurra, Biguin- tipa, Mino, the valley of Quillaga, the mines of Ujina, the mines of Our Virgin Mary, in the Coast fisheries; the fourth, that of Sibaya, with the -annexes of Limasciiia, Usmagama, Sipisa, Mocha, and Guasquiha. * * *" The curacies neighboring upon the districts of Ar- ica and Tarapaca were under the colonial system that of Codpa (or Cotpa) upon the side of Arica, and Camiiia upon the Tarapaca side, and I have begun by investigating if any act respecting the boundary between both jurisdictions exists. I found a document which contains the boundaries of the curacy of Camina, published by Sr. Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan in his pamphlet "Verdaderos Li- mites entre Peru y Bolivia" (True Boundaries Be- tween Peru and Bolivia) at Lima in 1878. The set- ting of boundary marks, beginning on April 30, 1662, starts upon the south, where the boundary with the curacy of Sibaya goes up to Lirima, passes through the boundary mark called Lupe, reaches the ridge of Lipez at the boundary mark Samtaile, follows this ridge for seven boundary marks to the hill of Coipasa, where the ridge of Carangas begins, follows this ridge for eighteen boundary marks more, to the Capitan which is a large hill, and goes on thusly, according to the text of the document: "Boundary mark Polloguere, boundary mark Surire; within the lagoon there is a small white hill, and into this lagoon, flows the River Blanco, which is the return mark toward the sea, to the curacy of Cotpa and the annexes of Isquina (Es- 290 quiha), to the boundary mark Quecaye, along the hillock, to the marks Chaca, Caltaja, Chulluncani, Porco, Gaiaylla, Pucupucune, Anisirca, Lirpo, Al- cohuma, Ancoaque, the mark called Oreja at the ravine of Ajatama, which upon this side becomes the Pampa of Caltaya and Aispunta; the mark Pullapullani, the mark Huma-aiso, following the river that is the boundary, down to Camarones; the other side of Isquiha (Esquina) belongs to Cotpa and this said river is the boundary as far as Catinjagua, which is farther up than Tallape, the mark Tallape or Taltape, the mark called the Height of Humallani, a heap of stones, another heap of stones en the Pampa that goes down to the sea called Ojaica, and these marks belong to the town of the curacy of Camina and to the juris- diction of the City of Arica. * * * ' ' The document from which Sr. Paz Soldan repro- duced this copy: "Is an authorized copy of the ori- ginal papers which exist in Chiapa, * * *" and is dated at Chiapa, May 20, 1749.' I have obtained two other original copies, on paper sealed with the royal seal of Ferdinand VII, dated the one at Santa Maria Magdalena de Chiapa, April 20, 1751, and the other at the town of Santo Tomas de Camina on February 22, 1788. The text of these two copies agrees (although it is not identical) with that published by Paz Soldan respecting the boundary between the Curacy of Camina and the districts of Lipez and Carangas, but does not agree in that part which refers to the boundary with the curacy of Cotpa. After the phrase, "they join to the curacy of Cotpa and the annexes of Esquina," it continues: "Boundary mark called Chuquiananta which runs down the hillock; mark called Halagueri (ac- cording to one copy and Alegueri according to 291 the other); mark called Chaca (Checa, according to the Chiapa copy) ; marks Caltaya, Anisirca, Ingahuma (Ingauna, according to the other copy), Igorane (Igorairi, in the other), and at the height of Pachica goes down to the ravine of Camarones, that height going down to the same chapel, runs along the river, one bank of which belongs to the curacy of Cotpa and the other bank to the curacy of Camina, reaches the sea, and these are those belonging to the town of the curacy of Camina. Without attempting, for the present, to identify points or to study the differences of territory which there may be between the copy published by Paz Sol- dan and the other copies, I shall call attention to the fact that, according to the map, that difference is not great, and that it does not disprove the fact that the inhabitants of the adjoining curacies held boundary titles which evidently they considered good, and that they respected these documents, whatever might have been their primitive authenticity. Those documents must be considered proofs of the jurisdiction existing at that time, as long as there are none better, or none that will contradict them. And it may be added that, from the point of view of the reconstitution of the boundary as it existed during the Peruvian domina- tion, the copies that I have mentioned, because the said geographer, who at that time was the Chairman of the Peruvian Territorial Boundary Commission, ac- cepts the authenticity of that document and presents it as a good title respecting the boundary with Bo- livia. The various copies all are agreed upon the fact that the eastern boundary between the curacy of Ca- mina and the district of Carangas ends at the Capitan hill, at the mark Polloguere, and at the small white 292 hill in the middle of the Surire lagoon, that there, the boundary turned toward the sea, commencing to run along the curacy of Codpa, down the hillock and toward the River Camarones, thus reaching the sea. According to this data, it is established clearly that in the early times of the colony, the pampa and lagoon of Surire was divided among the three jurisdictions: the curacy of Codpa upon the northwest; Camina, southwest of the district of Arica; and the district of Carangas upon the east. The small white hill of Oquecollo, upon which was situated the boundary mark called " Surire,' ' was the meeting point of the " Great Border,' ' being the interparochial boundary between Camina and Codpa, which went down to Camarones through the pass of Chaca and other points. An investigation of the facts referring to the time of the domination, after the colonial period, shows that the jurisdiction of Camina had been extended dur- ing the later years toward the east upon the juris- diction of Carangas, and toward the north and north- west upon that of Codpa. III.- The Boundary at the Time of Peruvian Domination. Until 1868, the province of Tarapaca was only a subdivision of the department of Moquega, and it is found as such upon plate Number XL VII of Paz Soldan's " Atlas of Peru." Arica was another province of the same department. The law of December 1, 1868, created the littoral province of Tarapaca which depended directly from the Government at Lima. The law of June 15, 1875, created the littoral province of Moquegua, and Arica became a province of the de- partment of Tacna. 293 These provinces were subdivided into districts which corresponded in part to the old curacies and districts. The districts adjoining Arica and Tara- paca, on the mountain side, were respectively Codpa and Camiiia. According to the census of 1876, these districts included: That of Codpa: the towns of Codpa, Pachica, Es- quina, and Timar, the village of Huanacahua, the set- tlements of Marquirave, Chetita, Amasaca, and Cerro Blanco, and the ranches of Cachicoca, Grande So- cabon, Cadenas, Ofrajilla, Pintatani, Chaqui and Cornejo. That of Camiiia: the town of Camina, the villages of Minimini, Chapiquilta, Mullure, Quistagama, Qui- sana, and Soga. Of all the places named, as may be seen from the small map included, the only ones adjoining the fron- tier between the provinces, were, on the Arica side, the towns of Pachica and Esquina and the Grande or Tallape ranch situated upon the Camarones ravine; and on the Tarapaca side, the village of Mullure on the banks of the river of that name, which is the northern tributary of the Guayguase, this latter being a tributary of the Caritaya, and this, of the Cama- rones. According to these facts, we may immediately dis- card the theory that the boundary between Arica and Tarapaca was formed by the Guayguase and Cari- taya Rivers. There is not any doubt that the census of 1876, taken by the authorities, constitutes irrefut- able evidence as to the limits of each jurisdiction, at least as to the points that were inhabited and of which the census had been taken. Unfortunately, this ev- idence is incomplete, because it does not include the very insignificant points, the inhabitants of which 294 were counted doubtlessly together with those of the nearest town or village of the same jurisdiction. Such points are the settlements of Taruguire, Chilcaya, and Surire. The chartographic documents referring to the pe- riod of Peruvian domination, is extremely deficient, inexact, and even contradictory. # # # The only original map of the province of Tarapaca was prepared in 1828 by Sehores Jorge Smith and N. Bollaert, at the request of the Peruvian Government. An examination of the map and of Bollaert 's re- port which accompanies the map, reveals that the authors thereof did not visit the region of Camarones except that part of it that is next to the sea. Thus while all the points on the road between Pisagua and Isluga appear in detail, the region that stretches to the north, is left to the fancy. The ravine of Cama- rones, also called Taraguire and Cara on this map, re- ceives two tributaries from the southeast: the Tanca and the Guayhuasa (Guayguase) which appear as ris- ing on either side of the Chulluncani hill which is drawn almost thirty kilometres to the south of its true position. Then, it is evident that the Tanca Eiver (the stream Veco on our map) and the Guay- guase are indirect and secondary tributaries of the Camarones River. The northern boundary of Tarapaca, according to Bollaert 's map, commences on the seacoast at 18° 57', far to the north of the mouth of the Camarones, goes on almost parallel until it falls into the ravine of Taltapia (Taltape), and from there it continues as far as Chulluncani hill. Because of the erroneous position of this hill, the boundary line traced, falls to the south of the Guayguase River, but it is quite 295 evident that no positive deductions can be made from a map as erroneous as this one is, at this point. In the map published by Paz Soldan in 1865, and in which the province of Tarapaca is copied almost entirely from Bollaert's map, including the errors re- specting the courses of the Rivers Tanca and Guay- guase as well as the error respecting the position of the Chulluncani hill — the boundary line between the provinces of Arica and Tarapaca has been corrected. This boundary line coincides along its entire length with the Camarones Elver, and it is to be noted that the tributary that is the origin of this river, cor- responds, according to this map, to the tributary or river called Taruguire, this name being given also to the source of the Camarones according to the Bol- laert and Smith map, except that in the latter map it is written, ' ' Taraguire, ' ' due evidently to an ortho- graphic error. Even though the Paz Soldan may is faulty geo- graphically, it cannot be denied that it possessed great probatory value as the only chartographic document that the negotiators of the Treaty of Ancon could have had at hand, and which, in the absence of more exact and more d?tailed maps, must have been con- sidered by both parties the official map, upon the delivery of Tarapaca. The Government of Chile on its part has understood it so, and has declared ex- pressly, in the preamble to the decree of August 29, 1901, that the Paz Soldan atlas was the comple- ment to and the specification of the Treaty of Ancon, recalling the fact that that atlas was an official publi- cation of the Government of Peru, and could have added that its author was appointed later, as I have already stated, Chairman of the Territorial Boundary Commission of that Republic. 296 For my part, although I do not attribute to the boundary indications contained in this map, a decisive character or one that would exclude evidence founded upon jurisdiction and effective possession, still I in- sist that they are of great importance in resolving the question at issue, because of the fact that Paz Soldan, although accepting the geographic configuration of the territory as indicated by Bollaert and Smith, did not accept the boundary between Tarapaca and Arica in- dicated by them, but changed it and made it coincide with the River Taraguire (Taruguire) on the map of the said Bollaert and Smith. To this fact must be added an attestation which cannot be considered a mere coincidence, and that is, that the line thus indicated by Paz Soldan passes, — as has been observed by Sr. Obrecht, — exactly through the latitude of the Puquintica hill, primitive boundary mark between the districts of Arica and Carangas, and a de facto boundary mark in the time of the Peru- vian rule, as we shall pass on to see. # • # I do not know of any detailed geographic descrip- tion of the province of Tarapaca published during the Peruvian regime. But in the absence of such, there does exist the work published in 1886 by Sr. Guillermo E. Billinghurst, — distinguished Peruvian statesman, and ex-deputy from the littoral province of Tarapaca and ex- Vice-President of the Republic. Sr. Billinghurst 's "Estudio sobre la geografia de Tara- paca'' (Study of the Geography of Tarapaca), writ- ten with an abundance of facts, many of which were obtained by the author himself upon his travels, can- not be objected to as evidence favorable to the Chilean interests, when we consider that these are now an- tagonistic to the eventual interests of Peru, from the 297 special point of view of the northern boundary of Tar- apaca. Sr. Billinghurst divides "the territory included in the province of Tarapaca" into five zones, the eastern most of which being composed of "the Andes Moun- tains and its respective watersheds," that is, both watersheds. He is very explicit in this respect, and adds: "The eastern watershed of the mountains in this part of the Andes, reaches the Bolivian pla- teau. The western watershed descends until it encounters a great chain of arid mountains which cross Tarapaca from north to south, and which are the highest, after the Andes, of this part of the country. The highest peaks of this great chain, which resembles a wall that re-enforces the Andes, are: Puquintica, Mamahuta, (Ma- muta), Pumiri, Suriri, Mullure, Huaichani, and the Isluga volcano, at the northern end of the prov- Farther on he states : ' i The sulphur deposits in this province that are worked by the Indians, are the following: Pu- quintica, Surire, Pumiri, etc." In another part he adds : "In the northern part of the province is found the Surire lagoon, of which we have spoken before. This lagoon is situated near the hill of the same name, and to the east of Mullure." Thus, according to Billinghurst, the Puquintica hill is found at the northern end of the province of Tar- apaca, and forms part of a great chain that crosses the 'said province from north to south. The sulphur 298 deposits of Puquintica and the lagoon of Surire are found also in the northern part of the province of Tarapaca. These statements referring to localities, the iden- tity of which cannot be placed in doubt, were not made haphazardly or without previous study, as is proven by the following detail: after mentioning the pos- sibility of increasing the volume of water of the Ca- milla ravine by diverting the streams Mullure and Guayguase into it, Sr. Billinghurst states that the Camarones proprietors opposed the carrying out of this work, as it would diminish the volume of water of the latter ravine, and adds: "The two interests could be reconciled by granting the streams Mullure and Guayguase to the Camina, and by helping the farmers of Camarones to avail themselves of the waters of the Surire lagoon, which is situated at the foot of the hill of that name. To do this, it would be necessary only to perforate the Castilluma hillock, and to make the waters come down through the Ano- carire ravine." It is easy to understand, upon examining the map of the locality, that the project of diverting the waters of the Surire lagoon towards Camarones, by the ra- vines the come down from the slope of Anocarire, involved the idea that all of the Surire pampa be- longed to the province of Tarapaca. # # * Sr. Billinghurst J s reports to the effect that the Peruvian province of Tarapaca extended towards the east as far as the line of Puquintica, and that towards the north it included the entire pampa of Surire and Chilcaya — where important deposits of borate later were discovered — have been confirmed recently by the abundant evidence gathered in legal form by one of 299 the concerns engaged in the exploitation of the borate. Since 1894, borate claims were made, under dif- ferent names at Arica, giving them as located in the Chilcaya region; and at Pisagua, giving them as lo- cated in the region of Surire. By reason of the controversy respecting posses- sion that has taken place, the interested parties have offered evidence to prove respectively, one, that the name Surire is applied to the entire pampa where borate deposits exist, and that this has been included always in the province of Tarapaca during the Peru- vian rule, the other, on the contrary, that the true name of the borate lagoon is "Chilcaya" and that this has been under the jurisdiction of the civil authorities of Arica and of the ecclesiastical authorities of Are- quipa. The comparison of the evidence presented settles all doubt. The evidence presented by the Tarapaca party, has been gathered from localities adjoining the point in question. Sixty-eight witnesses were called to testify in Pisagua, Camina, Chapiquilta, and other towns of the Cordilleras. Of these witnesses, forty-five were Peruvians who were born at Camina, Mullure, Parajaya, Isluga, Chiapa, Soga, Chapiquilta, and other neighboring localities. Several of these witnesses had occupied during the Peruvian rule, the posts of Gover- nor, Lieutenant-Governor, Justice of the Peace, and receiver. Others were ranchers, cattle-men, etc. It is deduced from all these testimonies that the name "pampa and lagoon of Surire" always has been applied by the inhabitants of Camina and other points of the curacy, to the entire pampa, surrounded by the fields of Surire and Llaco upon the south, and Chil- caya upon the northeast. This is deduced also from the boundary documents already cited, where it is 300 stated: "boundary mark called Surire, within the lagoon there is a small white hill, which is the boun- dary mark, ' ' since this can be no other than the small, isolated hill of Oquecollo, which is rather toward the north of the pampa. In the accompanying map, the location of the borax claims has been marked, accord- ing to the maps drawn by the interested parties, maps that do not coincide exactly either in their bearings or in their scales. The "small white hill" of Oque- collo, according to these maps, occupies a central posi- tion with respect to the claims. From the depositions, it is deduced also that Surire and its adjoining settlements were included in the province of Tarapaca during the Peruvian rule. I shall cite, among others, the following depositions, as being the most important: Severo Choque, of Camina, declares that in 1879 he was grazing cattle at Chilcaya and was always under the jurisdiction of the authorities at Camina, and that he never had heard, even from his ancestors, that that lagoon or those fields were under the jurisdiction of Arica. He states that "there is a lagoon called Paquisa six leagues north of Surire that belongs to the department of Arica, ' ' and adds that : "more than twenty years ago, lawsuits were brought by the inhabitants of Surire, and the Lieutenant-Governor of Mullure, Sr. Angel Cus- todio Fernandez (another of the witnesses), ac- companied by the Commissioner, Sr. Jose M. Aranibar (also a witness), appointed by the Pre- fect of Tarapaca in agreement with the authori- ties of Tacna and Arica, proceeded to set the boundaries of the said territories. Governor Fernandez and Sr. Aranibar were present at the act; but not so, the Arica Commissioners ; and the following line, which has been respected until to- 301 day by the Arica authorities, was fixed; leaving Canta to Pucupucuni, Llareta pampa (Bare Hill of Llaratapampa), Chilisaja, Jerrajene (Herraje Hill), Castillumu, north of Surire, Achachamayo, and Chilcaya, to the Bolivian frontier upon the east." Of the eight points named, only two, Canta and Chilisaja, cannot be identified. But the remaining six, are sufficient to make possible the perfect determina- tion of the line, to the foot of Puquintica. Jose Mariano Aranibar, an aged man of eighty-six, a native of Camina, who was Justice of the Peace of this town for two terms of office during the Peruvian administration declares that, ' ' Surire and its environs always were a department under my jurisdiction (Camina), that is, of the province of Tarapaca." Agreeing with the statement of Severo Choque, he adds that before the war, and while he was Justice of the Peace at Camina, he was ordered by the Governor to effect, together with a commission that would come from Arica, the fixing of the boundary line between Arica and Pisagua. He complied, accompanied by Sr. Andres Zamora and Sr. Angel Custodio Fernandez, and as the Arica Commissioner did not appear, they proceeded with the demarcation, fixing the line far to the north of the Surire lagoon. These statements are completed and confirmed by those of Sr. Anjel Custodio Fernandez, another aged man of ninety years, also a native of Camina, who de- clares : . "I have known the lagoon for many years, as I have been raised at Pumire, and as I have a ranch four leagues from Surire, which is called Ancocollo (Anco- coyo in the accompanying map, at the head of the Sura- Sura River). I was also Lieutenant-Governor of Mull- ure for a period of two years during the Peruvian ad- 302 ministration, and I know that its claims were granted at Pisagua. ' ' Asked if the name Chilcaya was applied only to the fields at the eastern side of the Surire la- goon, he affirms that "it is so, and upon those fields the Bolivians formerly placed their cattle to graze, as did also the Islugas, the fields being at the foot of the Puquintica, where there are also some old huts." He repeats that he owns a large ranch, Ancocollo, and states that during the entire lifetime that he has re- sided there, in an official capacity and as a private citizen, no other authorities ever have existed than those of Tarapaca. That for eighty years he has known that those grounds (Surire and its environs) belong to Tarapaca, and that not any Arica authority ever has existed there. That during the Peruvian administra- tion, while he was Lieutenant-Governor of Mullure, his jurisdiction reached as far as the source of the Cama- rones ravine, which is composed, north of Surire, of the waters of the Anocarire. Among other important statements, there is the one made by Sr. Andres Avelino Castro, who states that he knows the Surire lagoon, as he was born there, and that he, together with the community of Isluga, had staked claims upon the borate at the lagoon, as he him- self had discovered the said substance. That he pays the licenses upon the said claims at the municipality of Pisagua, where the claims were granted years ago, as he did not acknowledge any authorities other than those of that port. Two* aged men of Isluga, Carmelo Mamani, eighty- five years old, and Eustaquio Castro, seventy, both de- clare that they have worked always at Surire, and that the officials appointed by the Governor of Camina ruled there. Another aged man of Isluga, Sr. Romualdo Garcia, seventy-five years old, states that he has visited 303 Surire and Chilcaya frequently since his childhood and that he never has known any other authorities than those of Mullure. That these fields of Surire belong and always have belonged to the Castros and to the Mamanis (the previous Isluga witnesses) who live on the same side of the lagoon. Sr. Gonzalo Contreras states that he was born at Camina and has been an official during the Peru- vian rule, being Governor of Camina, and that during his administration, Surire and all its environs belonged to and were under his jurisdiction, and that the same thing has been true now during the two terms of office that he has served as subdelegate of the Chilean ad- ministration. He adds that his father, Sr. Luis Con- treras, also was Governor of Camina during the Peru- vian regime, and that he never has heard that gentle- man tell of the Arica authorities interfering with his administration of those territories. That during the Peruvian administration, his jurisdiction (that of Camiiia) included the ravine of Camarones to the north of Surire, from where, following the customs of the country, he ordered cattle to be brought from Surire and Mullure, and the inhabitants always obeyed the orders that he imparted. Sr. Juan S. Ossio, a native of Zapiga, who has lived at Camina since his childhood, and who has prepared a rather detailed sketch of the region, states * * that the lagoon in question is called Surire, that the old Indians from time immemorial gave this name to it because of the great abundance of ostriches found there, which, in the Aimara language, are called Sure. Thus he con- firms that the claims of Senores Polastri & Co., and his own claims are situated at the said lagoon. He adds besides, that the ravine of Camarones rises between the hills of Macusa and Anocarire, which are situated 304 to the north of the lagoon of Surire. He adds that on the hills of Arintica and Puquintiea, which are situated upon the north side of the lagoon, there are a great number of sulphur claims, which have been granted by the courts at Pisagua. Some of these claims are being worked actively, having paid their taxes for many years at Pisagua, the authorities at Arica never having molested their owners or disputed the rights of the Pisagua officials. I have believed it necessary to establish the dates of the borate claims in Pisagua and in Arica because on the lists published by one of the interested parties, al- though there are borate claims solicited from the courts of Arica since 1894, those solicited from the Pisagua courts date only from 1898. According to the information that I have obtained, it is effective, never- theless, that in 1894 two claims of fifty hectares each, at Chilcaya and Surire, were solicited from the courts of Pisagua, one of the witnesses, Sr. Juan S. Ossio, be- ing interested in one of the claims. In 1895, a small claim of three hectares at Oquecollo was solicited by the natives of Isluga, Castros, Condores, Mamanis, Challapas, etc. In 1896, many claims at Surire, Chull- uncane, and the Llacho pampa, having a total area of three thousand hectares, were solicited, some by natives and others by resident of Iquique and Pisagua. Without going into further details respecting the re- maining depositions, I shall state only that in them, as in the others, it is observed that the witnesses, upon the part of Tarapaca, have been able, because of their residence, profession, or business, to prove their state- ments, and have not limited themselves to answering affirmatively or negatively the questions asked of them. On the other hand, the evidence offered upon the part of Arica, and gathered in that city itself, does not give 305 forth any positive information. The cross-examina- tion tends to prove that "the lagoon of Chilcaya is situated in the sixth rural snbdelegation of the depart- ment of Arica," that "the borate deposits in dispute are found at the said lagoon of Chilcaya/' and that "the straw-fields of Surire, situated at the foot of the hill of that name, are found far to the south of the lagoon of Chilcaya, and that in Surire there are not any borate deposits to be worked. ' ' Of the thirty-five witnesses whose depositions are filed in the papers bearing upon the case, upon the part of Arica, twenty-two are residents of the towns of Arica and Tacna, two of Ticnamar, two of Belen, one of Codpa, and only three have resided for a brief space of time in Chilcaya. These do not express the reason for such residence, excepting the witness Sr. Onofre Torres, of Santiago, employed by the interested party, who states that he also has lived in Chilcaya where he was formerly District Judge. These witnesses all limit themselves to answering the questions asked of them during the cross-examination: "it is true and I am certain of it," "so I have heard," or "I do not know. " It is to be observed, besides, that the evidence gathered at Arica does not cast any light upon the question of the boundary during the Peruvian admin- istration. Therefore, the contradictory evidence gathered at the request, respectively, of the concessionaries of the borate deposits, on the one part at Pisagua, and on the other part at Arica, proves decisively that the pampa of Surire is situated within the department of Pisagua. According to some of the witnesses, the boundary goes up the ravine of Camarones, whose source they con- sider to be one of the ravines that come down from the Anocarire. According to others, the boundary would 306 pass through Pocopocuni, Castilluma, and Chilcaya, extending over farther to the east. The doubt thus remains reduced to a very exact limit. But if this result is considered in connection with the information contained in Sr. Billinghurst 's report and in Sr. Paz Soldan's pamphlet, the doubt disappears completely. Thus the boundary between the curacies of Codpa and Camina as given by Paz Soldan, coin- cides exactly, between the boundary marks of Chaca and Pucupucune, with the boundary to which the wit- ness Aranibar referred in the deposition that I have cited. Then also, there is no doubt that Sr. Billinghurst in- cludes under the name of lagoon of Surire, which he places in the northern part of the province of Tara- paca, the entire borate pampa including Llacho and Polloquere, as he states, "in the pampa there exist a few geysers which constantly discharge dense columns of steam." And these geysers, I am informed by the engineer Sr. Caro, are found at the southeastern part of the lagoon, between the hills of Huarmicollo and Polloquere. The depositions of the witnesses Ossio, Munoz and others, also concur with Sr. Billinghurst 's information to the effect that the sulphur deposits of Puquintica belong to Tarapaca. Lastly, I shall observe that the name Chilcaya, which according to the evidence offered at Arica, was the name given to the pampa and lagoon in the middle of which rises the small hill Oquecollo, is not mentioned once in Sr. Billinghurst J s book. # # # Finally, I must add to these facts, the information gathered by the engineer Sr. Victor Caro, who was ap- 307 pointed for that purpose by me, according to the in- structions copied at the beginning of this report. As you can see from Sr. Caro's report, of which I include a copy, the statements gathered by this en- gineer upon the ground, from the inhabitants Carmelo Garcia, Sebastian Mamani, and Dionisio Mamani, quite agree with the line indicated by Paz Soldan, and with the results obtained from the judicial investiga- tion referred to before. It is not beside the point to observe that Sr. Caro worked entirely independently of the judicial investigation, of which he did not know until his return to Santiago, and the existence of which was brought to light at Arica by the Chairman of the Commission, Sr. Anibal Contreras, who asked the In- tendant of Tacna to have a copy of it made, which copy is the one that I have used. Then also not any of the Indians who accompanied Sr. Caro had testified pre- viously. The conclusions reached from Sr. Caro's report are as follows : 1. — The existence, during the Peruvian administra- tion of an old boundary line that separated, at the same time, the curacies of Codpa and Camina, and the Peru- vian provinces of Arica and Tarapaca, or, that is, the present departments of Arica and Pisagua, cannot be doubted. 2. — This boundary line left the pasture-grounds of Taruguire, which were and still are a part of the Illa- pata ranch at Esquifia, within the jurisdiction of Arica. 3. — Of the points and boundary marks set out in the document cited by Paz Soldan and by the Indian Severo Choque in his declaration, those that have been identified upon the ground, are indicated in the follow- ing table, where I have marked with an interrogation mark (?) those about which there is not absolute cer- tainty, and with two marks ( 11) those that may be con- sidered doubtful : 308 Points appearing on the document published by Paz Soldan. Points Indicated by Severo Choque, of Camina. Points identified by the engineer, Sr. Victor Caro. Pampa of Caltaya and Aispunta. . . Canta ( 11) Ancoaque. Ancohuma. Lirpo (water- spring) Anisirca (11) Pucupucune Pucupucuni. . . , Guaylla (!) Porco (11) Llareta pampa Chulluncani, Caltaja (11 Chaca. . . . Boundary mark Quecaye on the hillock. ... .... Jerrajene. Castilluma. . . Achachamayo. Chilcaya Arepunta Caltaya Ausipa Jancoaque Jancuma Pilloco Lirpo Pucupucune Guaillacahue (1 Cerro Polado (pampa of Llaretas) Chulluncayani Hill Pass of Chaca Hill of Herraje Castilluma Hill Achachamayo Hill Puquintica Hill I consider this result to be satisfactory because it permits the establishing of a line based upon facts of Peruvian origin, and which cannot, therefore, be im- punged by that Republic, if it sometime should come to occur that this line, which now separates two Chilean provinces, should become an international boundary line. 309 In the setting out of the boundary line, which, com- plying with your orders, I propose to mark by means of iron pyramids, I have not followed strictly any of the previous enumerations of points, but taking into consideration the various opinions cited before, as well as the facts adduced by Sr. Obrecht and by the Bound- aries Office, I have taken the Eiver Ajatama to be the tributary of origin of the River Camarones, as far as the confluence of the Blanco River where the boundary mark Blanco or Jancoaque is found. Therefore, from Arepunta to the River Blanco, the Ajatama River will constitute the interprovincial boundary. From the boundary mark River Blanco or Jan- coaque, the dividing line will follow a straight course to the mark Pen a Blanca or Jancuma, from there to the water-spring of Lirpo, to the ranch of Pucupucune, to the crest of the Pelado hill of the Llareta pampa, and will continue along the crest of the Chulluncayani hill, through the pass of Chaca, along the crests of the Herraje hill, of the Castilluma hill, and of the Acha- chamayo hill, from there to the crest of the Arintica, and will end at the crest of the Puquintica. IV. Facts Regarding the Period of Chilean Rule. Although I think that the right of Chile to the north- ern boundary of Tarapaca, as I just have indicated it, is proven clearly by what I have exposed so far, I still can add other facts to those that refer to the period of the Peruvian rule, to show that neither the administra- tive, nor the geographic, nor the ecclesiastic authori- ties have failed to recognize, under the Chilean regime, the old boundary line that separated the jurisdictions of Tarapaca and of Tacna and Arica, at their eastern extremities. 310 The decree of May 9, 1885, divided the Department of Arica into six subdelegations, the sixth being Codpa whose southern border is, according to the decree, "the boundary line of the department. ' ' Codpa was sub- divided into three districts, the last of which, Pachica, 1 i shall include the territory south of the subdelegation that ends at the valley of Camarones", with the towns and villages of Huancarane, Esquiiia, and others to- ward the east." But another decree of November 3, 1885, which di- vided the department of Pisagua into five subdelega- tions, established that the fifth, that of Camarones, "is bounded on the north by the ravine of Camarones," and that, "it is divided into three districts: first dis- trict, that of Camarones, second district, that of Huancarane, and third district, that of Esquiiia which is bounded on the north by the boundary line of the subdelegation in this part." Lastly, by a third decree, of August 28, 1888, it is declared that "the town of Pachica must be considered hereafter a part of the department of Pisagua, just as are the towns of Camarones, Esquiiia and Huan- carane." The comments of which these decrees have been the object, are not pertinent to the purpose of this report. I have cited them to show that they refer only to that part where "the valley of Camarones" is found, that is, to the east of Arepunta, The reference to the other villages toward the east, made in the first decree, re- lates probably to Pachica and Illapata, as it is revealed by the last of the decrees. Nevertheless, if it is considered that these villages "toward the east" include Mullure, Surire and Chil- caya, it is evident that it is the intention of the last of the decrees to include them in the department of Pisagua. 311 The only Chilean geographic publication which may be considered an authority upon the point in question, is the "Diccionario Geografico de las Provincias de Tacna y Tarapaca" (Geographic Dictionary of the Provinces of Tacna and Tarapaca), published at Iqui- que in 1890 by Sr. Francisco Risopatron. The facts which the said dictionary contains respect- ing the localities that I shall mention, refer to the divi- sion between the two provinces that I have indicated above : "Anocarire. — (Page 7). Stream that runs along the ravine of Camarones, and that rises at the hill of the same name. Department of Pisa- gua, province of Tarapaca. Its ravine bears the same name." " Choquenanta. — (Page 27). Sulphur deposit, one of the most important because of the quantity and good quality of the product, department of Pisagua, province of Tarapaca. " " Chulluncani. — (Page 28). — Chulluncani. — I am melting, in the Quechua language). Snow- capped peak of the Andes at 19° latitude and 69° 30' longitude, approximately. Department and province of Tarapaca/' "Mullure. — (Page 58). Stream that runs along the ravine of Camarones, department of Pisagua, province of Tarapaca, etc/ , "Puquintica. — (Page 67). Great sulphur de- posit, situated on the hill of the same name, at 103.5 kilometres from Camina, etc/' "Puquintica. — (Page 67). Lofty peaks of the Andes mountains, 5.600 metres above the sea. Situated at 18° 30' 30" latitude and 68° 30' 35" longi- tude, in the department of Arica, province of Tacna," "Sorasura. — (Page 94). Stream running along the ravine of Camarones, rising in the Andes mountains at the foot of the Anocarire and of the 312 Surire. Department of Pisagua, province of Tara- paca. ' ' "Surire. — (Page 94). Lagoon situated at the foot of the Surire hill at the head-waters of the ravine of Camarones. Department of Pisagua, province of Tarapaca. ' ' It must be noticed that the author places the sulphur deposits of Puquintica within the jurisdiction of Ca- mina, that is, of Pisagua and of Tarapaca, while he places the peaks of Puquintica in Arica, but adjoining the inter-provincial boundary line. Finally, the official information gathered in the papers bearing upon the suit brought by the borate con- cerns, agrees with the facts mentioned above. The Apostolic Vicar at Iquique states : i "The lagoon of Surire and its adjacent villages are within the parish of Saint Thomas of Camina, and therefore are under the ecclesiastic jurisdic- tion of this Apostolic Vicarage of Tarapaca, and not of the ecclesiastic authorities of the province of Tacna. The parish priest at Camina has always exercised jurisdiction over the territory to which I refer. On the map of the province of Tarapaca made by the fiscal saltpetre deposits delegation, and on which the boundaries of the parish of Surire and its villages are set out also, they are placed within the parish of Camina. ' ' It is easy to prove the accuracy of this last assertion by means of the said map, where the size given to the lagoon of Surire shows that that name is applied there to the entire borate pampa. Besides, its author, the en- gineer, Sr. Juan Francisco Campana, fiscal delegate of saltpetre deposits, reports in the legal records already cited, "when the undersigned prepared the map pub- lished in November of 1896, entitled 'Map of the Salt- 313 petre Region from Arica to Tocopilla,' the lagoon of Surire was placed within the department of Pisagua, as all the facts obtainable at that time agreed npon that location. ' ' The Civil Registry Officer at Camina, npon the same occasion informed the Conrt as follows : "I have been Civil Registry Officer for the cir- cumscription of Camina for eight years, and dur- ing that time I have exercised jurisdiction over Surire, as three subdelegations belong to me : Ca- mina, in which is included the lagoon of Surire, Camarones, and Aroma. All the inhabitants of Surire, recognizing the authorities at Camina from time immemorial, apply to me for all matters con- cerning my office. I call your attention also to the fact that as Subdelegation Judge, I have fulfilled the duties entrusted to me by your Court, at that same lagoon and its environs." This report is confirmed by that of the Governor of Pisagaia, who states : "It is true that Surire and its dependencies have been considered as belonging to Pisagua, under the jurisdiction of the subdelegate of the fourth subdelegation, Camina, of this depart- ment. ' ' V. A Critical Study of Some Objections. In order not to destroy the clearness of this exposi- tion, I have abstained heretofore from taking into con- sideration the opinions adverse to the boundary line that I have recommended as legitimate and lawful. I have refuted, nevertheless, in a general way, the argument presented by the Minister of Bolivia, to the effect that Chile could not advance farther to the east 314 than the rise of the ravine of Camarones, or that is, the divortium aquarum. That argument tended to give more consistency to the Bolivian pretension of advanc- ing toward the west as far as the crests of Chulluncani, Mullure, and Pumiri (which there form the dividing line of the waters), based upon a pretended boundary of 1721, according to which the town of Isluga also was included within the district of Carangas. This last cir- cumstance would be sufficient to discredit the said boundary as it is notorious that the community of Isluga ever has belonged to Tarapaca. I do not be- lieve it necessary to go into greater details respecting this point at present, as I have discussed this question extensively in a report presented on September 28, 1903, to the Department of Foreign Relations, refer- ring to our eastern boundary with Bolivia. It is to be noted, however, that the argument of the divortium aquarum, which, if admissible, would be favorable to Bolivia, did not originate in that country but in Chile, although for a different purpose than that had in mind by the Foreign Department of the neigh- boring Eepublic. It was the engineer Sr. Agustin Renjifo, who in an unofficial report dated February 14, 1900, declared, after invoking the Treaty of Ancon, that since the Camarones Eiver rises necessarily at the divortium aquarum, "the boundary line (between Pisagua and Arica) may start therefore from a point on the divor- tium aquarum, the Republic of Bolivia being the com- mon boundary of both departments on the east side, the point of intersection of these three territories, Arica, Pisagua and Bolivia, must converge at the same place on the divortium aquarum on the Bolivian bor- der." I have demonstrated clearly, in the first part of this report, that to give, to the mere mention of boundaries 315 contained in the Treaty of Ancon, the meaning that Sr. Renjifo does, would be to frustrate the intention ex- pressed in that Treaty, that the cession of the province of Tarapaca was ' ' unconditional ' ' and in- cluded its entire territory. I now propose to show how lacking in logic are those who, in Chile, for diverse reasons, have accepted Sr. Renjifo 's statement. The conclusion deduced by Sr. Renjifo in the state- ment cited is that, since the ravine of Camarones separates in Arepunta into two branches, the Ajatama and the Caritaya, the boundary between Pisagua and Arica, must be necessarily one of these two rivers from its source. He continues : "Of these two rivers, the Ajatama receives the watersheds of the Anocarire and Chuquinando (Chuquiananta) hills which are to the north of and at a great distance from Huaihuasi (Guai- guasi), and beyond the point of intersection be- tween the divortium aquarum and the Republic of Bolivia." "Therefore it is impossible for the Ajatama River to be the boundary line between Arica and Pisagua. It must be noted besides, that its course turns away notably from the general direction of the Camarones River. ' ' The Caritaya must be considered the principal tributary of the Camarones : First, because of the volume of its waters and the permanency of its system as far as the Bolivian border ; Second, be- cause it follows the same direction as the course of the Camarones ; and Third, because this direc- tion is inclined more to the parallel that is the exact line from east to west." Before passing on, I must call attention to a cir- cumstance that renders unnecessary a discussion of the importance of the different statements of a geographic 316 nature made by Sr. Renjif o; this circumstance con- sists of the inaccuracy of the said statements. In fact, after a thorough and well verified investigation of all the tributaries of the Camarones River, above Are- punta, I may assure you : 1. That, as may be seen from the enclosed map, the hydrographic basin of the Ajatama River has a greater area than that of the Caritaya ; that the system of this latter river is not permanent, and that the volume of its waters during some seasons is less than that of the Ajatama. 2. That, as is shown also by the small map enclosed, the general direction of the Caritaya River is far from being the same as that of the Camarones, and that, on the contrary, the direction of the latter, from Cama- rones to Arepunta, coincides almost exactly with that of the Ajatama River and its tributary, the Surasura. 3. That the Caritaya River forms a much more pro- nounced angle with the parallel, than does the Aja- tama. After making the statements that I have refuted, Sr. Renjif o continues : "The Caritaya rises upon the Huaihuasi hill which, as we have said before, is situated at the point of intersection between the dividing line of the waters and the Republic of Bolivia, thus com- plying with essential conditions for serving as the departmental boundary line, as an integral part of, and as the natural continuation of, the River and ravine of Camarones.' ' This new statement, as may be seen, implies the ac- ceptance of the boundary as sustained by Bolivia in this region, or, that is, the cession to that Republic of the entire district of Isluga. Still more, according to Sr. Renjif o's reasoning, the possibility of complying 317 with the Treaty of Ancon would be dependent upon the acceptance of this Bolivian boundary, because if the line is passed through the Capitan and Puquintica hills, it results that there is not any point that will fulfill the "essential conditions" that Sr. Renjifo sup- poses to be necessary, and therefore it would be im- possible to draw the northern boundary line of Tara- paca, according to the Treaty of Ancon as he inter- prets it. Now, then, it is almost unnecessary to repeat that, the Treaty of Ancon could not and did not legislate respecting the Bolivian border, and it is sufficient to point out the inadmissible consequence that I just, have indicated, to demonstrate the fallacy of the argu- ment that produces such a consequence. I have paused over Sr. Renjifo's report, although it is not official, because it has served as the basis for the contentions of those in Chile who favor the placing of the borate deposits of Surire and Chilcaya within the jurisdiction of Arica. I must mention the fact, however, that there ap- peared, almost on the same date as that of Sr. Ren- jifo 's report, February 3, 1900, and inserted in the same publication, another report signed by the en- gineer, Sr. H. Wallace to the same effect, but which contains still more glaring geographic inaccuracies, such as the following: "If. the problem refers only to the location of the lagoon of Chilcaya, the question is yet clearer and more simple, because the River Caritaya as well as the Ajatama, rise and flow to the south of the said lagoon. ' ' A glance at the map of the region will enable one to appreciate the inaccuracy of this assertion. 318 Sr. Mariano Guerrero Bascunan, who as delegate of the Supreme Government for Tacna, presented a lengthy report dated November 20, 1900 studied therein the question of the boundary line between the departments of Pisagua and Arica. Sr. Guerrero cites the geographers Astaburuaga, Espinosa, Vidal Gormaz, and Paz Soldan to come to the conclusion that, according to them, "the source of the ravine and River Camarones is on the Andes Mountains, at the boundary line between Chile and Bolivia. ' ' This citation is lacking in probatory value, as not any one of the geographers mentioned explored personally, or had access to any description of, the sources of the River Camarones. The same may be said of those whom Sr. Guerrero calls " explorers,' ' Senores Sefioret and Boonen Rive- ra, who did not explore the said sources. The only ones who may be called explorers, in this case, are Senores Renjifo and Wallace, and upon the facts gath- ered by them, are based exclusively the conclusions to which Sr. Guerrero has come, as may be seen clearly from the following phrases from his report : "It has been proven also by the report of these last two engineers (Senores Renjifo and Wallace) that the Camarones River keeps its name until it reaches the place called Arepunta, where it takes those of its tributaries, the Ajatama and the Caritaya. And that of these tributaries, the Cari- taya is the only one that continues the boundary line formed by the Camarones, as far as the Bo- livian border. Therefore, it must be deduced that the starting point of the boundary line, at the intersection of the divortium aquarum with the Republic of Bolivia, must be fixed at the Huay- huasi River, or, that is, at the source of the Cari- taya. ' ' 319 Thus Sr. Guerrero, in spite of the rather detailed study that he made of the general geographic maps, could not obtain from them any conclusive fact, which in reality they do not contain, and was obliged to abide by the inexact statement that he attributes to Sr. Renjifo, to the effect that the Caritaya River con- tinues the line of the Camarones as far as the Bolivian border, and that "it is the only one" that complies with this condition. If the Bolivian border were really the divortium aquarum, the Caritaya River would not be ' * the only ' ' tributary of the Camarones rising at the said line. As may be seen from the map, leaving aside the ravines of lesser importance, the following rivers rise there : the Mulluri, the Veco (of Caritaya), the Chuquiananta, the Surasura, and the Palcoaillo. Almost simultaneously with Sr. Guerrero's report, on November 23, 1900, a petition was presented to the Supreme Government by S. Jorge Phillips, represent- ing the Compania Boratera de Chilcaya (Borate Com- pany of Chilcaya) accompanied by a pamphlet, in which the principle of the divortium aquarum is brought to bear in favor of the Caritaya River as the boundary line, but interpreted in such a manner that there is greater inconsistency than in the case of Seiiores Ren- jifo and Guerrero Bascunan. \ Starting from the basis, false in this case, that Chile is obliged to fix her boundary line with Bolivia accord- ing to the said principle of geographic demarcation — the case being that the boundary to which Chile has a right, is the old boundary between Peru and Bolivia, without being subject to any geographic principle — starting from that false basis, as I say, Sr. Phillips states : 320 "The question under discussion being related with that of our Bolivian border, the demarcation principle of the highest crests dividing the waters, can not be abandoned, because if Sr. Obrecht's report were accepted, according to which the boun- dary line would follow along the Ajatama River to its source and from there to the north along the principal ridge of the Andes, it would result that the lagoon of Chilcaya and a great part of the territory that is unquestionably Chilean or Peruvian, would undoubtedly, become part of the Bolivian territory." Here, the lack of logic in the argument that I have cited, is seen clearly, because if it were true that "the demarcation principle of the highest crests dividing the waters, can not be abandoned," then how can the territory of Chilcaya and its environs, which are to the east of the divortium aquarum "be unquestionably Chilean or Peruvian"? In his petition, Sr. Phillips makes still another state- ment as follows : "Even though the Ajatama River were taken as the continuation of the Camarones * * * it would be logical and natural to fix the boundary line from the source of the Ajatama to the Bolivian border, not by skirting the lagoon of Chilcaya along the hills that extend to the west of it, * * * but * * * by starting from the source of the said Ajatama and following the direction of the geo- graphic parallel, thus reaching the Bolivian bor- der. In this case the lagoon of Chilcaya would still remain in the department of Arica, as may be seen clearly from the map accompanying the pam- phlet — a map prepared by the official commission which was presided over by Captain Arturo Wil- son, of the Navy." 321 The map that accompanied this report, scaled at one centimeter per kilometer, does not bear ont the pre- vious statement; there is in this respect a complete disagreement between the topography of the map pre- pared by Sr. Renjifo and signed also by Sr. Wilson, and that of the one prepared by Senores V. Caro and Espinosa, of this Department. According to the latter map, the accuracy of which has been verified, the most northerly crest of the Anocarire hill, from where the most remote sources of the Ajatama River rise, is sit- uated at 18° 46' 30" latitude, while the most northerly borate deposits reach only as far as 18° 48' latitude. Therefore the parallel drawn from the crest of the Anocarire to the Bolivian border, still would pass 1° 30', or 2700 metres, to the north of the last borate de- posits. I mention this fact only so as 'not to leave standing a mistaken fact, because in principle there is not any reason for considering it more "logical and natural" to follow a parallel than to follow a line from hill to hill. The only "logical and natural" thing to do when setting out the boundaries of a property to be transferred, is to investigate where those boun- daries were before the transfer, and this has not been done either by Sr. Renjifo or by Sr. Guerrero Bas- cunan. The principle of the divortium aquarum is invoked anew, — in phrases that reveal still more the lack of logic in the argument, — by Sr. Blanlot Holley in a petition and memorial which were published, asking for the derogation of the Supreme Decree of August 29, 1900, which prescribed that the demarcation of the northern boundary of Tarapaca should be carried out in conformity with the line indicated by Paz Soldan in his map of Peru. The said memorial maintains that the boundary line "between the provinces of Tacna and Tarapaca and 322 Bolivia should be drawn according to the doctrine sus- tained by Chile in her dispute with the Argentine Re- public, of following the dividing line of the water B." Then in the following line it declares that " if the boun- dary line between the departments of Pisagua and Arica is carried along the Caritaya as far as the divor- tium aquarum, the borate deposits of Chilcaya will re- main to the west of the Bolivian border and in Chilean territory." In his eagerness to apply by all means the geo- graphic principle of the division of the waters, Sr. Blanlot Holley even states that, ' ' the acceptance of the boundary line proposed by Senores Obrecht and Pi- zarro would force Chile to give up the theory of the divortium aquarum, thus shattering with her own hand the traditional basis upon which she has founded the defense of her international rights in matters of boundary demarcation, and thus appearing before the world as a dishonest litigant." It will be observed in this respect that Sr. Blanlot Holley, as well as those who have preceded him in the defense of the same cause, that have omitted to justify the origin of the statement, "the theory of the divor- tium aquarum' } has been to Chile a "traditional basis ' ' in the setting out of her borders. I have proven already that this statement is not well founded. Even in the case of our Argentine border, the theory of the divortium aquarum according to the Treaty of 1881, should be applied only between parallels 27 and 52. The said theory has not been applied either to the south of parallels 52, or north of parallel 27, in the Puna of Atacama, where it was not either invoked by Chile or applied by the arbitrator, Mr. Buchanan. But, under the hypothesis that Chile would be obliged to apply the said theory respecting the eastern 323 borders of Tacna and of Tarapaca, how could the pampa of Surire and Chilcaya remain within the de- partment of Arica when it is to the east of the divor- tium aquarumf This has not been- explained by any of those who favor the boundary at the rivers Cari- taya and Huaihuasi, nor is it possible to explain it. It is not beside the point to note also that Sr. Blanlot Holley has founded his argument upon erroneous in- formation obtained before, by Sr. Guerrero Bascunan from Sr. Mateo Paz Soldan 's " Geography of Peru." According to Sr. Guerrero Bascunan, Paz Soldan had our border with Bolivia end at "the mountains of Negrillos, of which the Huaihuasi is the first foothill, where the Caritaya River rises. * * *." Sr. Blanlot Holley is even more precise, as he states that the Cari- taya rises on the Negrillos mountain. ■ The map in the small scale that I enclose shows how erroneous are both statements, as the town of Negrillos is nearly 50 kilometers east by northeast of the hill of Huaihuasi. The facts given by Sr. Mateo Paz Soldan, although erroneous in themselves, and wrongly interpreted by Senores Guerrero Bascunan and Blanlot Holley, in the part that is correct, lead to a very different conclusion from that reached by the latter gentlemen. These facts, which are found on page 124 of the said work, and also on pages 105, 611, and 892, of Sr. Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan 's "Diccionario Geografico del Peru" (Geog- raphy Dictionary of Peru), are as follows : "Road from the Valley of Camarones to Bolivia. "From Camarones, a ranch on the valley of Camarones * # * 14 leagues (78 kilometers). "To Camina, a town in the district of Camina. # * * 16 leagues (89 kilometers). 324 "To Berenguela, a ranch, 10 leagues (56 kilo- meters). "To Negrillos, a barren mountain separating both Republics. * * * 10 leagues (55 J^ kilo- meters )." To prove that there has not been any typographic error in copying the distances, I shall transcribe the following from the Dictionary that I have mentioned, page 611: "Negrillos, barren mountain that separates our Republic from that of Bolivia, at the department of Tarapaca: 50 leagues (27SJ/ 2 kilometers) from Camarones and 10 leagues (55j4 kilometers) from Berenguela." From the enclosed map, in which the road from Camarones to the town, of Negrillos is traced through Suca, Camina, and Berenguela, it is seen clearly that this road does not pass through Huaihuasi, and that the "mountain of Negrillos" to which Paz Soldan refers, judging from its distance from Berenguela, must be the one that extends to the south of the town of Negrillos, which is on the parallel of Chilcaya, toward the hills of Cabaraya and Isluga. Taking into consideration the true topography of the ground, and especially the fact that the ranch and pampa of Berenguela are almost on the same meridian as the hill of Huaihuasi, it is impossible that the point called Negrillos on Paz Sol- dan's itinerary, which must be at a distance of 55^ kilometers from Berenguela in the direction of Bolivia, could be near the sources of the River Caritaya. Thus, the principle of the divortium aquarurn, does not lead, in this case, as has been pretended, to the point on the boundary line indicated by Paz Soldan. If the loca- tion of the point called "Negrillos" by this geographer, 325 is determined from the distance of 55^4 kilometers to the east of Berengnela, at which it is fonnd, even con- sidering the turns of the road over which the itinerary should be measured, the resulting point will coincide with the boundary line that I have adopted. Besides the statements that I have refuted, Senores Guerrero Bascunan and Blanlot Holley, have made others of a legal nature, pertaining to international law, the refutation of which I consider foreign to the work entrusted to me by your Department. Besides, I believe that I have justified my not taking into con- sideration the said statements, by enunciating two prin- ciples to which I attribute fundamental importance, and the mere enunciation of which carries with it the proofs of the equity on which they are based and of the convenience that its application ought to bring about. These are the following: 1. The territory of the littoral province of Tarapaca having been transferred to Chile by virtue of a treaty that does not pretend, as I have shown, to define ex- actly the boundaries of that province, Chile has the right and the duty to investigate what those bounda- ries were at the time of the transfer. 2. Chile possessing a precarious title to the terri- tory of Tacna and Arica which borders on the south upon the province of Tarapaca, she has a perfect right to set out the boundary line between the two, and al- though this demarcation, as the Foreign Department has observed, "in no case would destroy the rights conferred upon Peru by the Treaty of Aiioon," it would serve to strengthen the rights conferred upon Chile by that same Treaty, in the eventual case of the separation of the province of Tacna from her terri- tory. It is convenient, therefore, that the Government of Chile make use of this right as soon as possible, 326 and determine, by virtue of a decree, the detailed out- line of the boundary line that it will adopt. Thus, and only thus, will we add to the legal and traditional titles that I have revealed in this report, the title of possession, the importance of which has beeen forced upon us before judges and tribunals. Conclusion. In concluding, I have the honor of informing you that the northern boundary line of the province of Tarapaca, between Arepunta and the Bolivian border, that corresponds, according to the investigations that I have exposed hereby, to the Peruvian interprovincial dividing line at the time of the cession of Tarapaca to Chile, is as follows : The Ajatama River as far as the point at which the Blanco or Surasura River joins it, from there a straight line to the old boundary of Jancuma or Penas Blaneas, to the water-spring of Lirpo, to the ranch of Pucupucune, to the crest of the Cerro Pelado of Llare- tapampa, and then passing over the line of the peaks of those of Chulluncayany, Viscachitambo, through the pass of Chaca, to the Herraje hill, to the Castilluma hill, to the Achachamayo hill, to the Arintica hill, and to the Puquintica hill. This line will be set out, upon the ground, accord- ing to the outline indicated in the map that has been prepared by the engineers of this Department, and that I include in this report. As this line is founded chiefly upon official Peruvian publications such as the census of 1876, the map and pamphlet regarding boundaries published by Sr. Ma- riano Felipe Paz Soldan, the geographic work by Sr. Guillermo E. Billinghurst, and the depositions of the natives, of Peruvian extraction in Tarapaca, Chile 327 would be fully justified in sustaining it, in case that Tacna and Arica should return to Peru according to the possibility foreseen by the Treaty of Ancon. Trusting that this commission has carried out sat- isfactorily the work entrusted to it by the Supreme Government, I take pleasure in returning to your De- partment the documents that were sent to me with the note dated January 20, 1903. May God keep you. Alejandro Bertrand. To His Excellency, The Minister of Interior of Chile. Supreme Decree Fixing the Limits Between the De- partments of Arica and Pisagua. No. 1786. Santiago, May 4, 1904. Today there is decreed the following: Whereas that, in the Treaty of Peace and Friend- ship with Peru, of October 20, 1883, as well as in the laws of October 31, 1884, which created the provinces of Tarapaca and Tacna, when fixing the northern limit of the former and the southern limit of the latter, it is said: "the ravine and River Camarones," with- out specifying in detail the points forming that bound- ary line starting from Arepunta — where join the vari- ous tributaries which form the River Camarones — to the frontier of Bolivia ; Whereas, the decrees of May 9 and November 5, 1885, and of August 28, 1888, when establishing the boundaries of the sub-delegations and districts be- tween the contiguous departments of Arica and Pisa- gua make reference to those set forth by the laws in 328 the respective departments and those laws in turn when referring to the boundaries of the departments, only refer to the limits set forth for the two provinces ; that this ambiguity in fixing the boundary of a part of that territory has given origin to a conflict of juris- diction between the authorities of the departments of Arica and Pisagua; and Whereas, it being in the realm of the judiciary to pronounce judgment on the legal merits of jurisdic- tional acts that might have been performed simul- taneously by the authorities of both departments in the territory mentioned above, the present decree cannot affect the civil rights that those acts of jurisdiction may have originated; and Having taken into consideration the report and maps made and presented by the Chief of the Boundary Office, according to which the location of the boundary line limiting the province of Tarapaca on the north at the time of its cession to Chile — a boundary that was sustained in the Treaty and laws referred to above — is being demarked on the ground. I. Degree: The line of demarkation of the northern boundary of the province of Tarapaca between Arepunta and the frontier of Bolivia is the following: The river of Ajatama up to the point where it is joined by the River Blanco ; from there a straight line to the ancient boundary of Jancuna or Penas Blancas, from there another line to the waterhole of Lirpo ; an- other to the ranch of Pucupucune ; another to the peak of Pelado hill of Pampa Llareta, and from there by a line passing over the peaks of Chulluncayani, Viscachi- tambo, the pass of Chaca, Herraje hill, Catilluma hill, Achachamayo hill, Arintica hill and Puquintica hill. 329 The Boundary Office is charged with the demarka- tion of that line on the ground by means of iron pyra- mids. Let the report be published in the Diario Official and the enclosed map be sent to the Ministry of Industry the Public Works for its files in the Section of Geog- raphy and Mines of that Ministry. Let it be recorded, registered, communicated and published. Riesco. Rafael Sotomayor. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] Lima, July 16, 1 904. Mr. Minister : In No. 7,901 of the Diario Oficial of the Republic of Chile for the 14th of last. May, there was published Decree No. 1,786 dated the 4th of the same month, by which your Government fixes the line of demarcation of the northern boundary of Tarapaca from the point of Arepunta and as far as the hill of Puquintica, situ- ated between the province of Arica and that of Ta- rapaca as far as the frontier of Bolivia, as follows : "The Ajatama River up to the point where it is joined by the Blanco River; from there a straight line to the ancient boundary of Jancuma or Peiias Blancas; from there to the water-hole of Lirpo ; another to the ranch of Pucupucune ; another to the peak of Pelado hill of Llareta Pampa ; and from there by a line passing over the peaks of Chulluncayani, Viscachitambo, the pass 330 of Chaca and the hills of Herraje, Castilluma, Achachamayo, Arintica and Puqnintica. ' ' Although the reservations which this Chancellery formulated in the notes sent to the Chilean Legation in Peru, January 15, 1900, and the subsequent dec- laration which the Chilean representative made in a communication of the 17th of the same month, "that in no case the decision of his Government (on the boundaries of the subdelegations of Chilcaya and Surire) whatever it might be, would be able to affect the rights which the Treaty of Ancon confers to Peru, ' ' would be sufficient to safeguard those rights against the undue scope which the recent decree of the Gov- ernment of Chile sought to attribute to it, neverthe- less, not only the dispositions contained therein, but also the considerations upon which the said decree was founded, oblige me, in order to safeguard the territorial interests of the Peruvian province of Arica (a part of the district called in Chile the Province of Tacna) which my Government considers to be effec- tive, to communicate with you directly because of the present absence of a Peruvian Legation in Chile and of a Chilean Legation in Peru. In fact, granted the precarious position which Peru has in those provinces, until it may be decided to whom will belong their final possession, the dis- positions which your Government might dictate con- cerning the territorial demarcation must not transcend that of internal regime since any other disposition would require the agreement of Peru, which retains wholly the rights awarded it by the Treaty of October 20, 1883, arranged between both States. But in the first part of the decree it is affirmed that that Treaty does not specify in detail the points which form the northern boundary of the province of Tarapaca and 331 southern boundary of Tacna (including that of Arica) from Arepunta, where are joined the different branches which form the Camarones Biver; and before the last part reference is made to information and to a plan presented by the Boundary Bureau according to which the boundary line is settled in the land ' ' which limited Tarapaca at the time of its cession to Chile, a boundary maintained by the Treaty and by laws mentioned above/ ' and which is determined in this decree by the above mentioned points. Such a resolution is not reduced then to a measure of internal administration in territories subject to dif- ferent conceptions of the authority of the Govern- ment of Chile; but it constitutes an interpretation of the laws determining the limits in question, which de- termination cannot be accepted by the Government of Peru. By the Treaty of Peace mentioned there was ceded to Chile the territory of the "littoral province of Tara- paca ; ' ' that is to say, the section of Peruvian territory known by that name. It is therefore indisputable, and the decree to which I refer accepts it, that the limit between Pisagua (the northern district of that pro- vince) and the province of Arica can be none other than the one pointed out by the Peruvian laws pre- vious to October 20, 1883. Tarapaca, before forming a separate territorial dis- trict, belonged up to 1837 to the department of Ar- equipa; from this year it came to form a part of the littoral department of Tacna, from December 1, 1868, it was raised to a littoral province, still having as its boundary the ravine and River Camarones. In har- mony with this demarcation, the census of 1876 pointed out as districts belonging to the littoral province of Tarapaca those districts of Iquique, Pica, Pisagua, 332 Tarapaca, Camilla, Chiapa, Sibaya, and Mamma, all situated to the south of the Camarones River, and from its principal affluent the Caritaya, It results, consequently, that even if that Treaty of Peace and Friendship of October 20, 1883, does not specify in detail the points which form the dividing line between the provinces of Tarapaca and Arica, the general terms which it employs, being* with reference to the demarcation which existed in conformity with Peru- vian laws, leave the boundary established with suffi- cient precision because, since the province of Tara- paca has been separated from the department of Tacna in order to form the littoral province which was later on ceded to Chile, it is clear that that which expressly was not included in the segregation continued in the principal section which was the department of Tacna, the province of Arica forming a part thereof, accord- ing to Peruvian demarcation. From what is explained above, it is deduced that the decree of your Government referred to, has adopted as a boundary the Eiver of Ajatama and the points which are indicated as a continuation, instead of having taken the River Caritaya and the places which belonged to it as a complement ; thus segregat- ing a section of the province of Arica which belongs to it in order to incorporate that section into Tarapaca. Such a right of property has been recognized by the Court of Appeals of Tacna in the sentence of December 6, 1901, which has protected the inhabitants of the prov- ince of Arica in the possession of the natural riches to be found south of the boundary established by the de- cree of May 4, and also by the distinguished Chilean engineer Sr. Renjifo, commissioned officially in 1898 by your Government to draw up a map of the Camarones region. 333 When one proceeded with a different standard, de- parting from the course marked by historical ante- cedents and by Peruvian laws, one has fallen into wrong conclusions and contradictions, there being re- vealed nevertheless the tendency to advance the true boundary of Tarapaca toward the north. Thus the Governor of Pisagua, in his report of March, 1900, and the Bureau of Geography and Mines of the Department of Public Works of Chile, main- tained that the limit between those provinces was con- stituted by the ravine of Humayane which opens into the ravine of Camarones on the right bank. There is a disagreement between previous opinions, and the re- port which soon afterwards was issued concerning this question by the Director of the Astronomical Observa- tory in Santiago. The conclusions to which Sr. Bert- rand the Director of the Boundary Bureau, arrives are also different and they are the same conclusions repro- duced in the decree of May 4th. All this shows that not even as a geographical work has the official opinion in Chile concerning these boundaries been consistent. May it be permitted to me, then, to conclude that the decree which is the subject of this protest is not founded on the true titles of the boundaries between the prov- inces of Arica and Tarapaca, and that upon making the boundary between them it has segregated a noticeable portion of land belonging to the first of these provinces concerning which Peru retains its rights to add it to the second province which was adjudged to .Chile by the Treaty of Ancon. By all that which has been explained, I make in the name of my Government the corresponding observa- tions with respect to that decree, in such a way that there may never be affected the rights of Peru in what concerns the boundary of the province of Arica, which 334 could not be established except with respect to its in- ternal regime. With this motive I offer you, Mr. Minister, the as- surance of my high and distinguished consideration. Albeeto Elmore. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Report Presented by Director of Boundary Office of Chile to Minister of Interior of Chile. [Translation.] Santiago, August 6, 1904. Mr. Minister: You have been kind enough to place before me the protest formulated before you, on the 16th of last month, by the Government of Peru, respecting decree Number 1786 of May 4th last, enacted by the Ministry of Interior, which sets out the points for the boundary line between the departments of Pisagua and Arica, east of Arepunta, which is the point of origin of the ravine and River Camarones. This protest, written, it seems, in ignorance of the report of the Boundaries Office which served as the basis for the decree, contains several mistakes in fact which I hasten to point out to you so that you may refer to them in your answer. Otherwise, silence in this respect might be interpreted as an acceptance. 1. In the first place, it is affirmed that the decree of May 4th "constitutes an interpretation of the laws that determine the boundaries in question. ' ' In the third paragraph of my report (Official Bulle- tin, Number 7901, page 1532), I have cited the Peru- vian laws of December 1, 1868, and of June 15, 1875, 335 neither of which is the basis for determining the boun- dary line in question, east of Arepunta. The decree of May 4th can not then contain an interpretation of a dis- position that does not exist. 2. The protest then affirms that, according to the census of 1876, all the districts of the province of Tara- paca, including that of Camina, were situated to the south of the Camarones River and of its chief tribu- tary, the Caritaya. In that part of my report already cited, I have called attention to the fact that the census of 1876 contains the proof to the effect that the district of Camina ex- tended to the north of the Caritaya River, as the town of Mullure which is situated to the north of the Cari- taya, is counted among the towns of the said district. The same report (Official Bulletin, already cited, page 1533) contains the minute depositions, taken from wit- nesses who were natives of Mullure — in which place a Lieutenant-Governor resided — depositions that do not leave any doubts as to the fact that the said town was under the jurisdiction of Camina and of Tarapaca. 3. The protest affirms that the decree of May 4 has separated a section of the province of Arica, to incor- porate it to the province of Tarapaca. The report upon which the decree is based, shows too well that there is not any such segregation. The Peruvian laws never determined the boundary line. The line was traditional, and drawn according to the testimonies that have been cited, which agreed with the geographic facts published by the ex-Congressman from Tarapaca and Vice-President of Peru, Sr. Bil- linghurst. The decree merely sets out the points which composed this old boundary line. 4. The protest affirms that the decision of the Court of Appeals of Tacna, December 6, 1901, has confirmed 336 that the section segregated belongs to the province of Arica and has protected the interests of its inhabitants regarding their possession of the natural riches of the region. The decision alluded to, of which I include a copy, does not confirm any right of possession nor does it protect any interests. On the contrary, it establishes that ' ' since the location of the borate deposits of Chil- caya or Surire is the fundamental reason for the suit" it is not possible to decide the question of jurisdiction promoted by such location, because that would be "to opine previously upon the main issue." The Court then confines itself to deciding that the issue shall be tried at Arica, as that is the domicile of the defendants. Thus the question of location is expressly left unde- cided. 5. The protest cites the opinion of the "distinguished Chilean engineer, Sr. Renjifo, who was appointed offi- cially by the Government of Your Excellency in 1898 for the purpose of drawing a map of the region of Camarones." In this respect, it is well to note that Sr. Agustin Renjifo, although having a subordinate position on the commission presided over by the Navy Captain, Sr. Arturo Wilson, was not appointed officially. Sr. Ren- jifo 's report, which contains the opinion that has been cited, is a private document, written at the request of private individuals who had an interest in the borax negotiation, and he never was invested with an official character. Besides, as I have demonstrated (Official Bulletin cited, page 1536), the geographic conclusions reached by Sr. Renjifo, as well as the map on which he bases such conclusions, are inexact. 6. The protest ends, stating that: "the decree which has brought about this protest is not based upon the 337 true titles of the boundary line between the provinces of Arica and Tarapaca." It is this denial that has led me to believe that the Peruvian protest has been written in ignorance of the facts that served as basis for the decree of May 4th, because documents Numbers 5, 33, 34, and 35, annexed to the report of October 1, 1903, precisely contain re- productions of the colonial boundary line between the parishes (now districts) of Codpa and Camina, recog- nized as such by the Chairman of the Peruvian Terri- torial Demarcation Commission in 1878. In the third and fourth paragraphs of the report, the modifications undergone in the colonial boundaries during the period of Peruvian rule, are carefully studied, as well as are their permanency during Chilean administration. Thus refuting, one by one, the arguments on which it is pretended to base the protest, I have come to be persuaded, with great satisfaction, Mr. Minister, that the boundary line as set out by the decree of May 4th, can not be impugned by Peru. The fact that the Foreign Department of that coun- try is not able to present other arguments in favor of the thesis that it sustains, than those that I have re- futed so easily, proves that no better arguments ex- ist, and that the titles of Tarapaca, established by the report of October 1, 1903, to the boundary line, as set out by the decree of May 4th, are good and solid. May God keep you. Alejandro Bertrand. To His Excellency, The Minister of Interior of Chile. 338 (Enclosure to Preceding Note.) Decision of the Judge of Pisagua on the Case of the Banco Aleman Transatlantico vs. Compania Mi- nera de Chilcaya. [Translation.] Pisagua, June 10, 1901. Having seen and taken into consideration: 1. That, as it is shown by the accompanying facts, this same question of jurisdiction has been raised in the action for the summary possession of the borate deposits, the replevying of which is now being de- manded, brought by Eujenio Marchant and others be- fore the Court at Arica. 2. That that question was decided in favor of the ju- dicial authority of that Department, without detriment to the rights that the defendants may set forth. 3. That, since the location of the borate deposits of Chilcaya or Surire is the fundamental consideration of the replevin suit, it is not possible to accept or deny the jurisdiction of the Court over the deposits, with- out opining previously upon the chief issue. 4. That, therefore, the general rule of the domicile of the defendants must be followed on this occasion, ac- cording to Article 212 of the Law of October 15, 1875, and that domicile, in the present case, is in the juris- diction to which they apply and in which they locate the domicile of the concern involved in this proceed- ing. For these reasons I declare myself unqualified to try the replevin suit, page 27, brought by the Banco Ale- man Transatlantico (German Transatlantic Bank) against the Compania Minera de Chilcaya (Mining Company of Chilcaya) and others, and therefore, these legal proceedings shall be sent to the Court of Arica. Poblete. — Martinez M., Secretary. 339 (Enclosure to Preceding Note.) Decision Given by the Court of Appeals of Tacna, on the Case of the Banco Aleman Transatlantic^ vs. Compania Minera de Chilcaya. [Translation.] Tacna, December 6, 1901. Whereas : For the reasons expressed in paragraphs 3 and 4, the decision of Jnne 10th last, appealed from, page 279, is hereby confirmed, with costs. Publish and return. Add to it the adequate paper. Garmendia Eeyes. Barros. Donoso Vildosola. Palacios. Cis- ternas Pena. Decided by the Honorable Court. Martinez R., Secretary. Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. [Translation.] Santiago, August 12, 1904. Mr. Minister: Under date of July 16th last, Your Excellency sent to this Department a note of protest with a view to establishing certain reservations with regard to the decree of the Government of Chile, No. 1,786, of May 4, last, in which the demarcation line of the northern boundary of Tarapaca is fixed, and to oppose not only the part containing the resolution of said decree, but also the considerations which served as basis for that resolution. Your Excellency states that although the reserva- tions formulated by that Chancellery in the note ad- dressed to the Legation of Chile in Peru on January 340 15, 1900, and the subsequent declaration that the Chilean representative made in his communication of the 17th of the same month to the effect that in no case could the resolution of his Government (on the bounda- ries of the subdelegations of Chilcaya and Surire), whatever they might be, affect the rights conferred upon Peru by the Treaty of Ancon, they would suffice to satisfy these rights against the undue scope which might be attributed to the recent decree of the Chilean Government, however, not only the part containing the resolution but the considerations upon which said de- cree has been based, oblige Your Excellency to safe- guard the territorial interests of the Peruvian prov- ince of Arica (which is in Chile included in the prov- ince of Tacna) which the Government of Peru con- sidered effected when addressing this Chancellery, doing so in a direct way in the absence of a Peruvian Legation in Chile and a Chilean Legation in Peru. Your Excellency adds that the above mentioned reso- lution does not constitute, in his opinion, a measure of internal administration in the territories subject to the authority of the Government of Chile, but that it constitutes an interpretation of the determining laws of the boundaries in question, which cannot be accepted by the Government of Peru. This appreciation is founded, according to the note of Your Excellency, in that the opposed decree, in its considerations, affirms that the Treaty of Ancon does not specify in detail the points which form the southern boundary of the province of Tarapaca and the north- ern boundary of Tacna (including that of Arica), start- ing from Arepunta, where meet the various branches which form the River Camarones ; and in which, before the last part, reference is made to a report and map presented by the Office of Boundaries, according to 341 which is determined in the field the line of demarcation which bounded the province of Tarapaca on the north at the time of its cession to Chile, a boundary which was maintained by the aforementioned Treaty and laws, and which is determined in this decree by the points therein mentioned. Your Excellency begins, then, to discuss the correctness of the line indicated in the decree referred to in order to arrive at the conclu- sion that it is not in conformity with and does not cor- respond to the boundary marked out by the Peruvian laws prior to October 20, 1883. From what has been explained it is deduced that your Government bases its protest on two considera- tions; that the Government of Chile has determined without the intervention of Peru the boundary which shall separate the Chilean province of Tarapaca from the province of Tacna, occupied by Chile and subject to its administration and to its laws ; and that the line of demarcation, pointed out in the decree of the Gov- ernment of Chile, is not in conformity with the Peru- vian laws previous to October 20, 1883. As in the first point, your reservations and protests are neither justified nor acceptable in so far as the Government of Chile has not intended, nor could it do so by an administrative decree, to fix by its own au- thority the northern boundary of the province of Tara- paca. The boundaries of this latter province are those mentioned in the Treaty of Ancon by virtue of which Peru gives perpetually and unconditionally to Chile the territory of the littoral province of Tarapaca; that is to say, all the territory which, under Peruvian domin- ion, constituted the province of Tarapaca. So then, the necessity of determining the scope of the action of administrative and judicial authorities, imposed upon the Government the obligation of de- 342 fining the boundary or the line of demarcation which corresponds to the expression river and ravine of Camarones employed in the Treaty of Ancon. This has been the object of the decree of May 4th issued by the Department of the Interior, which is based on the splendid report made by the Chief of the Boundary Office. This report establishes the geo- graphical, traditional, legal and administrative ante- cedents of the boundary between Tacna and Arica and the line of demarcation between Arepunta and the Bolivian frontier, which corresponds to the situation existing in that territory at the time of the cession of Tarapaca to Chile. Even though the study made by the Boundary Bureau and the data collected with respect to the northern boundary of the province of Tarapaca might serve, if necessity arose, as authorized and important antecedents for deciding the territorial rights of Chile and Peru, the decree contradicted by you, does not have the scope of fixing, changing or defining an interna- tional boundary, since, while the province of Tacna is under the power of Chile, any discussion or resolution concerning the matter would be inopportune and un- necessary. This declaration is in agreement with the answer given by the undersigned in his note of January 19, 1901, to the observations formulated at that time by the representative of Peru in Santiago on this same question, by reason of the steps taken then by that Government to define or to make precise the boun- daries of the departments of Arica and Pisagua. This communication read as follows: "The undersigned is not ignorant of the fact that if it were a question of defining the boundary between the Chilean territory of Tarapaca and 343 the territories of Tacna and Arica, with the object of determining the extent of the sovereignty of Chile, the case would arise of granting intervention to all the Governments interested in the fixing of the boundary. "But, since the measures adopted by this Gov- ernment are intended only to solve difficulties of internal order in connection with the competence or incompetence of the authorities to know the matters which are under their jurisdiction, and these measures still being claimed by the private individuals' who wish to render their rights valid in a legal way, there would be no reason to attrib- ute to the resolution adopted by the Department of the Interior any other scope or meaning than that of an administrative measure destined to satisfy necessities of good public service in the departments of Tacna and Arica. "Neither could it be supposed that the defini- tion of the boundary which separates the two de- partments of the Republic, by means of a supreme decree, amounts to an extraordinary measure out- side our legal regime. "The aforementioned decrees on this same sub- ject are proof of this fact. "The Treaty of Ancon is a law of the Repub- lic of Chile. Therein are fixed the boundaries of the provinces of Tarapaca, and of Tacna and Arica subject to Chilean legislation. "All measures intended to determine the scope of action of the authorities, to solve difficulties or conflicts arising in the internal or administrative order, are to be decided exclusively by the Gov- ernment of Chile which has in Tacna and Arica the same powers which, according to the legisla- tion of the country, it exercises in the rest of the Republic. "Tt not being a question of settling a contro- versy relative to boundaries with the Government of Peru, which has not arisen, but of settling, 344 within the powers of the Government, conflicts which have arisen, in the internal or administra- tive order, the undersigned does not believe that there is cause to attribute an international char- acter to this matter." The considerations above stated and which refer to preparatory measures of the resolution which this Government has recently issued, are wholly appli- cable to the resolution itself, that is, to the decree which the Government of Your Excellency has op- posed. The undersigned, therefore, has nothing more to add to justify the measure adopted and to establish its ob- ject and its true scope. With regard to the reasons which Your Excellency sets forth for considering that the line of demarcation fixed in the decree of May 4th is not in conformity with the Peruvian laws prior to October 20, 1883, and which "segregates a section of the province of Arica, which belongs to it, in order to incorporate it to that of Tarapaca," I shall not follow Your Excellency into a discussion which is not opportune nor has any object, but I shall refer to the report of the Chief of the Office of Boundaries which served as basis for said de- cree and which probably Your Excellency did not have at hand when addressing your communication of pro- test of July 16th, and to the report of the same official in which are rectified the errors contained in this part of the observations of Your Excellency. I enclose herewith, to that effect, a printed copy of the first of those reports and a copy of the second. With the above statements, I make answer to the note of Your Excellency and prove ineffective the scope of protest against the proceedings that this Gov- 345 ernment has adopted within its right and the respect of the stipulations which bind it with the Government of Peru. I take pleasure in offering to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and sincerest consideration. Emilio Bello. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. Declaratory Act Signed by Minister of Foreign Rela- tions of Chile, and Minister of Bolivia to Chile. [Translation.] November 15, 1904. In Santiago on November 15, 1904, met in the Min- istry of Foreign Relations of Chile the Minister of the Department, Don Luis A. Vergara, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bo- livia, Don Alberto Gutierrez, the Minister of Foreign Relations stated: That inasmuch as Article II of the Treaty of Peace and Amity signed October 20th last, refers to the territories occupied by Chile in virtue of Article 2 of the Truce Agreement of April 4, 1884 — that is, to those included between the River Loa on the north and parallel 23 on the south — and inasmuch as the at- titude which Chile has always taken with reference to the territory between parallels 23 and 24 south latitude has been objected to by the Government of Bolivia on various occasions, he considers it expedient to have it clearly understood that the Government of Bolivia recognizes the absolute and perpetual sov- 346 ereignty of Chile in these last-named territories, from the sea to the present boundary with the Argentine Republic. He added, notwithstanding the fact that it is to be understood from the spirit of said Treaty that in view of the circumstances which gave rise to it, the Government of Chile reserves full liberty to examine into, pass judgment upon, and liquidate the debts enumerated in Article V, as likewise that, outside of these obligations, the Government of Chile takes no responsibility for any other debt of the Gov- ernment of Bolivia, whatever its nature and origin. He deemed it advisable to have it on record that this was the scope and meaning of the referred to Article V. The Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo- tentiary of Bolivia replied that, duly authorized by his Government, he had no objection to making the declaration asked for by the Minister of Foreign Re- lations, viz., that the Government of Bolivia recog- nizes the absolute and perpetual sovereignty of Chile in the territory situated between parallels 23 and 24 south latitude from the sea to the present boundary of the Argentine Republic. He also accepts the in- terpretation which the Minister of Foreign Relations gives to Article V, and declares, therefore, that the Government of Chile shall have complete liberty to examine into, pass judgment upon, and liquidate said debts; that beyond these obligations it takes the re- sponsibility of no other debt of the Government of Bolivia, whatever its nature and origin, and that this last-named Government will furnish to the Govern- ment of Chile all the data at its disposal with re- ference to said debts. Finally, Senor Gutierrez stated that for his part he would like to have it put on record in this con- 347 f erence that the minimum rebate of 10 per cent granted the national and manufactured products of Chile re- ferred to in the Protocol signed in this city October 20th last, should be maintained as an obligation only for the time during which the counter-guarantee to be given by Chile in conformity with Article III of the Treaty of Peace and Amity remains in force. The Minister of Foreign Relations stated that this limitation exists in the preliminaries of the Treaty of Peace and that he had no objections to accepting it in the terms indicated by the Minister of Bolivia. For the purposes of record they agreed to protoco- lize this Conference, signing and sealing this minute in duplicate. Luis A. Vergara. A. Gutierrez. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] Ministry of Foreign Relations, Lima, February 18, 1905. Mr. Minister : In the second Clause of the Treaty of Peace and Amity that has just been concluded between the Re- publics of Chile and Bolivia is given a complete demar- cation of boundaries, in which is comprised in a direc- tion from south to north, that of the territories of the provinces of Arica and Tacna, and a part also of that of Tarata. In the third Clause, it is likewise agreed to connect the port of Arica with the Alto de la Paz by a railway, for the construction of which the Government of Chile 348 will contract at its expense, within the period of a year reckoned from the ratification of the Treaty; it being further stipulated that the execution of the enterprise and its exploitation, as well as commercial traffic through the port of Arica, shall be determined by spe- cial agreements, concessions and engagements^ accord- ing to the aforementioned Article III and to Articles VII, X and XI. These covenants compel my Government to address to Your Excellency the present note, the object of which is to make express protest and reservation of the rights of Peru, in respect of these stipulations. By the Treaty of Peace concluded at Ancon, October 20, 1883, Peru ceded to Chile the perpetual ownership of the territories of the province of Tarapaca, and the possession of those of Tacna and Arica for the period of ten years, reckoned from the exchange of ratifica- tions of the Treaty, which took place on March 28, 1884. It was stipulated that: "after the expiration of this period, a plebiscite will decide by popular vote, whether the territory of the aforementioned provinces of Tacna and Arica shall remain definitively under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile, or whether it shall con- tinue to be a part of the Peruvian territory. Whichsoever of the two countries to which the provinces of Tacna and Arica shall become an- nexed will pay to the other ten million pesos, in Chilean silver coin or in Peruvian soles of an equal standard and weight as the foregoing. ' ' This engagement is an essential part of the Treaty of Peace, so much so that it was expressly stipulated that even the protocol that would determine the form of the plebiscite and the conditions and time for the 349 payment of the ten millions by the country that should remain in possession of Tacna and Arica "will be con- sidered an integral part of the Treaty. ' ' By this Treaty, therefore, Peru ceded to Chile the absolute ownership of the territories of the province of Tarapaca and mere possession of Tacna and Arica, the dominion over which had not been renounced by Peru, but their definitive position was submitted to the plebiscite, which, it was stipulated, ought to be held ten years from the ratification of said Treaty, that is, on March 28, 1914. In order completely to safeguard the rights of Peru from every stipulation by which they may be affected by the Treaty of Peace between Chile and Bolivia, it is sufficient to consider that in the Treaty of Ancon of 1883, one of the contracting parties was the same Re- public of Chile; and that the Republic of Bolivia, be- sides having had an exceptional knowledge of and in- terest in those acts, has always recognized the rights of Peru over the territories of Tacna and Arica, it being very proper to recall and very just to emphasize the fact that, in the recent Treaty for the Delimitation of Frontiers and of Arbitration, which she concluded with Peru on September 23, 1902, and which was rati- fied on January 30 of last year, the following was stipulated in the second Clause: "The high contracting parties further agree to proceed, in conformity with the stipulations of the present Treaty, to the demarcation of the line that separates the provinces of Tacna and Arica from the Bolivian province of Carangas, immediately after they shall again be under the sovereignty of Peru." These being the facts and the condition established by the Treaty of Ancon, in respect of the territories of 350 the provinces of Tacna and Arica, they may not be modified or affected by treaties or stipulations in which Peru has not participated; but my Government con- siders that its imperative duty, in representation and defense of the national interests, compels it to make a new avowal of its imperishable rights, on the ground of the aforementioned stipulations of the Treaty of Peace concluded by Your Excellency's Government with that of Bolivia. Demarcation of frontiers, railway works and ex- ploitation, conditions of free commercial traffic, obli- gations and concessions that may affect the territories and their seigniorial rights, are acts of dominion in ex- ercise of the full and absolute disposal of property and sovereignty, which belong, by indisputable interna- tional and civil law, only to the lord and owner, and not to the possessor or mere occupant, which is the position of Chile in the territories of Tacna and Arica. For the purpose in view, it was necessary that these arrangements should have been made in concurrence with Peru, or that the plebiscite to which they were subject by the Treaty of Ancon should have decided in favor of Chile. Neither the one thing nor the other has been done, so that my Government is compelled to declare that Peru does not accept or recognize these arrangements to which she has not been a party; that they are not binding on her therefore, in any manner or at any time, and, furthermore, that they may not modify the legal position of the territories of Tacna and Arica, in re- spect of which Peru continues to be lord of the domain, and Chile, a mere occupant and holder, whose legal title expired ten years ago, when the plebiscite to which the Treaty of Ancon refers ought to have been effected. My Government would not have, of course, to make 351 these declarations and reservations, if said provinces were not in an irregular and anomalous position, which can not possibly continue to exist. The period stipulated in the Treaty of Ancon for the determination, by a plebiscite, of the definitive fate of the provinces of Tacna and Arica expired, in truth, on March 28, 1894; and, nevertheless, this plebiscite has not been held, although the protocol for its execu- tion, which was an integral part of the Treaty of 1883, was concluded on April 16, 1898. When that protocol was approved by the two Gov- ernments and by the Congress of Peru and the Senate of Chile, the Chamber of Deputies of Chile, without ex- pressing itself as to the Treaty, voted that the points that ought to be settled by arbitration should be agreed on directly between the two Governments, in order to carry into effect Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, with a view to which it instructed Your Ex- cellency's Government to take the respective steps, which have not been taken hitherto. The question of Tacna and Arica is not an unsolved problem regarding which the two countries may freely contract, as they may deem most in harmony with their interests. It is an international affair, governed by a treaty, binding on the two nations that concluded it and that both sealed with their public faith. Every reason of expediency that might be contemplated is overborne by the rigid precepts of justice and an im- perative respect for contracted treaties, which may not possibly be violated without committing the gravest offense against law, civilization and the respectability of nations. The stipulations contained by the Treaty of Peace between Chile and Bolivia relative to the provinces of Tacna and Arica render it even more urgent that steps 352 be taken to the immediate execution of the plebiscite provided for in the Treaty of Ancon; for it is incon- sistent that this Treaty should not have been carried into effect, and, nevertheless, that one of the parties should enter, with a third party, into treaties that are necessarily subject to the definitive position of those territories, which ought to be decided by the plebiscite provided- for in said Treaty of Peace on October 23, 1883. Your Excellency knows quite well with what a per- severing, honorable and solicitous purpose the Gov- ernment of Peru, has on its part, endeavored to have the plebiscite effected in the provinces of Tacna and Arica, as it has never been attributable to my Govern- ment that this design has not been accomplished; a consummation that is imperatively demanded by the sense of justice and the higher interests of the two countries, pledged by their national honor to the ful- fillment of said Treaty. In the meantime there has arisen in that province a unique international situation, for there are no pre- cedents, in the history of political relations between nations, of a territory subject to a plebiscite, by a pub- lic and binding treaty between two countries, which remains, nevertheless, de facto, in the power of one of them, after the expiration of the period that was set for the expression of the popular will that was to de- cide their definitive fate. This anomalous and singular situation is contrary to the Treaty of Ancon; and, after the expiration of the ten years of precarious possession of the territories of Tacna and Arica, which this Treaty awarded to Chile, it prevents the latter from modifying, in any manner whatsoever, the situation of those territories and from contracting public obligations and engagements that 353 may affect them, she still being deprived of the posses- sory status, which, in the sight of the law, does not exist, when there is no legal title that upholds it. I must protest, in like manner, that the demarcation of frontiers contained in the Treaty of Peace between Chile and Bolivia includes a part of the territory of the province of Tarata, which Chile unwarrantably oc- cupied and continues to retain. When the stipulations were made, in the Treaty of Ancon, in respect of the province of Tacna, the terri- tories which, according to their political and geo- graphical delimitation constituted the province of Tar- ata, — to which that Treaty did not refer in any manner whatsoever, — could not have been included to that province. Those territories were not comprised, in any con- tingency, within the line established by the source of the Sama River which the Treaty of Ancon indicates as the northern boundary of the province of Tacna, from its rise in the Cordilleras that form the boundary with Bolivia to its discharge into the ocean, for the true source of this river is indisputable, as has been, set forth by the Government of Peru in the constant demands it has formulated to that of Your Excellency regarding this point. The undersigned doubts not that the rectitude of Your Excellency and Your Excellency's Government must recognize these facts and must agree with my Government that the stipulations of the Treaty of Peace and Amity concluded between the Eepublics of Chile and Bolivia may not modify the situation of the territories of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, sub- ject to the Treaty of Ancon ; and he holds, besides, that whatsoever be the agreements reached regarding them, they may not at any time or in any manner, be binding 354 on Peru, inasmuch as she has not been a party to such agreements; just as, in like manner, they may not affect her territorial rights over ■ the provinces of Tacna, Arica and Tarata. Be pleased, Mr. Minister, to receive the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration. J. Pkado y Ugarteche. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. [Translation.] Ministry of Foreign Belations, Santiago, March 15, 1905. Mr. Minister: This Ministry has received Your Excellency's com- munication, dated February 18 just past, in which Your Excellency sets forth that he made "express protest and reservation of the rights of Peru" because of the stipulations contained in the second and third Clauses of the Treaty of Peace and Amity of October 20, 1904, the first of which refers to the demarcation of frontiers between Chile and Bolivia ; and the second, to the construction of a railway that will connect the port of Arica with the Alto de la Paz. Your Excellency bases his protest on the fact that, by the Treaty of Ancon, "Peru ceded to Chile the absolute ownership of the territories of the province of Tarapaca and mere possession of Tacna and Arica, the dominion 355 over which had not been renounced by Peru, but their definitive position was subject to the plebi- scite, which, it was stipulated, ought to be held ten years from the ratification of said Treaty, that is, on March 28, 1894." Your Excellency adds that, "demarcation of frontiers, railway works and ex- ploitation, conditions of free commercial traffic, obligations and concessions that may affect the territories and their seigniorial rights, are acts of dominion in exercise of the full and absolute dis- posal of property and sovereignty, which belong, by indisputable international and civil law, only to the lord and owner, and not to the possessor or mere occupant, which is the position of Chile in the territories of Tacna and Arica. ' ' This is not the first time that the Government of Peru has deemed it necessary to protest regarding political and administrative measures adopted by the Government of Chile in the territories of Tacna and Arica; and since, on the one hand, Your Excellency's note is based on considerations similar to those that are adduced in the protests mentioned, and since, on the other, Your Excellency is careful to express that his principal object is to make it clear that the Treaty of Peace and Amity to which Your Excellency refers is binding only on the Republics of Chile and Bolivia, and not on the Republic of Peru — a fact, this latter, that my Government has never placed in doubt — I might, indeed, limit myself to reproducing the replies that this Ministry has given opportunely to the Peru- vian Chancellery. Nevertheless, in view of the good disposition that exists in my country, to cultivate friendly relations 356 with Your Excellency's, I am pleased to take on myself the duty of making it clear that the acts against which Your Excellency protests not only are not contrary to the Treaty of Ancon, but that, in agreeing to their accomplishment, the Government of Chile has pro- ceeded in the exercise of the indisputable rights that were accorded by that Treaty. Your Excellency maintains that the Treaty of Ancon reserves to Peru the dominion of Tacna and Arica and that she only conferred on Chile a mere precarious oc- cupation; and, referring then to the rules of interna- tional and civil law, Your Excellency adds that Chile may not accomplish in these territories any act of dominion or sovereignty without the acquiescence of Peru. It is not difficult to demonstrate that this inter- terpretation is not in accord either^with the letter or the spirit of the Treaty mentioned. In truth, Your Excellency is not unaware that a por- tion of territory belongs to the State ,which, with ade- quate title, is empowered to occupy it and subject it to its authorities and laws; and, as the third Article of said Treaty provides that the territory of the prov- inces of Tacna and Arica "will continue to be pos- sessed by Chile and subject to Chilean legislation and authorities/ ' it is evident that Peru ceded to Chile the free and absolute sovereignty over these provinces, without any limitation as to their exercise, and limited only in respect of their duration by the event that a plebiscite — which ought to be called after the passage of ten years, reckoned from the ratification of that Treaty — should so declare. The period of ten years set by the Treaty of Ancon had no other object than to insure to Chile a minimum of time in the exercise of sovereignty; but it signi- fies in nowise that during it there ought necessarily to 357 be an appeal to the popular deliberation. This point has been considered in previous communications that are in the possession of the Peruvian Chancellery. Those communications also prove that the delay in the convocation of the plebiscite may not be attributed to Chile. " After the expiration of this period," Article III adds, "a plebiscite will decide, by popular vote, whether the territory of the aforementioned provinces of Tacna and Arica shall remain definitively under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile, or whether it shall continue to be a part of the Peruvian territory. ' ' In order that this territory may remain definitively under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile, this country must have exercised and must continue to ex- ercise these rights temporarily. The word * ' continue, ' ' which Your Excellency underscores in his communi- cation, does not refer to the situation prior to the Treaty, but to the one that may occur after the plebi- scite shall have been convoked, since, otherwise, there would exist a contradiction in the terms of Article III, of which those that drafted it could not have been guilty. The rights of Chile and of Peru, in respect of the provinces of Tacna and Arioa, as they are defined in the Treaty of Ancon, are therefore quite different: the right of Chile is present and complete, but, not defini- tive ; the right of Peru is merely eventual. The scope that my Government attaches to Article III of the Treaty of Ancon has in its support not only the explicit terms of that Treaty, but also the recent declarations that Your Excellency's Government has made to a friendly state. In Article II of the Treaty of Demarcation of Fron- tiers concluded between Peru and Bolivia on Septem- 358 ber 23, 1902, ratified on January 30, 1904, which Your Excellency so opportunely transcribes in the note to which I am replying runs thus : ' ' The high contracting parties agree to proceed, in conformity with the stipulations of the present Treaty, to the demarcation of the line that sepa- rates the provinces of Tacna and Arica from the Bolivian province of Carangas, immediately after they shall again be under the sovereignty of Peru." Your Excellency's Government therefore recognizes, expressly, in this Treaty that the provinces of Tacna and Arica are not at present under the sovereignty of Peru, which is the same as recognizing, in an explicit manner, that the latter is exercised by Chile; and if consideration be given to the body of rights that terri- torial sovereignty carries with it, Your Excellency will understand that the protest he formulates is not in ac- cord with a recognition as categorical as it is spon- taneous. It is true that Your Excellency maintains in several parts of his communication that Peru has retained do- minion over those territories, that she "continues to be lord of the domain" in them. However, Your Excellency is not unaware, doubtless, that the tradi- tional doctrine of dominion or ownership that a state exercises over the territory subject to its jurisdiction tends to disappear absolutely from modern interna- tional law, and that it only applies, without contradic- tion, in civil law, which does not govern relations be- tween states. On the other hand, even in that doctrine, it is well known, "that dominion throughout the whole extent of its possessions pertains exclusively to territorial 359 sovereignty and that only from this point of view and considering the international position of a state alone, may it be said that it is the proprietor of its territory. ' ' The convention concluded between Peru and Bolivia demonstrates, besides, that the latter Republic has taken into consideration the international position of Tacna and Arica in making two treaties relative to the demarcation of her frontiers : one of them with Chile, the country that at present exercises sovereignty and dominion in those territories ; and the other with Peru, which has only a mere expectation of exercising them. In the Treaty concluded with Chile, is stipulated the boundary that the two countries have fixed between themselves in the provinces of Tacna and Arica ; in the one concluded with Peru, it is declared that the two countries shall fix that boundary by common consent, in case these provinces return to the sovereignty of Peru. The expectations of Peru are, therefore, care- fully considered in the two Treaties. Your Excellency has also deemed it opportune to call the attention of this Government to the fact that, " there are no precedents in the history of politi- cal relations between nations, of a territory sub- ject to a plebiscite, by a public and binding treaty between two countries, which remains, neverthe- less, de facto, in the power of one of them, after the expiration of the period that was set for the expression of the popular will that was to decide their definitive fate." It is almost superfluous to explain to Your Excel- lency that the precedents he invokes in the paragraph transcribed can not exist, because all the international plebiscites that have been effected during the last two 360 centuries have been but a devised means or one for sanctioning an annexation already made, such as those that took place in the period of the French Kevolution, or to soften an annexation or a cession agreed on be- forehand, such as those that took place in the nine- teenth century. The result, as a natural consequence, was always favorable to the annexing country, which never beheld in them a questioning of her rights, but only a mere formality. It is not out of place to remind Your Excellency that the Treaty of Prague of August 23, 1866, concluded be- tween Prussia and Austria, stipulated the plebiscite in favor of the Danish population of Schleswig, occu- pied by Prussia ; but that stipulation was rendered in- effective by a later convention, because the Austrian Government, viewing events, not as it and the Danish population desired, but in conformity with the reality of things, recognized the annexation of that portion of territory to Prussia as an accomplished fact. The conclusion clearly to be drawn from diplomatic precedents as to plebiscites is that their stipulation has never had any other object than that of arriving, in a manner regardful of national feeling, at a cession or annexation of territory. Your Excellency is not unaware, besides, that modern diplomacy has devised other procedures to cloak terri- torial cessions or annexations. It would be impossible to enter into an analysis of these procedures or to re- view the numerous cases in which they have been ap- plied, within the limits to which this reply must be confined. Nevertheless, it is not out of place to recall that, although apparently some of them have been limited to the simple occupation and administration of terri- tory, it has been considered that they have been tanta- 361 mount, de facto, to a cession that has entitled the occu- pying state to exercise in the occupied one the rights inherent to dominion and sovereignty. I do not attempt, of course, to compare these cases to the situation that exists in the territory of Tacna and Arica, in respect of which there is a treaty that expressly confers on Chile a sovereignty that is full and absolute in respect of its exercise and is only limited by the outcome of a condition. These facts and antecedents will justify the declara- tion that I make to Your Excellency, that the Govern- ment of Chile does not admit that that of Peru should disregard the unquestionable right it possesses to exer- cise acts of dominion and sovereignty in the provinces of Tacna and Arica and to consider them as an integral part of Chilean territory, until a plebiscite — which it has been impossible to call hitherto, because of circum- stances that this Chancellery has already had occasion to analyze and explain to Your Excellency's Govern- ment — shall decide whether the provinces mentioned shall be reincorporated or not with the territory of Peru. Chile can now fulfill, and she will fulfill even more than in the past, the duty of giving to those prow inces the greatest sum of material and moral welfare, and of applying to them all the measures of order and progress that may be necessary to strengthen unity of sentiment and interests that may enable her — in har- mony with the solemn provisions of the Treaty of Ancon and without prejudicing or jeopardizing the ex- pectations of Peru — to acquire definitively the do- minion and sovereignty of Tacna and Arica. Finally, I ought to express to Your Excellency that, to the firmness with which I uphold the incontroverti- ble rights of my country, I am pleased to add the sin- cerity with which, in the name of my Government, I 362 invite Your Excellency to seek an accord based on the interests and expediencies of the two Republics and actuated by the same purposes as those with which Chile has terminated all questions with the other con- tiguous states. In this realm, which is that of reality in the existence of peoples, the accord between Chile and Peru would be immediate, full and enduring. Your Excellency can be assured that if the Government of Chile aspires to this definitive arrangement, it is be- cause it desires to move in harmony with the course in- dicated by events and because it is thoroughly con- vinced that moral, political and economic solidarity is the fundamental law of nations. Be pleased, Mr. Minister, to receive the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Luis A. Vergara. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Pern. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] Ministry of Foreign Relations, Lima, April 25, 1905. Mr. Minister: The Secretary of the Legation of Chile has de- livered to this office Your Excellency's note of March 15 last. Your Excellency recognizes in it that the stipu- lations of the Treaty of Peace and Amity, concluded by Chile with Bolivia on October 20, 1904, which gave rise to my Government's note of protest of February 363 18 last can not bind or affect Peru in respect of the rights which, according to the Treaty of Ancon, she retains over the provinces of Tacna and Arica; but at the same time, Your Excellency has seen fit to adduce divers considerations designed to prove that Chile exercises temporary sovereignty and dominion in these provinces, thus maintaining theories that are incompatible with the letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Ancon and with the fundamental principles of international law. By its very nature, sovereignty, which is the su- preme faculty of peoples to constitute and govern themselves and to act freely and independently, and dominion, which is also the right to the free and ab- solute disposal of property — both representing the plenitude of nationality, political government and ter- ritorial rights — are incompatible with a situation that is provisional, precarious and for a fixed time, at the expiration of which, according to an international treaty, a decision ought to be reached as to the sov- ereignty and dominion that are claimed. In the exercise of sovereignty, a people has the power to decide as to nationality and seigniorial rights, and in the exercise of dominion, that of dis- posing of territorial property: powers that can not exist while the nationality and seigniory of the ter- ritories to which these rights refer are pending. There are examples of a limitation in the extent of the rights of sovereignty and dominion, as in the ancient fiction of semi-sovereign states, and in the situation of protected and tributary states and ter- ritories; but full and absolute sovereignty and do- minion may not be granted for a limited time and on a contingent condition, for the characteristic of firm- ness and the effects of perpetuity constitute essential 364 attributes of those rights, the subsistence and exer- cise of which are incompatible with a state in which the nationality, to which sovereignty belongs, and the personality of the owner, to which dominion pertains, are subject to the result of a plebiscite still to be held. Nor is it sustainable, in the eyes of public law, that sovereignty and dominion may be acquired, apart from cases of force, without the cession of the sov- ereign and owner of the territory. To Peru belonged the provinces of Tacna and Arica. By the Treaty of Ancon of October 20, 1883, she ceded perpetually and unconditionally to Chile the territory of Tarapaca. As to the territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, she agreed textually, that: "it will continue to be possessed by Chile and sub- ject to Chilean legislation and authorities during the period of ten years, reckoned from the ratifica- tion of the present Treaty of Peace. After the expiration of this period, a plebiscite will decide, by popular vote, whether the territory of the aforementioned provinces of Tacna and Arica shall remain definitively under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile, or whether it shall con- tinue to be a part of the Peruvian territory. ' ' This Treaty is wholly clear and precise, and it can give rise to no doubt whatsoever. The territories of Tacna and Arica were at that- time under the military occupation of Chile, with the character and effects of the simple tenancy and pro- visional administration that are uniformly assigned to her by the law of nations. In the Treaty of Ancon, it was expressly agreed that this possession should continue for a peremp- 365 tory period; but there was no cession of sovereignty and dominion, which was carefully stipulated in re- spect of the province of Tarapaca, and reserved in respect of those of Tacna and Arica for the decision of the plebiscite, which, at the end of ten years, ex- pired on March 28, 1894, was to have settled de- finitively the fate of the provinces indicated. It is possible, by extension, to comprehend the par- ticular within the general, the accessory within the principal, the accidental within the essential; but it is impossible, in opposition to the realm of ideas and to all legal principle, to proceed in a contrary manner, and understand sovereignty and dominion within pos- session and its effects, which is all that was stipu- lated in the Treaty of Ancon during the ten years of Chilean occupation of the territories of Tacna and Arica. Your Excellency, in the effort to support his theory of temporary sovereignty and independence, invokes the recent Treaty on the demarcation of frontiers concluded between Peru and Bolivia, on September 23, 1903, in which it was agreed: Article IT. The high contracting parties equally agree to proceed, according to the stipulations of the present Treaty, to the demarcation of the line that separates the provinces of Tacna and Arica from the Bolivian province of Carangas, immedi- ately after they shall be again under the sover- eignty of Peru. Your Excellency's enlightened judgment will easily comprehend that in the Treaty mentioned sovereignty and dominion over the provinces under discussion be- long to Peru, and that she has not renounced them, although it is recognized that the exercise of them is 366 suspended, as is the reality of facts, as a consequence of the Treaty of Ancon. In the political realm, as in the civil, the exercise of a right may he in suspense, in divers cases, but the right in itself does not disappear, save for causes that legally extinguish or transfer it. On the other hand, there can be no exercise of a right that is not possessed, either by a title of one's own or by transfer by the one to whom it belongs and who has not renounced it. It is not contrary to the incontrovertible force of those principles of universal legislation that, until the definitive situation of the provinces of Tacna and Arica shall be decided, they shall be subject, in the internal and civil sense, to the Chilean authorities and legislation, which is the true and only situation established by the Treaty of Peace of 1883 In the provinces of Tacna and Arica during the ten years of possession that was granted to Chile : a title that legally ceased after the expiration of the period. Your Excellency insinuates the idea that the date on which the plebiscite was to be effected was not peremptorily fixed in the Treaty of Ancon; but there can be no doubt as to whether it was stipulated in it that the plebiscite was to be held on the expiration of the ten years of occupation, that is, on March 28, 1894, without its being materially necessary to in- dicate that date; for it would be justly determined by designating it by years, which began to be reckoned, according to the Treaty, after it was ratified. When the Treaty of Ancon was negotiated and ap- proved, and afterward, at all times, the Chilean Chancellery understood it thus, invariably, without ever having maintained any contrary opinion. 367 Finally, Your Excellency has deemed it useful to recall cases that he regards as territorial cessions cloaked by means of plebiscites, but whatsoever be the opinion that it is sought to reach regarding them, they do not bear on the entirely different and par- ticular situation that was categorically and loyally agreed to in the Treaty of Ancon. In the peace negotiation between Chile and Peru that preceded the Treaty of Ancon, Chile exacted, in addition to the cession of Tarapaca — whose im- portance and wealth has exceeded all her calcula- tions — an indemnity in money of twenty million pesos, which was not accepted by Peru. The Chilean negotiators then proposed that of com- pensating her by the sale and cession of the territories of the provinces of # Tacna and Arica, which was also rejected absolutely by the Peruvian negotiators. As a final result and without any other understand- ing relative to the case, an agreement was arrived at on the stipulation of the Treaty of Ancon, by which the said territories continued in the possession of Chile for ten years, at the expiration of which a plebiscite was to be held to settle, by popular vote, the question of their definitive sovereignty and do- minion, with the obligation, on the part of the country in whose favor the plebiscite might decide, to pay ten million pesos to the other contracting party. These are the true antecedents of those negotiations and they are fully confirmed in the memorial presented by the Chilean Chancellery to the National Congress in 1883 : a document of authentic force and value to Your Excellency, in which, on the submission of the Treaty to the approval of the Congress of Chile, was presented a detailed history of said negotiations, which concludes with these words: 368 "If the result of the plebiscite should restore the region of Tacna and Arica to the dominion of Peru, it would be in keeping with the loyal and honorable policy of Chile to respect the decision of those peoples, she limiting herself to receiving a pecuniary compensation of ten million pesos, which together with the revenues that would have accrued to us in the meantime from the occupation of those territories for ten years, would exceed, without any doubt, what we had demanded on the same grounds in the bases proposed in 1881 and 1882." Peru therefore, by the explicit and categorical stipu- lations of the Treaty of Ancon, ceded directly and definitively the very valuable province of Tarapaca, but in respect of Tacna and Arica, she did not accept any other stipulation than the one expressly contained in that international Treaty, under the public and inviolable faith of the two countries that concluded it. This is also recognized by Your Excellency, although he deduced from the said Treaty the erroneous opin- ions that my Government is compelled to rectify by the present note. The lack of accord in respect of so important and delicate a matter demonstrates still more the im- perative necessity that I have expressed to Your Ex- cellency in my former communication of February 18 last, of carrying into effect the Treaty of Ancon by holding the plebiscite agreed on in it, which ought to have been effected eleven years ago. Your Excellency informs me that the delay is not attributable to Chile. This Chancellery holds that it is very easy for it to prove that Peru has always been disposed to the immediate execution of the plebi- scite that was stipulated in the said Treaty. 369 However, since Your Excellency appreciates, any- way, the absolute and just necessity of ending this anomalous and irregular international situation, you invite my Government to negotiate and settle de- finitively this transcendent affair. The Government of my country is highly pleased to accept Your Excellency's invitation to negotiate the fulfillment of the Treaty of Ancon in respect of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, it being convinced at the same time that nothing would contribute more to strengthen the cordial relations that Your Excel- lency assures me ought to unite the American peoples for the achievement of their solidary destinies than the faithful discharge of their international engage- ments and the relating of their reciprocal interests. Be pleased, Your Excellency, to accept once more the assurances of my high and distinguished consider- ation. J. Prado y Ugarteche. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreiassing over the extemporaneous and extra-official ones of Don Luis Aldunate, by those enunciated in 1883 (the year of the Treaty) in the memorial of that functionary, in his capacity as Min- ister of Foreign Relations. It was because it was not a disguised cession that, on August 10, 1892— that is before March 28, 1894, on which date the covenanted decade expired — Senor Larrabure invited the Plenipotentiary, Senor Vial Solar, to elaborate a plebiscitary protocol; and the conferences, at first verbal, continued for an extended period of years, sometimes in the same manner, some- times in writing, both in Lima, with representatives of Chile, and in Santiago, with the many statesmen that succeeded one another in La Moneda, 1 although not one of them ever overcame the inconsistency of these undertakings. i The National Executive Mansion of Chile. — The translator. 394 On the contrary, foreseeing the possible triumph of Peru in the plebiscite, Senor Lira asked for guaranties of the payment of the indemnity; and the Government of Chile upheld its proposal, always rejected, as to the increase on its part, by some millions of the ten millions indicated, in case the Treaty were modified and an agreement should be reached as to the definitive ces- sion. In the first Clause of the Chilean-Bolivian Treaty of May 18, 1895, as to transfer of territories, Chile obli- gates herself to cede to Bolivia those of Tacna and Arica "if she should acquire them as a consequence of the plebiscite that is to be held in conformity with the Treaty of Ancon;" in the third Clause "she en- gages to use all her endeavors to obtain in definitive ownership" the said territories; and in the fourth Clause she enters into a subsidiary engagement in case ' ' she might not be able to obtain in the plebiscite or by direct arrangements definitive sovereignty in the zone in which are situated the cities of Tacna and Arica. ' p It is obvious that when the agreement was made as to abandonment, Chile did not have in view — as she had in this Treaty of 1895 and in the additional and explanatory protocols of December 9 of the same year and of April 30, 1896 — the possibility of a vote in favor of Peru. Therefore, in ratification of the earlier declarations, the Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile asserted, in his Memorial of 1894, that the Treaty of October 20 "has deferred to a later treaty, consecrated by a solemn treaty, and of absolutely uncertain results, the adjudication of the dominion of those territories." In his Message of 1900, the President Sehor Erra- zuriz, said, on his part, that "in the Treaty of Peace the definitive nationality of the territories of Tacna and Arica remained undecided.' 9 395 Hence also the same Senor Errazuriz respected the international engagement in the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol sanctioned by the Senate ; and after approv- ing it as a whole, he left the Chamber of Deputies in suspense, not because that document rescinded any convention, but in order that the Executive Power might take new diplomatic steps to carry into effect the third Clause of the Treaty, which stipulates the plebi- scite by popular vote. The deduction as to a simulated cession or conquest of the territories of Tacna and Arica — drawn, not from the text or the spirit of that Treaty, but from irrelevant European plebiscites — ought therefore to be rejected absolutely. It is not true, either, Mr. Minister, that to Your Ex- cellency's Government belongs exclusively the right to designate the personnel that is to preside over the plebiscitary act, whether in the registration of the electors, in the taking of the vote or in the announce- ment of the result. What is the title of sovereignty that is alleged by Chile today in the provinces of Tacna and Arica! It is certainly not that of occupation, which the law authorizes only in respect of res nullius. Nor is it that of sanguinary military assault during the war terminated by the Treaty of 1883, in fulfillment of which the army evacuated the invaded region, with two exceptions : one of them in the case of Tarapaca, and the other in that of the provinces mentioned. The claim invoked depends therefore on this Treaty alone. Its text ordains, in the third Clause, that the terri- tory of the last mentioned " shall continue to be pos- sessed by Chile and subject to Chilean legislation and authorities during the period of ten years, reckoned 896 from the ratification of the present Treaty of Peace. ' ' The exchange of ratifications took place on March 28, 1884. The decade expired, consequently, on the same date in 1894 ; and Peru then juridically recovered her entire ownership, in part suspended. Therefore the Minister of Foreign Relations, Senor Jimenez, reminded the Chilean Plenipotentiary in Lima in June,. 1893, of the timeliness of the restoration of the provinces temporarily occupied. Then, on en- countering opposition, he proposed that the solution of the case be submitted to the decision of a friendly Government ; and later, on the eve of the expiration of the period, the Peruvian Plenipotentiary in Santiago, Senor Ribeyro, again called attention to the fact that Chile had no right to occupy those provinces after March 28, 1894. This affirmation is in perfect accord with the spirit and letter of the Treaty. The aforementioned third Clause adds, following the phrases already transcribed: " After the expiration of this period (that is ten years), a plebiscite will decide, by popular vote. ' ' It was therefore after the expiration of the decade — not during it — that the act was to take place. It is natural, indeed, that the pople should be left in freedom from coercion — people in whose midst, throughout that decennial period, the authorities, car- ried away by a mistaken zeal, attempted to exercise that coercion in favor of their own, nation, instead of making an effort to render the administrative regime of the occupying country more acceptable. The expiration of the period causes the expiration of the conventional right for the subsistence of which it was stipulated. 397 The period concluded, the precarious sovereignty of Chile in the territories of Tacna and Arica ceased therefore, in the light of principles. Possession for a categorically peremptory time is not prolonged or rendered indefinite by the mere will of the party that enjoys it in spite of the protests of the other contracting party. For this reason, doubtless, the distinguished prede- cessor of Your Excellency, Don Mariano Sanchez Fontecilla, proposed to Senor Ribeyro, among other points, the following: "The period of the ten years, accorded in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon is pro- rogued until March 28, 1898. As the prorogation has not been secured, Your Ex- cellency's Government ought then to return the Peru- vian territories, out of respect for the aphorism of universal legislation, according to which, on the ex- piration of the period of temporary tenancy, the direct owner of a thing wholly recovers his dominion. It is only for the purpose of achieving the end and of preventing distrust that, as a consequence of Chile's negative, Senor Jimenez thought, as a method of com- promise, of the delivery of the provinces to a third power designated by common consent, in order that the act might be accomplished under its auspices and they might be handed over without delay to the favored one according to the result. If such an equitable proposal had become practica- ble, the advantages of propaganda disappearing with possession and postponement being now objectless, the obstacles would have been readily overcome and there would have existed no subsequent grounds for discomfort. Not even the diplomatic antecedents to which Your Excellency alludes show that plebiscites have been 398 effected under the exclusive direction of the State in whose favor the vote resulted. The plebiscites of 1860 in favor of France were held, according to the official documents, under the presi- dency of the authorities appointed by the cedent King of Sardinia. In the proclamation of that monarch to the popula- tions of Savoy and Nice, he said to them, in effect: ' ' That nothing may hinder the free expression of your votes, I recall the principal functionaries of the ad- ministrative class that do not belong to your country and I replace them temporarily by several of your fel- low-citizens that enjoy general esteem and considera- tion.' ' The said new functionaries published each of them in his own locality, the regulations in which municipal boards were instructed to make up the list of citizens with a right to vote, settle complaints, et cetera. The plebiscite of 1866 in favor of Italy was held ac- cording to the regulations issued by the annexing sovereign, but under the presidency of the municipali- ties composed exclusively of natives. It is true that the French commissary, General Le- boeuf , received Venice and delivered her to a commit- tee of notables, presided over by Count Michiel. Victor Emmanuel then rendered the proceeding regular by providing that the municipal representatives of the provinces freed of the Austrian occupation should en- act "all the proper measures to assure the freedom and solemnity of the expression of universal suffrage." The plebiscite of 1877, which resulted in favor of France, was effected under the presidency of the cedent King of Sweden, who ordered the Governor of the Is- land of Saint Bartholomew "to make proper arrange- ments for the ballot" by establishing the regulations that were to be followed. 399 The only analogy of those precedents is in the modus operandi in respect of natives of the locality subject to a plebiscite; hence, if they were to be imi- tated, only citizens of the two provinces would partici- pate in that of Tacna and Arica in the capacity of functionaires. In respect of presiding, however, the examples are dissimilar. Inasmuch as the renunciation on the part of the cedent sovereign was absolute and explicit, for himself, his descendants and successors (an essential point con- trary to the Treaty of Ancon), it would have been con- ceivable that he might have left the annexationist in complete liberty. Nevertheless, in two cases out of three, it was the cedent who always assumed, according to the official documents referred to, the higher direc- tion of the act. I have had the honor to prove that the continuance of the Chilean authorities in the territories of Tacna and Arica, after March 28, 1894, was clearly illegal, Rights are not derived from what is unlawful. Hence the right of sovereignty to preside over me act, which Chile has never possessed, does not exist, much less to supervise it without control, registering the electors, receiving the votes in favor of or against her aspirations, counting the ballot and proclaiming it. Your Excellency has seen fit to say in advance to me that you "see no reason why our authorities, in making up the election boards, should not grant representation to citizens of Peruvian nationality and to citizens of other nationalities." The latter could only be impartial persons desig- nated by our respective Governments, by common con- sent, to preside over the electoral act. 400 My Government, which, in truth, shares in the ex- ercise of sovereignty in the captive provinces — and it does not invoke the fact to claim the simultaneous role of judge and litigant — does not accept, Mr. Min- ister, except in the form of a gracious concession, the petty, belittling act, which, in view of the amicable and conciliatory spirit of our communications, the under- signed would have desired that Your Excellency should abstain from mentioning. Although the sincere promises of impartiality that Your Excellency is pleased to reiterate do not awaken doubts, I have the honor to remind you that expecta- tions regarding Tacna and Arica exist not only in Chile, but also in Peru; therefore, according to the fundamental precepts of justice, the only logical deduc- tion of that right, in principle equal, is that the two Re- publics should have an identical share and positive, identical assurances, in order that the plebiscite may express, with the testimony of both, the verdict of the people. This was the basis accorded in the Billinghurst-La- torre Protocol. III. Permit me now, Your Excellency, to show that the right of sovereignty belongs to the natives alone. Until foreigners shall become nationalized, they retain their juridical character of foreigners. In- asmuch as they do not loose the bonds of their own sovereignty, nor acquire those of another, they are de- prived of political rights in the place of their resi- dence; and when a transfer of territory occurs, with- out their being required to make any declaration, their personal status remains unchanged. The plebiscitary vote in the present case is of a very peculiar character ; it not only makes effective the par- 401 ticipation of the citizen in the management of public affairs, but particularly in the choice of a definite sovereignty for the territory. Its political character alone would be sufficient to exclude from it all foreign- ers, without exception, since constitutional science dogmatically deprives them of that right everywhere. If suffrage is of such a nature that its exercise may not be granted to the other citizens of the interested countries, much less is it feasible to claim that it should be granted as a privilege to foreigners. Tacna and Arica are Peruvian provinces; and, although citizens of Peru, not born in them, would be denied the vote, the citizens or subjects of other nations would have a right to it, they — that is, those who, juridically, it ought to be supposed, have no interest in the act — being thus in a more advantageous political position than that of such Peruvian citizens. Your Excellency's enlightened judgment will spare me the necessity of pointing out the absurdity of such a conclusion. If the plebiscite is an exclusive right of sovereignty, and if foreigners are not affected by its outcome, it is obvious that nothing would justify the intrusion of those guests in this act of transcendental consequence only to the political collectivity of which they do not form a part. To grant them the vote is to attribute to them con- dominion, equally with the owners, over a territory in which they temporarily reside; seigniory over those that offered them hospitality, to the extreme of decid- ing as to their future, thus wounding the sacred love of the country ; is to authorize them, by thus influenc- ing the dispossession and denationalization of the native, to violate neutrality, which, in every interna- tional dispute, is imposed upon them by the most ele- mental rules of law. 402 Doctor Don Alejandro Alvarez, the technical Coun- selor of the Ministry today under the charge of Your Excellency, says in one of his publications, referring to the foreigners domiciled in Tacna and Arica: ' ' It is a fundamental principle of the law of na- tions and of the constitutional law of all the coun- tries that in a foreign country the foreigner pos- sesses no political right; and the vote as to which of the two contending countries ought to be- long a portion of territory that is now mili- tarily occupied by one of them is the highest expression of a political right, from an inter- national point of view. Besides this reason, which is fundamental, it would be proper to in- quire as to why foreigners ought to have the right to vote on the question of the annexation of one territory to another. Because they have property in those territories? This interest gives them the right to ask that their property shall be respected, and nothing more ; and from the moment in which their property is respected, they can claim no right to contribute by their suffrage to the settle- ment of a question in respect of which they, as foreigners, ought to have been and ought to re- main foreign. ' ' The fact of being a Chilean is not an exceptional cause that justifies the vote. In his Memorial to the Congress of 1883, just follow- ing the Treaty of Ancon, after explaining the influence that would be exerted by the transitory administration of Chile on the plebiscite, the eminent statesman, Don Luis Aldunate, added : "if all these causes should induce the inhabitants of the region of Tacna and Arica to decide in favor of Chilean nationality, on this hypothesis, which ought perhaps to be deemed the most probable, the 403 assimilation of our new fellow-citizens would be exerted in advance, without violence or upheavals and without demanding anything more than a simple rectification of the geographical map of Chile." Those ideas of the Minister of Foreign Relations, who was in Lima in the capacity of a delegate of the Santiago Government, in order to promote the ar- rangements for peace, prove that voters induced to " decide in favor of Chilean nationality, ' ' the "new fellow-citizens/ ' were not sons of the occupying Re- public, but Peruvians whose "assimilation" was as- sumed as a consequence of a good administrative regime in the provinces retained. Chilean citizens resident in the two provinces are as much foreigners in them as others. Without rights under Peruvian sovereignty, without the outcome of the plebiscites affecting their personal status, the circumstance of their votes weighing in favor of Chile, not, indeed, as a violation of neutrality, but as an effective contribution to the act of conquest, renders their disability even more evident. The third Clause of the Treaty provides that after the expiration of the period of ten years "a plebiscite will decide by popular vote ' ' whether the territories of Tacna and Arica shall remain definitively under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile or whether it shall continue to be a part of the Peruvian territory. Your Excellency deigns to suppose that the "popu- lar vote" required is that of all the residents, including that of foreigners that have established their interests and have brought up families in the localities, to the prosperity of which they have contributed to a very considerable degree by their persevering and produc- tive labor. 404 If the consequence deduced from the last assertion were correct, it would be sufficient, to serve as a basis for the recognition of their political rights. However, this theory is an infringement of Chilean legislation, which prevents their participation even in municipal affairs. In the case of the foreign resident, it is fair to as- sume instability: the desire to return to the country with which he has not severed his ties, together with the new family and the fortune acquired abroad. For this reason it is not improper to assume that, in the event of a plebiscitary conflict, indolence would in- cline him to tranquillity at all costs. Those that truly desire, whatsoever their place of domicile, in addition to peace, both the present and the future welfare of the region are the natives themselves, who in its defense, from a sense of obligation and pa- triotism, sacrifice their property, their families and their lives. According to Article I of the Constitution of Chile, the Government of that country is u popular.' ' It qualifies the Government because the choice of it devolves, not on all the inhabitants — German, British, et cetera — but on the citizens, that is, the Chilean people. In corroboration of what has been set forth, the text defines the scope of the qualifications in the realm of law. There is no reason why it should vary in interna- tional law, especially in the branch of it that refers to the plebiscite, since the institution is founded — I must excuse myself for reiterating it — on sovereignty, that is, the people, who exclusively constitute the nation. This is the teaching of the writers on the subject. It is also substantiated by the diplomatic antece- dents invoked by Your Excellency. 405 In the Treaty of Turin it was stipulated that in re- spect of the transfer "the will of the populations" should be considered. The regulations for the plebiscite in Nice provided in Article IV: "All those citizens of the age of twenty-one years, at least, who by birth or origin, belong to the county of Nice, shall be qualified to vote;" and for the act in Savoy they provided, also in Article IV: "The vote shall be given to all citizens, of not less than twenty-one years of age, born in Savoy, or of Savoyard parents out of Savoy, that live in the commune. ' y In the Treaty of Vienna also, the transfer was stipu- lated with the reservation of the "consent of the popu- lations duly consulted." The regulations for the plebi- scite "in the Italian provinces liberated from the Austrian occupation ' ' provided, in Article V : "On the days designated for the casting of the vote, all the Italians of the said provinces that shall be twenty-one years of age. ' ' In the Treaty of Paris also, the transfer was stipu- lated "with the express reservation of the consent of the people of Saint Bartholomew," and the King of Sweden provided that "every man of the population of the island, in the enjoyment of his civil rights, who had reached his majority, may take part in the plebiscite.'* An explanation was deemed necessary, and it was given thus by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the cedent monarch: "the meaning is, naturally, that Swedish subjects alone might vote." In all those regulations, consonant with treaties that stipulate the consent of the peoples or populations, natives are always mentioned, and never foreigners or the citizens of the presumptive annexationist. The analagous formula of "popular vote" employed in the Treaty of Ancon may not then, Mr. Minister, be interpreted in a contrary sense. 406 While deploring it, I have abused Your Excellency's benevolent courtesy. It has seemed to me necessary to do so in order to make it clear that the allegations of the Government of Peru in this affair are neither inadvised nor arbi- trary; and in order that, when this conviction shall have reached the mind of His Excellency the President and Your Excellency, their rectitude and energy may smooth the way to a settlement. Certain ideas of the important communication to which I am replying in- cline to the supposition, it should be said at once, that it is near. Your Excellency, in reality, was pleased to say to the undersigned : "Your Honor is well aware that the Treaty of 1883, in leaving to the resolution of a plebiscite the determination of the definitive nationality of Tacna and Arica, did not make clear what ought to be understood by this plebiscite, nor did it fix either the manner or the form of its execution. These omissions may not be reasonably attributed to f orgetfulness on the part of the negotiators, but to an implicit recognition that the procedure stipu- lated could be no other than that of the plebiscites incorporated in the history of international law." As the juridical spirit and consequences of the plebi- scitary institution are defined in the preceding para- graph I beg to remark that the historical procedure to which Your Excellency alludes has two aspects. One of them is that of the previous regulations of the modus operandi, issued by the authorities in Nice, in Savoy, in the Italian provinces and in the Island of St. Bartholomew, as has been shown in detail. The other is — in several cases, as the result of the compact with the cedent sovereign, without interest 407 now in the population or populations that he renounced explicitly and absolutely: that of brutal compulsion and fraudulent wiles, in order to secure, at all hazards, the burlesque formula of the transfer. I hasten to recognize, Mr. Minister, that the Govern- ment of Chile does not attempt to act in the latter sense, which would destroy the prestige of the adminis- tration of His Excellency Senor Montt. Historical precedents are limited then to the regla- mentarian part, also observed at times, of the plebi- scite. Hence, if the negotiators of the Treaty of Ancon re- called them, that is the part they probably had in mind. This idea is substantiated by the words of Your Excellency's eminent predecessor, Don Luis Aldunate, in his memorial of the same year, already mentioned : "if the result of the plebiscite shall restore the territorial region of Tacna and Arica to the do- minion of Peru, it would be consonant with the loyal and honorable policy of Chile to respect the decision of those people.' ' I am pleased to affirm, Mr. Minister, that, from this point of view, which, in truth, settles the main difficul- ties, I accept with unimportant variations Your Excel- lency's opinion. As Your Excellency has been pleased to indicate, we are in complete harmony in recognizing the funda- mental duty of terminating the situation which, for so long a time, has disturbed the harmony of other days. On this account and that of the foregoing considera- tions, I beg to invite Your Excellency to continue the conferences until an agreement be reached by adapting to the disputed clauses of the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol, which are to serve as a basis, the positive 408 precepts of the diplomatic antecedents, according to the principles of law and justice. They are, Mr. Minister, the ones that, both among collectivities and men, mitigate the immoderate sug- gestions of self-interests; strengthen with enduring ties the confraternity of states ; and, at the same time, foster in a harmonious concert the unsullied aggran- dizement of each of them, thus satisfying the noble de- mands of patriotism and the no less exalted ones of love for humanity and for civilization. I am sure that if Your Excellency's enlightened Government takes this view of things, it will not be difficult, Mr. Minister, to render tribute to the spirit of the Pan American solidarity that today prevails among all the nations of our continent in favor of a just settlement of the disputes that separate them. I am pleased to reiterate to Your Excellency the as- surances of my most distinguished consideration. G. A. Seoane. To His Excellency Senor Don Federico Puga Borne, Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Presentation Address of Minister of Chile in Peru to President of Peru, Delivered on August 29, 1908. [Translation.] Excellency : I take pleasure in delivering to you a letter signed by the President of the Republic of Chile in which he communicates to you that he has concluded the mission of the Honorable Sr. J. Rafael Balmaceda, and another letter in which he accredits me as En- voy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary be- fore the Government of Your Excellency. 409 In fulfillment of the mission entrusted to me, I take pleasure in stating to you and to the Peruvian people, through their illustrious officials, that the Gov- ernment and people of Chile wish to hasten the moment of complete cordiality, without clouds, without dis- trusts and without reticences. Two roads lay open before us to attain that coveted object; one presented difficulties held to be insuper- able and consisted in seeking, before all, a solution of the definite sovereignty of the provinces of Tacna and Arica ; the other left to a later date that arduous enterprise and attempted as an infallible means of concluding it in an honorable way, the promotion of closer relations between both countries by means of the celebration of pacts which would tend to foster the reciprocal relations of our citizens, destined by nature and by a common historical origin to proceed united, not only through the life of one generation, but while that existence lasts to which only centuries can give testimony. My Government, as proof of the friendly spirit which dominates it, would be disposed to consider the indications which the prudence and the well-known dis- cretion of your Government would mark out as the most opportune and the most certain way to reach the benefits of the noble peace which both cherish. The negotiations initiated at Santiago in the course of the present year manifested these aspirations and seemed to indicate the possibility of studying jointly both problems, without impairing the rights derived from existing covenants. The sincerity of the desires of the Government of Santiago and its excellent purposes are evidenced by the election of its representative before yours, in ap- pointing for such a delicate mission a citizen who has 410 no other merit nor means than the profound convic- tion that, strengthening the friendship of our Re- publics, a most promising future is assured for both countries. The lofty benevolence of Your Excellency, to which I resort, can assure the success of my mission, en- gaging the gratitude of the present generation and those to come, in Chile as well as in Peru. The prosperity of the Peruvian nation and the per- sonal happiness of Your Excellency and of your Min- isters complete the total of the desires which in the name of His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chile and in my own I take pleasure in expressing to Your Excellency. Response of President of Peru to Minister of Chile in Peru, on Presentation of Ms Credentials, on August 29, 1908. [Translation.] Mk. Minister: It is with great pleasure that I receive the letter sent by His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chile, in which he accredits you as Envoy Extra- ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to succeed His Excellency Sr. Balmaceda, who left such a pleasing remembrance in this country because of his high merits and his distinguished diplomatic activities. The announcement of which you are the messenger that the Government and the people of Chile entertain the desire of attaining perfect cordiality as soon as possible between our respective countries, removing the obstacles which still lie in their path, is to find a pleasing echo in the Peruvian people. This high pur- pose corresponds with the unceasing desire pursued 411 by Peru. Thus it is that you may be assured of a happy conclusion of the work of accord which the Government of Chile has deservedly confided to your surpassing aptitude. Accepting with pleasure your opportune invitation, the Chancellery will submit to you the means which, in its judgment, within the fulfillment . of the Treaty of Ancon, which fortunately contemplates the rights of both countries, may lead to a happy conclusion of the work of peace and harmony which nature and history, the convenience of the present and the clear prevision of the future, indicate as unavoidable for the Governments of both countries. In the fulfillment of your mission you -may count upon the decided cooperation of my Government, in whose name, as in my own, I thank you for the wishes you have expressed and which I reciprocate cordially for the prosperity of Chile, for the personal welfare of the eminent statesmen who govern her, and for your personal happiness. You are recognized as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile. Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. [Translation.] Santiago, August 11, 1909. Mr. Minister: In the address with which he inaugurated, on the twenty-eighth of last month, the sessions of the Na- tional Congress, and referring to the question pending between our respective countries as to the determina- tion of the definitive nationality of the provinces of 412 Tacna and Arica, His Excellency the President of Peru, expressed views which, because of their sub- stance, their form and the solemn occasion on which they were uttered, have, necessarily, attracted the at- tention of my Government. His Excellency the President of Peru deemed it proper to say: "Another year has passed without a settlement of the problem that affects the provinces of Tacna and Arica, and we ought to hope that the international policy of Chile may at last take the direc- tion that justice designates." He added later: "The statesmen of the neighboring country must understand that the maintenance of their prestige rests today on fulfilling faithfully the stipulation of the Treaty of Ancon, disregarded since 1894, in spite of our decision to carry it into effect and of the persistence with which we have taken steps for its fulfillment. ' ' These words contain unacceptable ideas that are contrary to the universal practices of international courtesy and that are not consonant with the considera- tion due to the Government of a country that is at peace with Peru. Your Excellency will understand therefore that it must justifiably have seemed strange to my Government that His Excellency the President should have expresed those views on the occasion of an offi- cial ceremony that was attended by the representative of Chile, together with his colleagues of the diplomatic corps, expressly invited by Your Excellency. If it were not that I consider that the reopening of a discussion of the points to which His Excellency the President of Peru has seen fit to refer in his address would lead to no useful result, I could demonstrate that the acts of my Government and the principles up- held by the statesmen of the Eepublic in respect of the problem of Tacna and Arica have been constantly 413 inspired by ideas of justice and have always tended to the faithful execution of the Treaty of Peace of 1883. I shall permit myself, however, to recall in this respect only that, if hitherto we have been unable to reach an accord with Peru as to the manner of holding the plebiscite that is to settle that question, it has been, principally, because in Chile it is understood that in the popular vote prescribed by Article III of that Treaty all the inhabitants of the territory in litiga- tion may take part, while Your Excellency's Govern- ment maintains that the right to vote in the plebiscite belongs exclusively to Peruvians. If there exists, in reference to this point, an international opinion al- ready formed in America, as His Excellency the Presi- dent expressed it, I think I can affirm that it is riot favorable to the Peruvian interpretation of the Treaty. The Chilean interpretation is based on the letter itself of Article III of the Treaty and on the antece- dents of its negotiation, which set forth what was its spirit, and our statesmen have certainly not lessened their prestige by upholding it. In any event, it is perhaps unnecessary to say that the prestige of the rulers and statesmen of a country does not rest on a judgment formed regarding their acts by the rulers of another country with which it is in dissidence as to the manner of the understanding and applying the pro- visions of a treaty. Because of all this it is my painful duty to make it clear to Your Excellency that the Government of Chile can not accept the imputation, ungrateful if noth- ing else, that hitherto it has not followed, in the dif- ferent phases of the question of Tacna and Arica, the path that justice designated to it. Justice is not de- fined by one of the parties in litigation. . 414 The Government of this Republic has constantly de- sired to put an end to the prolonged and vexatious question of Tacna and Arica, which is the only ob- stacle that hinders the consolidation of a cordial friendship between Chile and Peru. In order to arive at such a result, which it earnestly desires, this Government will continue to endeavor to settle the question according to the provisions of the Treaty of 1883, and it will strive, within their scope, for the realization of its legitimate aspirations to the definitive possession of the aforementioned territories. With this purpose in view, it has always desired that the plebiscite should be effected with all the guaranties that may be necessary in order that none may doubt the legitimacy of its result. I take this opportunity to express to Your Excel- lency the assurances of my high and distinguished consideration. Agustin Edwards. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] Ministry of Foreign Relations, Lima, September 9, 1909. Mr. Minister: On August 26 last I had the honor to receive Your Excellency 's note, which bears the date of the eleventh of the same month. This note contains representa- tions designed to comment on the paragraph relative 415 to Chile in the presidential message read before our Congress on the occasion of the opening of its ordinary sessions. It is deeply to be regretted that this document has attracted the attention of the Chilean Government in the sense that Your Excellency indicates, and not in that of the desire it contains of beholding the termina- tion of the divergence that prevents perfect cordiality between Chile and Peru. The Government of Chile considers that the address of His Excellency the President of Peru contains ex- pressions that are contrary to the universal practice of international courtesy and that are not in harmony with the consideration due to the Government of a country that is at peace with ours. In spite of the affirmation that I transcribe, I can assure Your Ex- cellency that the phrases cited do not imply any dis- regard whatsoever of courtesy for it is clear that there is not a single word in them that may be stamped as incorrect. The message is an exposition in which the President reports the progress of public affairs, in- cluding among them those that possess an international character. This being the case, it can not be con- ceived, in reality, how he could have shirked the ob- ligation to explain the state of the problem of Tacna and Arica, or have discharged it with data that would have been entirely satisfactory to Chile. Not to have mentioned that question and to have omitted the point relative to Your Excellency's Government, after hav- ing touched on those that refer to the other neighbor- ing countries, would perhaps have seemed an act of disrespect ; while such a silence regarding a point that concerns the most urgent of our national aspirations would have been deemed inexplicable here. To deal with it and at the same time to conceal the truth of 416 things would have been impossible. The head of the State could not do this, because he is under obligation not to perturb with data lacking in truth the judgment of the representatives, who, in respect of the neigh- boring countries, must duly weigh the factors that may be studied as a possible influence at a time in which international questions of a grave character are ven- tilated. The paragraph referred to is very true. It contains nothing more than the indications indispensable to giving an idea of the situation and to the expression of a hope. This hope, based on the good opinion that we entertain here of the intelligence and good sense of the statesmen of Chile, is far from constituting an offense. In spite of the fact that more than fifteen years have passed since the expiration of the period of occupation, we still trust that the truth will prevail and that Chile will listen to the voice of justice and will not oppose the solution of the problem that separates us. In expressing this, His Excellency Senor Legnia said it with serenity, with the greatest of moderation, without words of protest or impatience, without so much as alluding to events, incidents or news that might possibly have marred the simplicity of his decla- rations, and without making, finally, any reference whatsoever to the policy followed in relation to our fellow countrymen of Tacna and Arica. To speak, on the other hand, of maintaining the prestige of Chile, is, it may easily be understood, to employ a brief and courteous formula in respect of Your Excellency's country. His Excellency Senor Leguia also asserted that the international opinion of America favors us. In this phrase there, is neither an intent offensive to Chile nor an inaccuracy. The best proof of it may be seen in the 417 fact that we should be disposed to accept what the representatives of the said countries, assembled in Congress, might resolve with a view to settling the points of divergence that separate us in the discussion pending, as we should be disposed also to accept what some one of them alone should resolve, if she were designated for that purpose by common consent. Pre- cisely because we do not attempt, by ourselves alone, to define justice — although the course to be followed in our affair, in order to secure it, is known — is why we are and always have been ready to bow to the de- cision of a serene and impartial judge or tribunal, and this, in spite of the fact that the definitive nationality of Tacna and Arica affects us more than it affects Chile. It signalizes and defines, in reality, who it is that disregards every other consideration save the one that consists in having his own way. Your Excellency adds that the views expressed in the message are not acceptable because the acts of the Government of Chile have been constantly inspired by ideas of justice ; ideas that always tend to the execu- tion of the Treaty of Peace perfected in 1884. With this purpose in view, it is clear that the affair could have been settled long ago, since it is unquestionable that Peru could not have desired the contrary, because of her natural hope of recovering territories of hers. Unfortunately, this purpose has not been expressed in deeds, and from this fact it has resulted that from postponement to postponement we find ourselves in the present situation. The only occasion on which Your Excellency's Government was inclined to settle the pending difficulties, by the expedite and friendly means of arbitration, was in 1898 ; but it is well known that this same happy occasion also gave place in Chile to a period of inaction that lasted some three years 418 and that terminated because the plan was definitively set aside. Your Excellency says that if Chile has not yet been able to reach an agreement as to the manner of hold- ing the plebiscite, it is principally because it is under- stood there that all the inhabitants of the territory in litigation ought to participate in the vote, while in Peru it is held that the right of suffrage belongs ex- clusively to the Peruvians. The true cause that has militated against the agreement has been of a more general character. It has consisted in Chile's difficulty in assuring the result in her favor, in view of the insu- perable obstacle of the will of the immense majority of those inhabitants, who have always been opposed to her ; an obstacle that has led her not to accede to con- ditions taking the form of the organization and execu- tion of a true and serious plebiscite, the principal one of those conditions being the constitution of an im- partial plebiscitary authority. On more than one occasion Peru would have re- nounced the unquestionable right that belongs to her, of requesting that only Peruvians should vote, if she had observed in the Government of Chile the purpose of lending its signature to a plebiscitary convention that would afford guaranties to our country. Sen or Ribeyro, our Plenipotentiary in Chile in 1894, thought he beheld such a purpose at that time and he formu- lated explicitly the renouncement of the right to the exclusive vote of the Peruvians, in the manner that is known, but this was not sufficient to cause the accept- ance of an arrangement on the part of Chile. At all events, it is true that, if the disagreement has per- sisted, this circumstance is due, not to Peru, but to Chile, which, neither on this point nor on any other, has desired to seek a solution through the decision of an impartial judge. 419 In view of what has been said, I hope that Your Excellency's Government will be convinced that the message read by His Excellency the President -of Peru before the Congress of the current year contains no ex- pressions that may be interpreted as an intent of dis- courtesy to Chile, but also that his views of the ante- cedents of the subject of Tacna and Arica are abso- lutely sincere, Peru also desires, and with a double motive, the early execution of the stipulation agreed on in Article III of the Treaty of Peace, because of the earnest desire she cherishes of strengthening, solidly and cordially, her relations with Chile, and because of that of bring- ing again to the bossom of our country the provinces mentioned. I take this opportunity to offer to Your Excellency the assurances of my high and distinguished consid- eration. M. F. Pokras. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] Ministry of Foreign Relations, Lima, September 30, 1909. Mr. Minister: The Charge d' Affaires of Peru in Santiago, in obedi- ence to instructions that he had received especially, ex- plained, some months ago, to Your Excellency's hon- orable predecessor that the church of Arica had been closed, and that respectable ladies of that city, de- 420 prived since then of the practice of worship, had re- quested that my Government should approach Your Excellency's with a view to the issuance of the proper order to induce the authorities of that port to remedy the damage that has been caused. He declared on that occasion that the circumstances of the compul- sory absence of the parson did not excuse the proce- dure followed, because there was present in Arica a priest summoned to take his place. His Excellency Seiior Balmaceda offered to ask for a report on the case, which, assuredly has not been so explicit as was necessary to lead to a satisfactory solu- tion in respect of the church of Arica and the churches of Estique, Belen and Codpa, which had also been closed previously. As this situation continues, to the manifest detriment of the Peruvian residents of the province of Arica, I am obliged to call Your Excellency's attention to the attitude of the authorities indicated, which, doubtless, will be altered by virtue of the express orders that Your Excellency's Government may issue in the premises. The Government of Peru holds that your Excel- lency's Government ought to take these steps, because the exceptional regime that prevails there is inadmis- sible. It was agreed that those populations should be gov- erned by Chilean laws as long as the occupation 'should continue, and hence it is impossible to discern the ground on which the local administration can take its stand to proceed in such a manner that the protection which these laws are designed to offer is, in truth, withheld. It is evident that to deprive a people of the means of continuing its religious practices by an act of violence is equivalent to the suspension of one of its most elementary and indispensable rights. 421 I must also call Your Excellency's attention to the propriety of not proceeding with the plans for the colonization of lands and the creation of the depart- ment of Tarata. The latter grows out of the occupa- tion of a part of the province of Tarata ; a point that gave rise on an earlier occasion to demands by Peru, based on the express tenor of the stipulation of the Treaty of Peace, which designated the boundaries of the territory of the provinces of Tacana and Arica, in which is not comprised the part of the province of Tarata to which allusion has been made. The colonization law is contrary in its spirit to what that Treaty provides in settling on the temporary oc- cupation, because, indeed, the mere occupant does not possess the right to dispose of what does not belong to him, and much less under circumstances in which the occupation may cease at any moment by reason of the expiration of the period. As the eventuality of the plebiscite and the expectations of Peru may not be dis- regarded, it is deduced that Your Excellency's Gov- ernment ought not to execute a measure designed to produce its effect in a remote future, and which, sup- posing the indefinite continuance of the Chilean ad- ministration, might be interpreted as a declaration that these eventualities had disappeared. In formulating, in behalf of my Government, these representations relative to the interests of the Peru- vians settled in Tacna and Arica, I cherish the con- fidence that Your Excellency will recognize the justice that prompts them, and that the Government of Chile will, in consequence, act in a manner that will cause the rights on which they are based to be respected. I take this opportunity to reiterate, Mr. Minister, the assurances of my high and distinguished consideration. M. F. PORKAS. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. 422 Minister of United States in Chile to Secretary of State of United States. American Legation, Santiago, November 1, 1909. Sir: Referring to the negotiations for a settlement of the Tacna-Arica question, pending between Chile and Peru, I have the honor to report that about two or three weeks ago the Chilean Foreign Office sent in- structions to the Charge d 'Affaires at Lima to present to the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs the bases which Chile was willing to accept. I am now able to inclose herewith a statement of these bases written by Minister Edwards' own hand. (Mr. Edwards, Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs.) The Peruvian Government had already proposed to enter on negotiations for a settlement and that min- isters plenipotentiary be sent respectively to Santiago and Lima. No bases were, however, suggested by Peru, and Chile refused to exchange ministers until Peru should have definitely accepted preliminary bases. The Argentine Minister has been aiding the Foreign Office all he can during the last three weeks to induce the Peruvian Government to accept Chile's prelimi- nary terms. He tells me, however, that his Govern- ment's action has not been and will not be in the way of intervention or mediation, but only by way of friendly counsel. Undoubtedly already the Argentine Foreign Office has offered advice on the subject to the Peruvian Minister at Buenos Aires and has instructed its own Minister at Lima to offer similar advice to the Foreign Office there. 423 The Argentine Minister approached me two days ago with the purpose of ascertaining the probable dis- position of the State Department as to seconding Ar- gentina's action at Lima and Washington. I told him I had received no instructions, information, or intima- tions from the Department. I have, etc. T. C. Dawson. To the Honorable, The Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Enclosure. Statement of Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile of the Bases for Settlement of Tacna-Arica Ques- tion. [Translation.] October 15, 1909. (1) The plebiscite will be held on a date that will allow Chile to fulfill her undertakings with Bolivia as to the construction of the Arica-La Paz railroad. Note : It is calculated that the section in Chile will be finished in 1911. (2) The voting shall be by secret ballot and in it shall be entitled to take part all the inhabitants — Chileans, Peruvians and foreigners — who shall have the following qualifications: (a) Citizenship with right to vote in Chile or Peru. Note : the same qualifications are required in both countries. (b) Minimum residence of six months (in the dis- puted provinces.) (3) Chile shall preside over the acts connected with the plebiscite and the Electoral Commission shall be composed of three members: a Chilean, who shall 424 be president; a Peruvian, and a neutral. Note: As to this point Chile thinks that the right to preside over the plebiscite can not be conceded by her seeing that her sovereign rights continue until the inhabi- tants of Tacna and Arica may determine to return to the dominion of Peru. This does not permit her to act otherwise without violating her own national decorum and dignity. Chile is disposed to accept whatever method Peru may propose in order to as- sure the correctness and fairness of the plebiscite, but she can not give up the presidency thereof. In her opinion the giving up of the presidency would not tend to this end, because she does not insist upon it with the purpose of making the plebiscite unfair and incorrect, but rather because the existing legal situation requires it, and because of the rights con- ferred upon her by the Treaty of Ancon. She would even be disposed to consent that the Electoral Commission be composed of four members : A Chilean, who would preside; a Peruvian, and two neutrals of differing nationalities, with the condition that in case of a tie the opinion of the President shall prevail; but this is the farthest concession she could make. (4) In everything not inconsistent with the present proposition, Chile would accept the stipulations of the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Charge d' Affaires of Chile in Peru. Memorandum. [Translation.] [November 5, 1909.] The following modifications are necessary in the four points contained in the memorandum of the Charge d 'Affaires of Chile. 425 1. The Directive Board in charge of the organization of the plebiscite will begin to function within the period of three months, reckoned from the day on which the plebiscitary protocol shall be signed. 2. In the vote, which shall be public, may take part all the Peruvians and Chileans that meet the follow- ing requirements : a. Twenty-one years of age; b. Residence in the territory at least from July 1, 1907. Those also may take part who, born in the territory of Tacna and Arica, may be present at the moment of the vote, if they shall have been registered pre- viously for that purpose. Public employees and members of the army or of the police that may be in service in the provinces mentioned may not vote. 3. The Directive Board will be composed of three members, namely: one Peruvian, one Chilean, and one neutral designated by a friendly nation. The chairmanship shall be held by the neutral. The boards for the registration and reception of the votes will also be composed of one Peruvian, one Chilean and one neutral. The chairmanship of these boards shall also be held by the neutral delegate. 4. The Directive Board will designate the places where the registration and receiving boards are to function. In all the other points of detail, the Billinghurst- Latorre Protocol shall apply. November 5, 1909. r 426 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile, to Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. [Translation.] Santiago, November 5, 1909. Mb. Minister: I have the honor to reply to the communication that Your Excellency saw fit to address to me un- der date of September 30 last in reference to the situation in which certain parochial churches of the province of Tacna are placed; to the law recently passed by the National Congress, which extends to that province the application of the colonization laws ; and to the plan of dividing in two the department of Tacna. Your Excellency will be convinced of the surprise that my Government has been occasioned by the rep- resentations that Your Excellency has conceived it necessary to make, if you consider that the acts to which you allude have been accomplished in the em- ployment of the sovereign attributes that the Treaty of Ancon conferred on my country in those territories, with no other limitation save the eventuality of a popular vote against the present state of things by a majority of their inhabitants convoked to a plebi- scite. Measures taken in the use of rights conferred by sovereignty may not be material for international con- troversy, because they constitute private and internal acts that are removed, by their very essence, from the criticism of other nations. If Your Excellency will bear in mind that measures relative to churches and the priests in charge thereof have to do with public establishments and functionaries, subject as such to the immediate vigilance and patronage of the 427 State, you will have to agree to admit the inappropri- ateness of representations that refer to them. * Nevertheless, in order to afford Your Excellency an indisputable ptoof of the lofty spirit of conciliation and harmony that animates my Government, I shall proceed to demonstrate to you that the measures enunciated are all in harmony with the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Ancon, which prescribed the appli- cation of Chilean legislation and the jurisdiction of our authorities in the territories of Tacna and Arica. The fundamental Charter of the Republic provides for the right of patronage, in respect of churches, benefices and ecclesiastical persons, and the Execu- tive exercises it throughout the whole national ter- ritory as one of its faculties, among other ways, by conferring on the priests the permission necessary to the exercise of their functions. Nothing would jus- tify an exception in the case of the province of Tacna. The parochial priests of Arica, Estique, Belen and Codpa, whom Your Excellency mentions, have refused to comply with this requirement that the Constitution exacts, and they have thereby rendered inevitable the measure that Your Excellency conceives to be founded on an exceptional regime. Precisely because it was agreed, as Your Excellency will recall, that the popula- tions of Tacna and Arica should be governed by Chilean laws, is it that the measures taken in respect of the public functionaries who do not submit to the author- ity that exercises over them its constitutional right of patronage have become inevitable. The Constitution of the Republic provided that the State should exercise the right of patronage mainly in order that it might share with the Church the moral responsibility that is involved in the designation of individuals that enjoy an irreproachable reputation 428 for the discharge of such delicate and intimate func- tions as those that have to do with the conscience. In the case of each of the priests Your Excellency mentions, you will understand, without the necessity of entering into further explanations, how zealous my Government has been obliged to be in the fulfillment of the duties that the Constitution assigns to it. Far from depriving by an act of violence, as Your Excellency affirms, the populations of Tacna and Arica of the means of continuing their religious prac- tices, my Government seeks only the fulfillment of the laws that the Constitution intrusts to it; and in its anxiety to provide there every kind of facility for the exercise of worship, it has fostered and it continues to foster, with the ecclesiastical authorities, measures that tend to give to the priests of all nationalities the permission necessary to the exercise of their sac- erdotal ministrations. The Government of Peru, doing full honor to the desires that Your Excellency manifests, of seeing ample arrangements made for the religious practices of all the inhabitants of the province of Tacna, could cooperate efficaciously with my Government in the manner indicated. In this respect, I ought, before proceeding further, to remind Your Excellency that it is precisely the Chilean inhabitants of the province mentioned that rightly com- plain of being deprived, in the territories subject to the sovereignty of Chile, of the means of continuing their religious practices with priests of their own nationality. Your Excellency knows how futile have been the efforts made to obtain from the Illustrious Bishop of Arequipa licenses that the diocesans of the whole world do not deny, save for grave reasons that affect the persons themselves that solicit them. 429 The bill that creates the department of Tarata has also attracted the attention of Your Excellency's Gov- ernment, which expresses its insistency by considering that district comprised within the limits of the ancient Peruvian province of that name. The creation of the department of Tarata" means simply the subdivision, in order to render more ef- fective the public administration of the territories subject to the sovereignty of Chile by virtue of the Treaty of Ancon ; and my Government holds that this private and internal act does not properly call for remonstrances on the part of the Government of Peru, just as there would be no call for them, if my Gov- ernment had provided, with a view to improving the course of administration and to the interests of its inhabitants, for the fusion in a single department of the two into which the province of Tacna is now- divided. The distance of the district of Tarata from the cap- ital of the province is the reason that has determined this measure, which will enable my Government to im- prove all the administrative services by providing them with superior authorities of Government, justice and public safety. The interest that has always been shown by the Government of Peru in the fate and well-being of the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica has caused my Government to suppose, logically, that this measure, designed to better the general condition of existence in the district mentioned, far from giving rise to representations, would have been well received by Your Excellency. In another province of the Republic, similar reasons have induced my Government to create the depart- ment of Loa. Your Excellency will see, therefore, 430 that exceptional and extraordinary measures have not been adopted, as you believe, in that territory. The question that Your Excellency raises by re- iterating opinions held by the Government of Peru, on earlier occasions, as to the boundaries of the former Peruvian provinces of Tacna, Arica and Tarata, is, in the view of my Government, subordinated to that of the settlement of the main problem of the definitive nationality of those territories. It is the result of the plebiscite, which Your Ex- cellency seems to consider, as a foregone conclusion, adverse to the interests of Peru, that can give to the question involved real and effective importance. The enactment that causes the application of the colonization laws to extend to the province of Tacna is the object of several considerations in the communi- cation to which I am replying. In spite of the circumstance, already adduced, that this law is a private and internal act of my Govern- ment, executed in the employment of its sovereign rights, the especial deference and exquisite courtesy with which it desires to distinguish its relations with Peru, induce it to demonstrate the complete absence from it of provisions that might violate the Treaty of Ancon and the eventual rights that Your Excel- lency 's country derives from this Treaty. I The colonization laws that are to be applied in Tacna prevail in other provinces of the territory of the Republic, and, furthermore, I should add that, at the date in which the Treaty of Ancon was signed, the most of them were already enacted. Your Excellency is aware that the application of the Chilean laws to the territories in litigation has no restrictions, and that if the purpose of the nego- tiators of that Treaty had been to prevent the pos- 431 sibility of the application of the colonization laws, they would have expressly stipulated so. Your Excellency asserts that * ' the mere occupant ' ' — thus Your Excellency has been pleased to define the situation of Chile in Tacna and Arica — ' ' does not pos- sess the right to dispose of what does not belong to him, and much less under circumstances in which the occupation may cease at any moment by reason of the expiration of the period." I ought, first of all, to refute the view — erroneous in the judgment of my Government — that Your Ex- cellency entertains of the period fixed for the deter- mination of the definitive nationality of Tacna and Arica. It is needless to mention the idea of "expired period," since the obvious interpretation of the Treaty of Ancon gives necessarily to understand the period of ten years that was set for the holding of the plebi- scite as a minimum of time, and in no way as a period in which the popular vote prescribed by it should have been taken. In this respect, I will remind Your Excellency, be- sides, that it is not a definite period that can, by virtue of the Treaty of Ancon, place a limit on the exercise of the sovereignty of Chile, but only the the result of a plebiscite adverse to her aspirations. Contingencies of all kinds that might have inter- fered with an agreement on the part of the two Gov- ernments to sign the complementary protocol could not have escaped the prevision of the negotiators, and if it had been their intention to set a limit, by every means, on the exercise of sovereignty by Chile at the expiration of the period of ten years, they would thus have expressly stipulated. Consequently, it would be superfluous, it seems to me, to declare that 432 my Government regards as in force in all their pleni- tude the rights conferred on it by the Treaty of An- con. The colonization of the untilled and unproductive lands of the province of Tacna with national farmers will, if the irrigation enterprises now under considera- tion turn out to be practicable, convert the present deserts into productive fields, and whatsoever be the result of the plebiscite, my Government takes the view that the country that shall win at the polls will unquestionably enjoy the benefits of acquiring terri- tories capable of providing for their own needs by their wealth and production. If the Treaty of Ancon conferred on Chile all the privileges that sovereignty implies, it imposed on her likewise the duties that spring from it, and Your Ex- cellency will doubtless have to recognize that among them none is more imperative than that of fostering the moral and material betterment of the populations. The circumstance that the proprietors of the soil are Chileans in no wise affects the rights of the sov- ereign, for a change of sovereignty may occur in any territory without infringing the rights of private prop- erty, just as private property may change owners without affecting sovereignty. These are two ques- tions essentially different. Under the protection of the same colonization laws, applicable to-day to Tacna, persons of all national- ities obtain concessions of lands in the south of the Republic, and my Government has never considered them as attacks upon its sovereignty. Note, Your Excellency, that, in these cases it is a question of an unequivocably foreign colonization and of terri- tories that no one disputes, and let Your Excellency judge for yourself whether, in the case of Tacna and 433 Arica— provinces that Peru may not rightly consider hers, and, in respect of Chilean citizens, who would have there at least as good a right as the Peruvians to be considered nationals — the sovereign rights that Peru believes it possible to exercise again some day may be regarded as violated. In order to convince Your Excellency of the com- plete lack of foundation on which Peru can rely in adducing the representations to which I have been replying, permit me to say that, if the plebiscite had already been held, in justification of the legitimate aspirations of my country, no constitutional or legal principle of ours could prevent Peruvian citizens from holding or acquiring real property in Tacna, just as, in the contrary case, no prescription of the fun- damental Charter or law of Peru could prevent Chilean citizens from holding or acquiring the same. My Government earnestly desires the definitive ter- mination of the only difficulty that interferes with the union of the two countries in a close and fruitful friendship for the good of both. In order to secure it, it is necessary to seek a formula that will have regard for the permanent in- terests of Chile and of Peru, which will consider the reality of things, which will embody the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Ancon and which will for ever reestablish harmony by uniting the common destinies of these countries with ties of every kind that will strengthen their commercial and political amity. By avoiding controversies that are alien to the en* deavor at agreement regarding the principal subject and by confining the efforts of Your Excellency's Government and of mine to this aim, which is supreme, we shall obtain the greatest benefits that it is pos- sible to secure for these two nations. 434 I am pleased to take the opportunity to express to Your Excellency the sentiments of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Agustin Edwards. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] Lima, December 23, 1909. Mr. Minister : I have had- the honor to receive Your Excellency's note that contains the answer of the Government of Chile to 'the observations formulated by that of Peru in respect of the serious measures adopted in the terri- tory of Tacna and Arica. In spite of the nature of the reply, my Government deems it proper to insist on the steps that it has under- taken with so little success ; and it insists with all the more reason, inasmuch as, subsequently to the events to which my first communication referred, there have occurred others as serious as the earlier ones, which reveal, besides, in a very accentuated manner, the de- sign of hostility with which are inspired the Chilean authorities that are in charge of the public administra- .tion of that territory. \ Peruvian laborers, who earned their daily living in Arica as seamen and longshoremen, have been forced to abandon their work. Numerous groups of these laborers have had to emigrate from the soil on which they were born and on which, slowly and systemati- 435 cally, their fellow-countrymen are deprived of all right to work and of the protective support of the laws. In the eyes of foreign merchants it is a hindrance or a dis- advantage to have Peruvian employees, because they are threatened in the custom-house; and, in general, wherever there is an agent of the administration or an influence derived from it, there exists also an obstacle that takes the form of animosity or persecution in re- spect of those that desire to retain, at all costs, their affection for Peru. ^ In Tacna similar occurrences are taking place. There have been founded, or it is being planned to *"* n& found, industrial enterprises, with the support of the State, designed to compete with Peruvian enterprises or Peruvian industrials established there for a long time. It is believed that this competition will result in the earlier industrials being forced to close their fac- tories, thus throwing out of work the laborers they em- ploy, who, in turn, will have to emigrate. As it is not # question of mere private initiative, but of that which is maintained by the authorities, it is necessary to stamp as improper the creation of those industries designed to drive out those of an equal character that already exist and to provoke the ruin or helplessness of Peruvian families that live by means of them. ■/)#$ ^ A new occurrence is also encountered in the closing C l of the churches of Tacna, which happened after the Bishop of Arequipa's appointment of Senor Flores Mestres to take the place of the incumbent, Senor Ardia, who died recently. It is possible that Your Excellency may not be ac- quainted, in all their vexations details, with those re- cent events for which the authorities of Tacna and Arica are directly responsible, just as it is also possi- ble that the reports that the Government of Chile has 436 received, and that have been occasioned by acts in which it has taken the initiative, are based on inaccu- rate information. It is my duty, consequently, to call Your Excellency's attention to all of them, in order that, by considering them together with those that I have previously indicated, Your Excellency's Govern- ment may be convinced that the Peruvian inhabitants of the provinces mentioned are subjected, practically, to a regime of exception in respect of the Chilean laws, which are applicable according to the Treaty of Peace. If prolonged thought be given this point, as also to the true scope of the powers this Treaty conferred on Chile, there is no doubt that Your Excellency's Gov- ernment will decide to rescind the measures adopted, since, according to what it is natural to suppose, it is impossible to admit that it should disregard the bind- ing force of the Treaty to which it has attached its signature, or that it should persist in acts that have sprung from an erroneous interpretation of it, when the character of this interpretation shall have been made clear. The fundamental ground that I ought to allege to Your Excellency, as an evidence that the powers to which reference was made in the communication I am answering are exaggerated, is deduced from the text itself of the pertinent article of the Treaty. In reality the terms of the article are as follows: "The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, which is bounded on the north by the Sama Kiver from its rise in the Cordilleras that form the boundary with Bolivia to its discharge into the ocean; on the south, by the gorge and River of Camarones ; on the east, by the Republic of Bo- livia; and on the west, by the Pacific Ocean, will continue to be possessed by Chile and subject to 437 Chilean legislation and authorities for the period of ten years, reckoned from the ratification of the present Treaty of Peace. After the expiration of this period, a plebiscite will decide, by popular vote, whether the territory of the aforementioned provinces of Tacna and Arica shall remain defini- tively under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile, or whether it shall continue to be a part of the Peruvian terirtory." The exchange of ratifications took place in March, 1884. Consequently the period of occupation on which an agreement was reached ended in March, 1894. It was not a minimum ; it was a fixed period, which, when it had expired, the plebiscite ought to have been held, and which was not carried into effect then; nor has it been possible to do so since then, in spite of the many years that have passed, because Chile has not been willing to arrive at an understanding with Peru in order to agree on the plebiscitary regulations ; nor have steps been taken to submit to arbitration the points of divergence that prevented this understand- ing, on the occasions in which discussions were opened in respect of the particular. Because of this well known antecedent and because it is evident that Peru could not interfere, by an act of her own, with the recovery of her provinces, no one can doubt that the sixteen years of Chilean occupation, in despite of the convention, are, in effect, due to the exclusive action of Your Excellency's Government. That occupation, therefore, constitutes a fact that im- plies no responsibilities on Peru's part. This fact may cease at any moment. Bearing in mind this consequence — and without taking into account that the situation that existed in March, 1894, is what legally determines the solution of the problem — it is clear that, since the holding of the plebiscite ought to 438 be deemed imminent, this eventuality is irreconcilable with the policy adopted, because the innovations intro- duced or projected presuppose the possession of a title that Chile might employ, without the possibility of any contestation whatsoever, in order to continue the pres- ent state of things. Since this title does not exist, her attitude ought to be the same as it would be if she were on the eve of the plebiscite. She had, during the ten years agreed on, the right to bestir herself in order to win the sympathy and attachment of the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica. It is well known that the period passed without her se- curing this sympathy, because of which, it may be said, the definitive nationality of the territory was then virtually decided. To believe, therefore, that, because of the simple fact of a postponement to which Peru did not consent and after sixteen years in which the obligation to return Tacna and Arica has been in sus- pense ; to believe, I repeat, that Chile has the right to dictate measures that tend to obtain the majority of votes in favor of her cause by bringing about a change in the population is to discredit the thought of the negotiators, is to desire to accomplish by arbitrary acts, during a period of more than twenty-five years, what was not achieved by lawful acts in ten years. That the acts that have been accomplished during re- cent times by the functionaries of Tacna and Arica are not lawful is a point that has been established by my Government on several occasions. Under the same ir- regular circumstances as those under which the occu- pied territory exists, that is, with the hypothesis that the uncovenanted period of occupation is perfectly legitimate, it is impossible to claim that the spirit of the Treaty has been altered by time and that today the occupant is permitted to subject Peruvians to an 439 exceptional regime, which is expressed practically in an intent to expel them from their own territory. It was unnecessary to incorporate in Clause III of the Treaty of Ancon the purpose to respect the rights as a whole of the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica, be- cause it would result from the state of peace that was substituted for the state of war, and from the expecta- tions cherished by Peru in view of the engagement with Chile as to the popular vote. Between the period of military occupation and that of the definitive determi- nation of sovereignty, an agreement was reached as to the intermediary period of occupation for ten years: an interval of time during which the territory was sub- ject to a special condition. This condition was characterized, in the first place, by the expectations of each party; and in the second, by the Peruvian nationality of the inhabitants, on the one hand, and the Chilean nationality of the admini- stration, on the other. The existence of these two ele- ments is the reason why it was agreed that Chilean laws should prevail and that at the same time it was certain that this arrangement could not be understood in the sense and amplitude in which this legislation prevails in any of the provinces that constitute a part of the Chilean nation. There are laws without which it is impossible to conceive of the normal life of a civil- ized people. The agreement of the two countries re- ferred to these laws : laws that were characterized by indispensability, because they signify protection and security in the social realm; and not those that possess a political character or those that are derived from the absolute exercise of sovereignty. It would be inex- plicable, for example, that the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica should have taken part in the election of senators and deputies and of presidents of Chile, be- 440 cause, on entering into this special state already men- tioned, they did not lose the nationality they possessed. Not only is Chile obliged by the nature of things to respect the sentiment of those people and not to exer- cise in them other powers than those that are derived from the guaranties mentioned, but also she may not compromise their future, dispose in perpetuity of what belongs solely to the owner of the soil or enact measures that are not in consonance with the character of the mere usufructuary. Hence the plans of colonization and expropriation are completely unacceptable. And it is not germane to the subject to allege, as Your Excellency does, the material betterment of the towns and the benefit that will be derived by the country that shall come off vic- torious in the plebiscite, because, besides from the fact that it is well known that this is not the essential motive pursued, the public sentiment of the people in question is not in accord with the plans under discus- sion and because, in any event, it would be necessary logically to admit at least that when plans of so far- reaching a character are undertaken, Peru also would have a right to assent or to dissent previously to them. The essential motive seems to have been to cause the properties to change owners, that is, that Peruvian agriculturists should be replaced by Chilean agricul- turists. It is evident, as Your Excellency indicates, that "a change of sovereignty may occur in any terri- tory without infringing the rights of private prop- erty, just as private property may change owners without affecting sovereignty/' but this has noth- ing to do with the present case. The transfer of private property, effected naturally and spontaneously is one thing, and a very different thing is the compul- sion that shall force the owner of a country estate to 441 sell it, although he may not wish to do so, and not with a view to serving the public interests of the locality, but only with that of assuring there the presence of Chilean cultivators instead of Peruvian. As Chile had at no time acquired sovereignty over the territory of Tacna and Arica, it was never thought, either, that she might claim the right of patronage over it. The exaction of the so-called constitutional permission to authorize the priests in charge of parishes designated by the Bishop of Arequipa to exer- cise their functions freely was not put into practice previously, and this circumstance caused no disturb- ance whatsoever, because the faithful of Chilean nationality have not felt mortified by it. If morti- fication could be felt now, this feeling, like other mortifications that spring from the present situation, ought to be taken into account in order to bring to a conclusion the international problem that is pend- ing. If the purpose of the negotiators had been to es- tablish the right of the exigency mentioned, they would have so indicated expressly in the Treaty or they would have made legal provision for the change in ecclesias- tical jurisdiction. Neither the one thing nor the other has taken place, because both were unnecessary, in view of the relative shortness of the period of occupation, and, above all, of the character thereof. This has been understood in its rigid impartiality by the Holy See, since it has not acceded, in recent times, to the efforts of the representatives of Your Excellency's Govern- ment, and the same has also been understood by the authorities of Chile themselves, inasmuch as they have formulated no claims in respect of acts of force during the years prior to the policy begun under the name of Chileanization. The closing of the churches throughout the territory has deprived its Catholic inhabitants of the practices 442 of worship, thus deeply wounding the religious senti- ment by which they are moved. The measure has in- cluded parish priests who, for a long time, have tran- quilly exercised their ministry, and from this comes, among those that suffer from the effects of the violent suppression of worship, the general idea that it is not the permission that has given rise to the measure, but the necessity of removing Peruvian incumbents re- garding whom it is assumed that they are using their influence to keep alive the national sentiment that Chile has not been able to smother by any means dur- ing the thirty years of exclusive administration. It is, at all events, an undeniable and lamentable fact that the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica live under an exceptional regime in respect of religion. They suffer there for the want of application of one of the essential guaranties characteristic of civilized life : that of engaging in the public worship that the occu- pying State itself supports. Your Excellency is of the opinion that it was sup- posable that my Government might welcome the news of the creation of the department of Tarata, because that resolution is destined to improve the general con- ditions of life in the district mentioned. I remark to Your Excellency that no measure that disclosed the intent not to hold the plebiscite can be well received by my Government: Because of that plan, I had the honor to call Your Excellency's attention to the fact that Peru had lodged a protest, shortly after the sign- ing of the Treaty of Peace, because the Government of Chile had extended, without any right whatsoever, the occupation to a part of the province of Tarata. This remonstrance, which I now reiterate, does not imply, as Your Excellency says, that Peru has any doubt of the result of the plebiscite. The result would not be 443 doubtful, if the act were accomplished with due recti- tude, but this supposition does not base on law the thesis that the occupation of the districts of Tarata is legitimate, just as it would not have based on it a greater expansion, if it had been carried into effect. I must, therefore, perform the duty of insisting on the steps begun in my former communication and on requesting Your Excellency to bear in mind the seriousness of the measures that have been carried out recently by the authorities of Tacna and Arica. My Government once more entertains the hope, in spite of the contents of Your Excellency's note, that the Government of Chile will remedy the abuses of which those authorities are guilty, will stop the persecution of the parish priests, withdraw the prohibition of the public exercise of Catholic practices, prevent the sys- tematic hostility manifested toward Peruvians and allay the public anxiety caused by the steps that are without explanation taken in connection with the negotiations set on foot for the establishment of the bases of the plebiscitary regulations. My Government appreciates very sincerely the ex- pression of the Chilean desire to arrive at a close friendship with Peru : an expression to which the last part of Your Excellency's note is devoted. This de- sire is ours also, under conditions of absolute sincer- ity: a reason why we have omitted no effort on every occasion to try to persuade the Government of Chile that it is in its power to remove the only difficulty to which allusion has been made, by strictly discharging the solemn engagement relative to the fate of the oc- cupied provinces, and by respecting the vote of their populations. In order to secure the union of the two countries, which would be so productive of good to both of them, it would be necessary, on the part of 444 Peru, according to Your Excellency 's indication, ' ' that she contemplate the reality of things," or, by implica- tion, that she renounce, wholly or partially, the right that belongs to her. If the reality of things were, as Your Excellency insinuates, the absolute purpose of Chile to maintain her possession, it would be necessary to conclude that the agreement of the two countries and their consequent close cordiality would be possible solely by an exclusive sacrifice made by Peru. Be persuaded, Your Excellency, that we shall never voluntarily abandon, whatever the inducement offered us, a territory that constitutes an integral part of the nation and one whose history has been an element of burs ever since we have enjoyed an independent ex- istence. The Peruvian national aspiration will never bhange in this respect, because it must inevitably be so in order to be in harmony with the patriotic con- stancy and abnegation of her sons. Chile, on the other hand, would have to make no sacrifice whatsoever, either of her ancient territory or of that which she acquired in martial strife. It would be sufficient for her to yield to the clear-cut pro- visions of the written Treaty. The full cordiality thus secured would have the solid foundation of justice. That noble aim is cherished to- day by all the civilized nations that have regard for the maintenance and increase of their prestige. It ought also to be cherished by Chile in order to foster the laudable and definitive accord that Your Excellency designates and proposes. I am pleased to take this opportunity to offer to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration. M. F. Pokkas. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. 445 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile, to Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. [Translation.] Santiago, March 3, 1910. Mr. Minister: My Government has in its possession the communi- cation that Your Excellency has seen fit to address to me under date of December 23d last, in which you insist on the representations that have been elicited from Your Excellency's Government by certain mea- sures adopted by mine in the territories of Tacna and Arica. Your Excellency declares that, after your first com- munication — Your Excellency doubtless alludes to the note of September 30th last — other occurrences have taken place in the province of Tacna as serious as the closing of some parishes, the proclamation of the law that extends to that province the application ot the colonization laws and the early creation of the department of Tarata: serious occurrences which 4 'reveal, besides, in a very accentuated manner, the design of hostility with which are inspired the Chilean authorities that are in charge of the public administra- tion of that territory." Your Excellency particularly designates as such the emigration of Peruvian laborers, which Your Excel- lency qualifies as compulsory; the creation of certain industries similar to others already established that belong to persons of Peruvian nationality; and, finally, the closing of the parochial churches of Tacna on account of the lamentable death of Seiior Andia, the virtuous parish priest. Your Excellency then sets forth the reasons that induce you to regard as restricted the powers that 446 the Treaty of Ancon conferred on my country in the province mentioned and as limited the applica- tion of Chilean legislation; insisting on affirming that the period fixed for the sovereignty of Chile in Tacna and Arica has expired; and, perhaps, merely for the purpose of bringing into greater relief ar- guments, in reality without importance, Your Excel- lency qualifies motives, intentions and purposes of my Government, thus entering on ground forbidden by the usual practices of international courtesy. Your Excellency maintains that you share with my Government, under conditions of absolute sincerity, the desire to strengthen the friendship of our re- spective countries; but, at the same time, Your Ex- cellency adds that I ought to be persuaded that Peru will " never voluntarily abandon, whatever the induce- ment offered us, a territory that forms an integral part of the nation and one whose history has been an element of ours ever since we have enjoyed an independent existence. " "The Peruvian national aspiration, ' ' Your Excellency says, ' ' will never change in this respect, because it must inevitably be so in order to be in harmony with the patriotic constancy and abnegation of her sons." "Chile, on the other hand," Your Excellency con- tinues, "would have to make no sacrifice whatsoever, either of her ancient territory or of that which she acquired in martial strife. It would be sufficient for her to yield to the clear-cut provisions of the written Treaty." Your Excellency ends by saying that "the full cor- diality thus secured would have the solid foundation of justice;" that "that noble aim is cherished to-day by all the civilized nations that have regard for the maintenance and increase of their prestige," and that 447 "it ought also to be cherished by Chile in order to foster the laudable and definitive accord that Your Excellency designates and proposes/ ' Above all, I ought to make it clear to Your Excel- lency that the words with which you terminate the communication mentioned do not faithfully interpret the desire that you cherish, as Your Excellency has been pleased to express it, of strengthening friendship between Peru and Chile, because this noble purpose is not in harmony with the repetition of views, already uttered by His Excellency Senor Leguia, in his last message, relative to the justice on which, in order to maintain and increase its prestige, my Government ought to base its relations with Your Excellency's. In the note sent to Your Excellency, occasioned by that message, I said that justice is not defined by one of the parties in litigation and that he that up- holds his own rights does not lessen his prestige. Your Excellency's Government has invariably stamped mine as wanting in ideas of international justice and as disinclined to fulfill treaties, merely because it does not consider, like that of Your Excel- lency, that the first of such notions consists in deliv- ering to Peru what does not belong to her, either in point of fact or in point of law; and because, in the second place, it upholds an interpretation of the stipu- lations relative to the celebration of the plebiscite in a more ample manner and, above all, more in confor- mity with historical precedents in analogous cases. With the same or a better right, my Government could attribute to a disregard of the immutable prin- ciples of justice the design, hitherto invariable, of Your Excellency 's Government, not to accept any other solution of the problem pending than the surrender, frankly or covertly, directly or indirectly, of the ter- 448 ritories of Tacna and Arica; and with evident reason I might demonstrate that it is in Peru that there exists the true opposition to the fulfillment of a treaty that Your Excellency and your worthy predecessors al- ways invoke, while interpreting it erroneously. Nevertheless, I shall not enter into that realm, which would involve us in futile recriminations, with- out affording us the opportunity that Chile -desires of settling the question pending. On repeated occasions — before and after the inter- ruption suffered in 1901, on the initiative of Your Excellency's Government, by diplomatic relations be- tween Chile and Peru, and during the time when they were resumed, by the invitation that my Government gave to Your Excellency's to this effect in 1905 — the Government of Peru has invariably formulated the same "doctrines as those based, in Your Excellency's last communication, on the scope and interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty of Ancon. The deference that my Government is resolved to show always to Peru has induced it to reply over and over again to arguments and allegations, several times repeated and as often refuted, without adopting the attitude, only too well justified by the futility of its efforts, of confining itself to a simple acknowledg- ment of the receipt of them. However, Your Excellency's Government is not satisfied to insist on erroneous interpretations of the Treaty that governs at present the political relations of our respective countries, but, going further and violating its express stipulations as to the exercise of sovereignty of Chile in Tacna and Arica, it at- tempts to intermeddle in all the acts of internal ad- ministration that my Government exercises there, and it protests against each and all of the political and 449 administrative measures that my Government intro- duces in the exercise of its rights and in the perform- ance of its duties. It would seem that, in the opin- ion of the Government of Peru, everything that tends to alter the existing state of affairs in that region is reprehensible, and whether it be a question of restric- tive measures demanded by the conduct of certain public functionaries or a case of closing the parochial churches or of acts that stimulate the commercial, manufacturing or agricultural development of those territories — the former, because they oppress, the lat- ter, because they foster — Your Excellency's Govern- ment considers everything as an attack on the even- tual rights that it alleges. No sooner are plans made for the construction of an international railway that would restore to the territories of Tacna and Arica the former importance their international trade with Bolivia gave them for many years and that would therefore bestow upon their inhabitants inestimable economic advantages, than Your Excellency's Government protests and qualifies that universally beneficial measure as an infringement. When my Government exercised the constitutional right of patronage in order to put a stop to the des- ignation of parochial priests that did not always carry to the faithful of Tacna and Arica peace of soul and the example of their virtues, Your Excellency's Gov- ernment has likewise protested and considered op- pressive and exceptional a measure of evident moral benefit, demanded by the fundamental Charter of the Republic. When the aid of the State is granted to individuals to enable them to introduce new industries into Tacna and Arica and to foster some that are in a rudi- 450 mentary condition to-day, Your Excellency's Govern- ment protests and considers the measure prejudicial to the interests of their inhabitants, who, without any doubt, would receive by means of it the direct and indirect benefits that result from the opening of new sources of production. When the creation of the department of Tarata was projected in order to improve the administrative ser- vices, by increasing police vigilance and by extending the postal and telegraph services and, in short, by making the action of the authorities most efficacious, Your Excellency's Government protests and regards the contemplated measure a violation of its rights. Your Excellency will not be surprised that my Gov- ernment attaches only a relative importance to the demands that Your Excellency's Government itself has robbed of efficacy by pressing them into service for everything, constantly and systematically. Permit me to remind Your Excellency, in this re- spect, of the communications sent to my Government on November 14 and December 15 and 24, 1900; Jan- uary 19 and 30 and March 7, 1901; July 16, 1904; Feb- ruary 18 and April 25, 1905 ; May 8, 1908 ; September 30 last ; and, finally, the one to which I am replying. All these communications have been answered by my Government in others that bear the dates of Jan- uary 19, February 18 and March 13, 1901 ; August 12, 1904; March 15 and June 5, 1905; March 25, 1908; and in publications with which Your Excellency is acquainted. In the correspondence conducted by Your Excel- lency's Government, to which I have just alluded, it has been demonstrated in a manner that Peru has not been able to refute hitherto that, according to the law and the spirit of the Treaty of Ancon, the territories of Tacna and Arica were ceded to Chile in 451 full and absolute sovereignty, without any limitation as to its exercise, and limited only in regard to its duration by the event of a plebiscite called after the passage of ten years. If the plebiscite has not yet been effected, it is be- cause Your Excellency's Government attempts to re- strict the right of suffrage by destroying the very essence of the plebiscitary act, which, as its name in- dicates and diplomatic precedents confirm, must be popular ; and because, besides, Peru demands that Chile shall suspend, until it shall be effected, the exercise of a sovereignty that only the adverse result of the plebiscite itself could extinguish. Chile is not, as Your Excellency says, the obstacle to the accomplishment of the plebiscite because she has not decided to come to an agreement with Peru. In affirming this, Your Excellency forgets her re- iterated proposals always rejected. As for the rest, I ought to remind Your Excellency that the plebiscites recorded by history prove that they are means conceived by Governments to soften, by the appearance of popular suffrage, a cession or an annexation agreed on beforehand, thus avoiding, as far as possible, wounding the national sentiment of the country thus dismembered. . The reason is obvious : governments can not se- riously consent to leave to the eventuality of a vote the fate of a territory, capable, as in this case, of constituting the security of its frontiers and the com- pensation for sacrifices of blood and money. The preliminaries, the alternatives and the incidents of the diplomatic negotiations that resulted in the Treaty of Ancon demonstrate in good faith that its promoters had recourse to the plebiscitary formula as the only means designated by history of satisfying 452 the territorial demands of Chile without deeply wound- ing a national sentiment of Peru, of which certain elements made capital in order to overthrow the tot- tering Government of the illustrious General Iglesias, who signed it. Your Excellency's Government has recognized in the circular that he addressed to the friendly powers, under date of May 26, 1901, that Chile always set up, as an immutable requisite for signing the Treaty in question, the cession of the territories of Tacna and Arica, considered paramount to the security of her frontiers. In truth, Your Excellency's Govern- ment says, in the circular mentioned in explanation of the causes that had led to the rupture of its re- lations with my Government, that ' ' the victories after- ward' 7 — Your Excellency's Government refers at that moment to the month of October, 1880, and to the conferences on the Lackawanna — "achieved by Chile aroused greater ambitions, and a year later, in 1881, the cession of Tacna and Arica was an exigency pre- sented as a condition sine qua non of peace in the negotiations that were opened during the following two years." Nevertheless, my Government, having in support of its contention innumerable precedents and even the history of the negotiations of the Treaty them- selves, and desiring to forget past discords and strengthen the relations demanded by nature and ci- vilization for the two countries, has sought in the holding of the plebiscite the satisfaction of its legiti- mate exigencies, and it only asks that the act be essentially popular and that it be effected without violating for a single instant, by interrupting them, its rights as a sovereign in the territories of Tacna and Arica. 453 My Government does not abandon the hope of see- ing that of Your Excellency ready to come to an un- derstanding on a basis that the serene judgment of the nations that behold us to-day, and to-morrow, and history, will esteem to be just, equitable and even generous. Before entering on a ground, more practical, and, above all, more effective for the object pursued, of settling at once this difficulty that has continued for more than a quarter of a century, as an expression of the cordiality of the relations that my Government would always maintain with Your Excellency's, I will proceed to give you a brief explanation, if not of the right, which is unquestionable, at least of the motives that induce my Government to adopt in Tacna and Arica the measures that Your Excellency qualifies as serious acts, in the communication to which I am replying. Of the representations that Your Excellency makes, none surprises my Government more than the one rel- ative to the introduction of new industries designed to be developed in an environment free of competition ; and the mere fact that Your Excellency concerns yourself with it indicates that you deem it possible to restrict freedom of trade: a fundamental basis of the progress of nations. The Government, convinced of the importance to the future of the Eepublic of the growth of its man- ufacturing industries, patronizes and fosters them throughout the whole extent of its territory by utiliz- ing the different means that the laws place at its dis- posal; and, just as in the other provinces prosperity is enjoyed by the manufacturers of textiles, footwear, cloth, steel, sugar, paper and tobacco, so it hopes, not without reason, that in Tacna, those will thrive 454 that have recently opened their doors, thus cheapen- ing for consumers the price of the articles they elab- orate and creating new centers of activity. My Government is performing the duties inherent to the sovereignty it exercises over those territories in stimulating and fostering the establishment of new industries and it considers that even in the cases of distinctly litigious territories it is permitted to foster industries that strengthen the rights in litigation. To prove this assertion I need only to appeal to the nobility of Your Excellency's sentiments, which must recognize, as is true, that Peru has stimulated by all the means within her power the creation of Peruvian interests in all the territories that she has litigated and is litigating with the border nations. In the province of Tacna itself, Your Excellency's Government patronizes and fosters not only the ag- ricultural, commercial and industrial interests of Peru- vian citizens, but also direct means of active pro- paganda to keep alive its former relations, which my Government has tolerated hitherto, in spite of the abuses that have been committed to vilify it, thanks to this tolerance. Your Excellency's spirit of equity will doubtless lead you to recognize that it is impossible to qualify as serious and abusive what Your Excellency's Gov- ernment practises with still greater zeal. Your Excellency again protests, in the communi- cation to which I am replying, against the closing of the parochial churches and the fact that it has been made impossible for Sehor Flores Mestres to continue to exercise his functions as a parish priest. Your Excellency insists on affirming that the pro- vince of Tacna is subject to an exceptional regime that violates the express and definite provisions of the Treatv. 455 To refute this assertion of Your Excellency's it will be sufficient for me to remind you once more of the prescriptions of the Political Constitution that govern the relations between the Church and the State : prescriptions which, like all others, are in force in the province of Tacna by virtue of the very Treaty that Your Excellency invokes. The hope that a tolerance toward the Peruvians, which I do not hesitate to qualify as excessive, would be reciprocated toward the Chilean priests by the respective Diocesan, induced my Government, for a number of years, to be less strict than it is to-day in its patronage demands. Disappointed in this hope, and the private conduct of some of the parochial priests being carried to the verge of scandal, my Govern- ment is under the unavoidable moral obligation to exact' compliance with all the constitutional require- ments in their appointments. Your Excellency will bear in mind that if on the Diocesan of Arequipa might be placed the respon- sibility for the ills endured by the faithful Peru- vians that constitute his flock, my Government, in its condescendence, would be at least responsible for the ills falling to the lot of the Chileans. The Chilean population of Tacna and Arica is con- siderable at the present time, and Your Excellency yourself manifests the displeasure with which you be- hold it increase from day to day, in proportion as the Peruvian population diminishes. Nothing could be more just than to see to it that their religious needs shall be met by priests of their own nation- ality, or at least such as exercise their ministry with exclusively religious and charitable designs. If Your Excellency's Government esteems the Peru- vian inhabitants of Tacna and Arica oppressed in 456 their religious beliefs because it is today prohibited, pursuant to definite constitutional provisions, to exer- cise parochial functions without the respective su- preme authorization, Your Excellency yourself will consider how thoroughly right my Government is in considering the Chilean inhabitants oppressed in theirs, when the Right Illustrious Bishop of Arequipa declines, contrary to the express dictates of canonical law, to grant licenses to Chilean priests for the exer- cise of their duties as such. My Government has never been indifferent to what might disturb the peace of consciences. It under- stands that the conflict aroused in Tacna by the stub- bornness of the Diocesan of Arequipa threatens to deprive Chileans, Peruvians and other foreigners of the aids and comforts of the religion they profess, and in this emergency its purpose is to seek a conciliatory remedy that will put an end to it without a diminu- tion of the rights or a lessening of the dignity of. either country. The designs of an essentially spiritual character entertained by the Holy See would make it possible to intrust to it, until its definitive nationality shall be determined, the religious jurisdiction of the pro- vince of Tacna, thus removing it from the influence of political interests contended for by Peru and Chile. A foreign vicar, designated by the supreme head of the Church would administer the spiritual interests of the province, and the priests of all nationalities resident in Tacna would have in him the guaranties they demand. Your Excellency's Government must share with mine the full confidence that it reposes in the rec- titude of intentions and the serene impartiality of the Holy See, and if it really desires for the inhabi- 457 tants of Tacna and Arica the greatest sum of moral well-being, it will welcome unhesitatingly — I hope — the proposal that I formulate. This fundamental basis being agreed on, it will be easy to come to an understanding to grant to Chilean, Peruvian and other foreign priests equal facilities and guaranties in the exercise of their sacred func- tions in those territories. My Government laments that a controversy with Your Excellency, which ought to be confined to reach- ing an adjustment as to the bases of the plebiscite that is to determine the definitive nationality of Tacna and Arica should be prolonged by means of diplomatic communications . In its communication of March 25, 1908, my Govern- ment proposed to that of Your Excellency different means of arriving at a perfect accord between the two countries, and, among them, the holding of a plebiscite under more than equitable conditions. Unfortunately, its proposals were not well received, and Your Excellency's Government declared that, for the present, it desires to confine itself to reaching an understanding with mine as to the conditions under which the plebiscitary act ought to be effected. Out of regard for cordiality and in interpretation of a national feeling, my Government desires once more to be deferential to that of Your Excellency, and, pass- ing over juridical considerations and historical pre- cedents that determine the true scope of the plebi- scitary act, it proposes that it be effected on the fol- lowing bases: 1. The plebiscite will take place six months after the exchange of the ratifications of the protocol. 2. All the plebiscitary acts will be supervised by a "Directive Board' ' and carried into effect by "Reg- 458 istration Committees ' ' and "Receiving Committees. " 3. Both the Directive Board, which will function in the city of Tacna, and the Registration and Receiving Committees, which will function in Tacna and Arica, will be composed of three members, namely : one mem- ber appointed by the Government of Chile, another designated by the Government of Peru and a third elected by the Consular Corps resident in Tacna or in Arica, by a majority of votes. The chairmanships of the Directive Board and of the Registration and Receiving Committees will be- long to the member appointed by the Government of Chile. 4. It will be the duty of the Directive Board: a. To make up and publish the general list of all the voters, in conformity with the partial lists of the Registration Committees ; b. To exercise the general scrutiny, to announce the result of the plebiscite and to communicate it to the Governments of Peru and Chile; c. To settle all doubts and questions that may arise in the registrations, votes and other plebiscitary acts ; d. To adopt all the measures that shall assure the correctness and seriousness of the plebiscitary pro- ceedings and public order during their accomplish- ment. 5. The Registration Committees will be installed, one in Tacna and the other in Arica, within eight days after the constitution of the Directive Board, and they will function for twenty consecutive days, from ten in the forenoon until four in the afternoon, inscribing in the lists the names of persons that re- quest registration and meet the requirements indi- cated in the following section. 6. Chileans, Peruvians and foreigners that fulfill the following conditions will have the right to vote: 459 a. Twenty-one years of age; b. Ability to read and write; c. Residence of six months in the province. 7. The Registration Committees will deliver to each person a registration ticket, which the latter must present afterward to the Receiving Committees. 8. In case the Registration Committee shall refuse to register a person, it must note in the minutes of the session of the day the name of the person re- jected and the reason of his exclusion, and he will have the right to demand a copy of the part of the minutes that pertain to him. 9. Following the last registration, the members of the Registration Committee will daily stamp their sig- natures, and they will place above them, in letters, the number of persons registered during the day. 10. When the period for registration shall ter- minate, the Directive Board will cause the lists to be published within the next eight days following, in the newspapers of Tacna and Arica, and on pla- cards that will be displayed in the public buildings. 11. Within the fifteen days that follow this publi- cation, the persons that protest against their re- jection may appear before the Directive Board, and after the termination of this period, the list shall stand definitively constituted, with the changes ac- corded by it. 12. After the making up of the definitive list, the Directive Board will designate, within the following eight days, the date on which the Receiving Commit- tees are to function. They will function on the day set, from eight in the forenoon until six in the after- noon, and they will be composed of the same members as those that have formed the Registration Commit- tees. 460 13. The voters will show their registration tickets at the moment of voting, and they will be taken up by the Receiving Committees and exchanged for cer- tificates in which it shall appear that the person has voted. 14. When reception of the votes has ceased, the Committee will make out a partial scrutiny and de- liver it to the Directive Board, at the same time as the minutes, the lists, the unused registration tickets and the other documents that may be in its possession. 15. Within the following twenty-four hours, the Di- rective Board will make a general scrutiny, at a single session, until it shall proclaim the result. 16. The Directive Board and the Registration and Receiving Committees will enjoy the most absolute independence in the exercise of their functions, and the chairman of each of them will take the necessary measures to maintain order and to safeguard the free- dom of the voters. 17. The Directive Board and the Registration and Receiving Committees will be able to function only with the majority of the members 'then present that compose them, and in case of the incapacity of any member, he will be replaced during his incapacitation by the person designated by the Government or author- ity that appointed the person incapacitated. 18. All resolutions will be decided by a majority of votes. 19. A special protocol, which will be signed simul- taneously with the one that fixes the conditions of the plebiscite, will determine the administrative acts of the Government of Chile and the rights acquired by third parties, which Peru engages to respect, in case the result shall be favorable to her, as well as the pecuniary indemnities that may be due them on whatsoever ground. 461 Proposals as liberal and equitable as these ought to merit a frank and favorable reception by Your Excellency's Government, if it desires to settle the pending difficulty in conformity with the stipulations of the Treaty of Ancon. ffhe essential ones — those relative to the period in which the plebiscite ought to be held, to the nationality of the voters and other requirements that affect them and to who is to pre- side over the act — are not new to Your Excellency, for they were formulated already by the represen- tative of Chile in Lima. Your Excellency, in your communication dated No- vember 5, saw fit to make certain representations that my Government, after carefully analyzing them, con- siders unfounded. I. Your Excellency begins by objecting to the period designated for holding the plebiscite and you propose that it be effected immediately after the signing of the protocol. My Government finds it impossible to accept the arrangement proposed by Your Excellency, because, among other reasons, it would be contrary to the ex- press prescriptions of the Political Constitution of the State. It establishes that international treaties re- quire legislative sanction in order to render their ef- fects binding, and therefore the protocol contemplated could only be considered valid after the approval of both branches of the Congress. Your Excellency will understand, without further delay, that the point of departure for the fixing of the plebiscitary act must necessarily be the exchange of the ratifications of the protocol. II. Your Excellency objects to the residence of six months that my Government fixes for voters, and pro- poses to reckon it from July 1, 1907, for reasons re- garding which my Government is ignorant. 462 At first glance the date designated by Your Excel- lency is arbitrary, as it would not be in pursuance of any known rule or of what has occurred in similar cases. A residence of six months constitutes, in the opinion of my Government, a sufficient proof of the will to take up residence in the territory, which is all that may be exacted for the purpose of granting the right to contribute to the settlement of its definitive na- tionality. Not even this was ever required in other plebiscites that have been held, and in fixing on it, my Government gives tangible proof of its sincere desire to arrive at an accord with that of Your Ex- cellency, which attaches so much importance to this restriction, among other restrictions, of the right of 'suffrage. My Government does not see how it could come nearer, in this respect, to the conditions that Your Excellency designates. III. Your Excellency holds that the requirement of being able to read and write, which in modern times is universally legislated in the law of suffrage, ought not to be required of voters. My Government considers that only persons that are permitted, according to the legislation of Peru and Chile, to exercise electoral rights, are qualified to express themselves consciously as to the nationality that may be more expedient for the territories of the provinces of Tacna and Arica. Persons that the fundamental Charters of the two countries exclude from all share in the election of their rulers and legislators are juridically and effec-* tively incapable of judging of what nationality is just for the country in which they dwell, and their par- ticipation would rob the plebiscite of the seriousness 463 that ought to characterize an act of such tremendous importance. IV. Your Excellency considers that foreigners and even certain definite groups of the Chilean collectivity ought to be excluded from all participation in the plebiscite. Such a demand would be contrary, in the opinion of my Government, to the terms and stipulations of the Treaty of Ancon, and it tends to destroy the very essence of the plebiscite, which, as its name indicates, must be eminently popular. - The exclusion of foreigners, comprehensible in in- ternal political elections that affect solely the consti- tution of the public authorities, is not justified in a plebiscite designed to give rise to international effects. In the note' that my Government addressed to that of Your Excellency, under date of March 25, 1908, it analyzed this question at length, and this circum- stance renders it unnecessary to weary Your Excel- lency's attention with similar arguments. Nevertheless, I deem it indispensable to call Your Excellency's attention to the capital importance to Peru of the vote of the foreigners that live in Tacna and Arica. Your Excellency's Government is aware that mine does not accept arbitration to settle the question that divides us, because it considers it included among those that affect vital interests. The participation of foreigners in the plebiscitary act contributes to it an important element exempt from the national pas- sions involved, and it tenons, therefore, to satisfy, as far as the nature of the question at issue may permit, the desire of Your Excellency's Government to in- trust its solution to a neutral. 464 * Note, Your Excellency, that in this case the neutral opinion would possess an especial prestige and weight, because it would emanate from an entity that resides in the contested region and is acquainted with its needs and interests. The exclusion that Your Excellency proposes, of certain definite groups of the Chilean collectivity, in- volves, perhaps without Your Excellency's so intend- ing, a discourtesy that my Government did not ex- pect, in view of its deferential attitude in not exclud- ing, under identical circumstances, any member of the Peruvian collectivity from the part that he may desire to take in the plebiscitary act. My Government can not accept Your Excellency's proposals to this effect, which, presented in Peru with the same object, would have been rejected by Your Excellency with justifiable harshness. V. Your Excellency considers unreasonable the de- mand of my Government that it should preside over all the plebiscitary acts, and you hold that these func- tions belong to the neutral members of the Board and of the Committees. Taking its stand on the elementary principles of public law and on numerous diplomatic precedents, my Government could claim that the plebiscite should be effected under its sole and exclusive direction and supervision. Without abandoning this view of its rights, out of particular deference to Your Excellency's Govern- ment and in order to show consideration for the keenest susceptibilities of the Peruvian inhabitants of Tacna and Arica, it has proposed and it does pro- pose to Your Excellency to limit its claims to what is strictly demanded by its character of sovereign in those territories, and hence its purpose merely to 465 preside over boards and committees of which Peru- vians and other foreigners will form a part. It would be impossible therefore for my Govern- ment to go further without lessening a sovereignty that can only be terminated by the consequences of the adverse result of the plebiscite itself. Recall, Your Excellency, that the resolution of the Directive Board and of the Registration and Receiv- ing Committees will be expressed by a majority of the votes, in conformity with these bases. Chile has succeeded in settling all the great ques- tions pending with the contiguous nations, and what is even more satisfactory and admirable, they were no sooner solved than she sealed with them an endur- ing friendship. It only remains now to blot out, in her relations with Peru, the last vestige of past strife, and to this fraternal enterprise tend her efforts, which she hopes to see prized and reciprocated. As the Republic completes a century of existence, she would conceive that she is rendering the highest homage to those that founded her, if she were able to seal with Peru a friendship that they fostered and that subsequent vicissitudes have interrupted but have not extinguished. It will be sufficient to appeal for a moment to pa- triotism rightly understood, in order to find, in the fulfillment of the Treaty, the formula that shall re- store to these countries the cordiality that should al- ways have characterized their relations. May Your Excellency be inclined to see in the bases suggested the lofty spirit of justice that animates my Government and the effort it lavishes to afford to Peru indisputable proofs of its purpose, never shaken, of carrying into effect the treaties that it honors with its signature. 466 I take this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excel- lency the assurances of my high and most distin- guished consideration. Agustik Edwabds. To His Excellency, Senor Meliton Porras, Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru. Circular of Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to Chilean Legations Abroad. [Translation.] Santiago, March 15, 1910. Me. Minister : The sensation caused abroad by the measure that the Government has just taken, decreeing the expul- sion of the so-called parish priests of Tacna and Arica, induces me to inform you in detail as to the diplomatic and juridical facts and serious motives that have de- termined such a measure. Knowing the facts, you will not entertain any doubts respecting the perfect justi- fication for that measure and its complete legality. I. THE FACTS. The Treaty of Ancon, signed on October 20, 1883, put an end to the conflict of 1879 and left under the sovereignty of Chile, without any limitations as to its exercise, the old Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica. Only the duration of such sovereignty has the eventual limitation of a plebiscite which may termi- nate it. •167 This scope of the dispositions of the Treaty has been and is disputed by the Government of Peru, which con- siders the exercise of our sovereignty over Tacna and Arica to be limited, and which even has maintained that such sovereignty is at an end because of the ex- piration of the term fixed for the carrying out of the plebiscite. The elemental notion of sovereignty, its very es- sence, exclude this interpretation given by Peru to the said depositions. Peru has not and could not have continued to exer- cise any authority over those territories, because sovereignty, which is one and indivisible, cannot be shared between two. It is obvious, likewise, that our sovereignty cannot be at an end, because it is not possible to conceive a territory without a sovereign, and because it was not the expiration of a fixed term, that would end such sovereignty, but only the event of a plebiscite register- ing the will of the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica to the effect that those provinces should be reincorpo- rated to Peru. The Government that exercises unlimited sover- eignty has under its control all of those services, civil as well as religious, that produce secular effects. Thus, both remained, by virtue of the Treaty of Ancon, and without further formalities, under the authority of the Chilean Government, without any restrictions whatso- ever. And if the latter exercises all of its sovereign rights respecting the services of a civil nature, it is logical that it should exercise them likewise respecting those of a religious nature, in accordance with those 468 dispositions of the Constitution that apply to the re- lations between the Church and the State. And the present conflict is caused precisely by the fact that the Chilean Government finds obstacles in the way of the exercise of those rights respecting the ser- vices of a religious nature. A perfect agreement be- tween the State and the Church is essential to the ecclesiastic services. It is difficult to reach such an agreement in the case of Tacna and Arica, because the spiritual authority there, is exercised by a diocesan of foreign nationality, while the political and admini- strative authority is exercised by the Government of the Republic. In those territories that, by virtue of the same Treaty of Ancon, have been ceded to Chile by Peru in perpetuity, and in the territories later ceded to Chile by Bolivia, the services of a religious nature have been placed under the control of the Chilean ecclesiastic authorities, by virtue of the same principles of sover- eignty and of the same reasons that the Chilean Gov- vernment invokes for the territories of Tacna and Arica. The fact that, while in the former case the religious jurisdiction has been adjusted to the civil, in the latter case a similar solution is still pending, has no satis- factory explanation. The modification in both cases is determined by the full and absolute sovereignty of Chile, and the circum- stance that in the case of Tacna and Arica that sover- eignty might possibly end, cannot be considered as an essential difference. It does not take away from the sovereignty any part either of its attributes or of its force. Its exercise is ample as long as it may endure. In the province of Tarapaca and in the old Bolivian 469 littoral the services of a religious nature were sepa- rated from their old jurisdiction, without any opposi- tion upon the part of the Holy See, and new ecclesias- tic authorities were created in harmony with the civil jurisdiction and in accordance with the constitutional precepts regarding the patronage. Any opposition to that change would have been con- sidered as an unmerited offense against national dig- nity, as an unjustified disavowal of the new state of affairs, and, lastly, as an extraneous and unacceptable limitation upon the exercise of our sovereignty. For the same reasons, Chile has possessed the right to demand that a Chilean ecclesiastic authority should exercise religious jurisdiction over Tacna and Arica as long as those territories remain under sovereignty. Nevertheless, her demands have not covered all of her rights, and with an eminently conciliatory spirit, she has confined, herself, for the time being, to ordering the Peruvian parish priests to obey the Constitution and the laws of the Eepublic, and to requiring the pres- ent diocesan to permit, thus complying with his canoni- cal duties, Chilean priests to exercise their sacred ministrations. The Chilean Government has not been as strict in the exercise of its sovereign rights respecting the ser- vices of a religious nature, as it has been respecting those of a civil nature. It has evidenced signs of a condescendence and of a tolerance which have not been appreciated by the very ones who were benefited by them. Two reasons counselled Chile to adopt that attitude. On the one hand, she did not wish to have any difficul- ties with the Holy See, with whom she cultivates such good and cordial relations. And, on the other hand. 470 she wished to afford the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica, the majority of whom were formerly Peruvians, a "proof of the respect that she entertained for their feelings, by permitting them to continue being at- tended by the clergy of their own nationality. This tolerance upon the part of the Chilean Govern- ment was badly interpreted by the Peruvian priests,, and under its shelter they formed a very influential and numerous nucleus that directed an active and tenacious propaganda against Chile, thus returning positive evil for the good done unto them. But this is not all. In return for the generosity of the Chilean Government in permitting the Peruvian inhabitants to continue to be attended by priests of their own nationality, the Diocesan of Arequipa re- fused to grant to the Chilean inhabitants, already numerous, the permission necessary for their enjoy- ment of the identical spiritual benefits. Thus, for many years, the obstinacy of the Bishop of Arequipa and the determination, until now invari- able, of the Holy See of not making any changes in the religious jurisdiction of those territories, had been brewing a conflict which appeared to be religious, but which in reality was political and international, a sen- sational conflict the solution of which will require the good will and the best efforts of the parties concerned in it. II. THE EVENTS. As the Chilean population of Tacna and Arica in- creased, greater became the necessity of providing for its religious service, and negotiations tending to this end were initiated before the Holy See. * 471 During some time, the interruption of our diplomatic relations with the Vatican, brought about by reasons which we need not recall here, prevented the Chilean Government from taking those steps, which, further- more, the then scant Chilean population of Tacna and Arica did not make as indispensable as at present. Those relations having been reestablished, the Gov- ernment has been constantly preoccupied in warding off the conflict which was seen to be brewing, and which would break out some day in the painful manner that has been seen. Unfortunately, the Holy See has understood its duty as a neutral in such a manner that it has not been able to respond to the very just pleas of the Chilean Catho- lics of Tacna and Arica. The Government of Chile, because of the high conception that the Holy See has of its sacred duties toward Catholics of all nationali- ties, hopes that that policy, harmful to the spiritual interests of Chileans who reside in those territories, will soon undergo a change. Besides, the administrative authorities of the prov- inces of Tacna and Arica have verified, on repeated oc- casions, acts on the part of the supposed parish priests that have lessened their prestige, and that even affords a lamentable example for their parishioners. The respect owing to the Church, does not permit a relation, in the present note, of some of these acts, a relation that would bring surprise and indignation to all upright men. In a long confidential communication, I am sending you all of these facts, perfectly verified. The erudition and virtue of the Chilean clergy being notorious, it is humiliating to national dignity to see the Diosesan of Arequipa rejecting them, as unworthy even of exercising their offices, while at the same time 472 he maintained in their places priests who had lost, even before the eyes of their fellow-citizens, that moral au- thority that constitutes their strength. The relations with the Holy See having been re- newed in such a manner as would permit hoping that the negotiations established would have a satisfactory result, the necessity of having Chilean priests in Tacna and Arica becoming indispensable, the moral harm in- flicted even upon Peruvians by the conduct of the so- called parish priests, having been verified, the moment had arrived, for the Government, when its duty obliged it to take a decisive step in order to satisfy that neces- sity and to extirpate these ills. First it sought a solution by suggesting the creation of a foreign vicarage that would depend directly upon the Holy See, but the protests of Peru did not allow a result to be reached that would have warded off the present situation. The exercise of such an extraneous influence might be considered contrary to our rights of sovereignty over Tacna and Arica, a sovereignty that Peru cannot share with us, as it is one and indivisible. As the purpose of the Government merely is to ex- plain the beginning and the development of events, we cannot judge as to whether it was Peru's inter- ference in an affair that was being discussed between Chile and the Holy See, that brought about the deter- mination of the latter. The Government then asked for permission to main- tain two Chilean chaplains in the Chilean hospitals of Tacna and Arica, in order to minister to the dying of that nationality. This request was refused also. Thus, in a territory that was subject to the sovereignty of Chile and that was ruled by the laws of the Eepub- 473 lie, Chileans were denied that which surely would be granted them today even in Lima if by misfortune they would be dying in the hospitals of that city. All the conciliatory" means having been exhausted, the Chilean Government found itself in the absolute necessity of adopting a more energetic attitude, and, convinced that its former efforts were fruitless, it ordered the strict compliance, in Tacna and Arica, with the constitutional provision, requiring the Peru- vian priests who pretended to be parish priests to ob- -^ tain permits. They refused to solicit the said permits, and then the Government, whose duty it is to enforce the com- pliance with the Constitution and with the laws, ordered the closing of those parochial churches in which the said priests unlawfully exercised their offices. The church at Tacna, however, remained open. Its parish priest, Seiior Andia, a model priest and patriot, merited this exceptional distinction because he was, above all, an apostle of peace and good will, and be- cause he had never denied the Republic her sovereign rights. All the churches thus being closed, the Peruvian priests, in order to replace them, opened oratories which they called private, but which were. in fact pub- lic. To them have been admitted even Chilean citizens, who promptly denounced them to the administrative authority of the province. There they continued exer- cising their offices as parish priests, thus openly and deliberately defying the Constitution and the laws, provoking the authorities, and, what is yet worse, as- suming prerogatives not acknowledged by the Chilean Government, and which emanate from foreign author- 474 ities that they have wished to make prevail over and above the national authorities. This attitude implied an act of manifest sedition, and a serious threat against public peace and order if it were not put to an end. Tn the meantime the Government had received, from its Legation at Lima, news of a favorable change of attitude upon the part of the Bishop of Arequipa. The Apostolic Delegate, Monsignor Dolci stated to our Charge dAif aires, by note dated September 2, 1909, that "the Bishop of Arequipa never has refused to grant the Chilean priests authorization to exercise their ministration in Tacna. ' ' A few days later, the Government instructed our Charge d'Aff aires to initiate negotiations, through the Apostolic Delegate, tending to obtain permits for the Chilean priests from the Bishop of Arequipa. And re- specting this, the Charge dAif aires wrote, in a note dated October 8th last : ! "Without delay, I went to see the Apostolic Delegate, who repeated the declarations that I communicated to you in a former note. But he observed that the Bishop had referred to the priestly ministration and not to the parochial jurisdiction, the latter being an affair the solving of which depends upon the Government, from which nothing can be expected.' ' To make clear the purpose of the negotiation, our Government hastened to express to the Apostolic Dele- gate, through our Charge d'Affaires, that the permits solicited for the Chilean priests, included only the or- dinary authorization to receive confessions, to say mass, and to preach. 475 To this effect, the Government sent, on November 23d, the following communication to our Charge d 'Affaires : "In accordance with what you manifest in a former communication, to the effect that the Bishop of Arequipa, through the Apostolic Dele- gate, has declared that he is willing to grant au- thorization to the Chilean priests to exercise their priestly ministration in Tacna and Arica, I am in- cluding the permits issued by the Archbishop of Santiago to the priests, Reverends Efrain Mada- riaga and Elias Lizana, in order that you may, through the Apostolic Delegate, obtain the au- thorization offered, from the Bishop of Arequipa, so that the said priests may exercise their priestly ministration in Tacna. May God keep you, Agustin Edwards." A few days later, in the same manner, the permits for the priests, Reverends Hugolino G. Quinzio and Rafael Edwards, were forwarded. Following the instructions received, our Charge d'Affaires addressed, on December 17th last, the fol- lowing note to the Apostolic Delegate : "Most Reverend: In private conversations that I have had the honor of having with Your Excel- lency on several occasions, Your Excellency has been kind enough to manifest to me that the Bishop of Arequipa has declared to Your Excel- lency, that he never has refused to grant the Chilean priests authorization to exercise their priestly ministration in the province of Tacna, with the understanding that such authorization includes only the right to say mass, to receive con- fessions, and to preach, with the exception of all parochial jurisdiction. 476 * ' Having forwarded this declaration to my Gov- ernment, I have received from it the permits granted by His Grace, the Archbishop of Santiago, to the priests Reverends Efrain Madariaga and Elias Lizana, so that I might, with the aid of Your Excellency obtain from the Bishop of Areqnipa the authorization necessary so that they may ex- ercise their priestly ministration in the province of Tacna, with the limitation expressed. "I include in this note the corresponding per- mits, and I am happy to assure Your Excellency that the Chilean Government will duly appreciate whatever influence you bring to bear upon the Bishop of Arequipa in order to bring about a favorable solution of this affair. "I avail myself of this occasion to reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Julio Perez Canto/' In a note dated December 24th last, the Charge d'Aff aires gives an account of his interview with the Apostolic Delegate, as follows : "I have spoken with the Apostolic Delegate to ask him to interpose his influence with the Bishop of Arequipa, and he has replied that in the present circumstances he considers it very difficult to ob- tain the authorization spoken of, especially since Sr. Porras is in the Cabinet. "He added that the Church, as a good mother, wished for the welfare of all her children, and that she could not take sides with one, against another. That his personal situation was very delicate, and that if he interested himself in favor of Chile, the Peruvian Government might expel him from the country. ' ' A few days later, on December 31st last, he reported the definite failure of the negotiations, as follows : 477 "Yesterday, Monsignor Dolci, sent me the fol- lowing message with the Secretary of the Apostolic Legation: 'that it was absolutely impossible for him to interfere in this affair, and that any action upon his part would be equivalent to taking the steamer and leaving the country.' I could not ob- tain any further explanations. " The Charge d 'Affaires adds that the Secretary of the Apostolic Legation returned to him, his note of December 17th, together with the permits that he had enclosed. Thus the last attempt made by the Chilean Govern- ment to ward off the necessity of taking extreme and painful measures, had failed. The Chilean priests had been banished from Tacna and Arica by the Bishop of Arequipa, who had in mind ends that were essentially political, and who placed upon the said priests a blame that they did not deserve because of their great culture, their unblemished virtue, and their evangelic spirit. Chilean citizens were de- prived of the assistance and of the comfort rendered by the religion that they professed. And thus a de- pressing situation was created, one that the Govern- ment could not tolerate, without putting to one side its traditions of uprightness and prestige. There does not exist any sound reason, there does not exist any consideration of equity or of justice, to justify the fact that only the Peruvians of Tacna and Arica should have the privilege of enjoying the advan- tages of receiving religious assistance from the hands of their own fellow citizens. Putting aside, then, the reasons of State and the clear rights that authorized the measure, the Govern- ment, inspired by a feeling of equity, and for the sake 478 of the equality that it seeks to apply to all the inhabi- tants of Tacna and Arica, whether they be Chileans, Peruvians, or foreigners, was placed in the painful but indispensable necessity of putting an end to this odious privilege. To this effect, on February 17th, it addressed the fol- lowing communication to the Intendant of Tacna : "Article III of the Treaty of Ancon placed the provinces of Tacna and Arica under the full sov- ereignty of our country without any limitations as to its exercise. Therefore, in the civil adminis- tration, as well as in the ecclesiastic, not any other authority than that of Chile should rule in that region. "Nevertheless, from a religious point of view, Tacna and Arica still depended upon the Bishopric of Arequipa, just as when those provinces were under Peruvian rule. "Chile at first did not grant any importance to this fact, thinking that the Bishop of Arequipa would maintain impartiality in the exercise of his office, attending only to the spiritual welfare of the region, and not applying any measures of a political nature. "Unfortunately, it was not so. Our Government learned with surprise, that the Peruvian ecclesi- astic authority assumed an attitude frankly hostile to the Chilean Government and authority. ^ In the provinces named, it only appointed Peruvians as parish priests, and it ever refused to permit Chilean clergymen to exercise their priestly offices. ' * By this strange attitude, our citizens were left, without any good reason, in a very deplorable sit- uation, as they could not receive religious assist- ance from our own priests, although they were on Chilean territory. And this serious state of af- fairs was made more complicated by the fact that the Peruvian priests, the morality of^ some of whom was deplorable, constantly carried on an 479 anti-Chilean propaganda, upon territory that had been placed under our sovereignty by a solemn Treaty. ' i Chile for some time has desired to put an end to a situation that is abnormal and that wounds our national dignity, and to this effect decided to put in force the requirement of the Constitution respecting permits, in the case of all the appoint- ments of parish priests made by the Bishop of Arequipa for the provinces of Tacna and Arica. The Peruvian priests never have acknowledged the right of our authorities to demand that they comply with the requisite of our fundamental law. "At the same time, this Foreign Department initiated negotiations with the Roman Church, in order to solve this conflict in a friendly manner. "According to a communication from our Min- ister before the Holy See, the Vatican has de- clared that, in spite of its good will to do so, it can not accede to the wishes of the Chilean Gov- ernment. The reason upon which the Vatican bases its refusal is that the ecclesiastic question in Tacna and Arica is connected closely with the po- litical situation of that territory. And that, be- cause of the inflexibility on the part of Peru upon this point, any measure that the Vatican might take, would be considered a sign of partiality in favor of one of the two countries. "The Peruvian priests appointed by the Bishop of Arequipa in the meantime have assumed a very irritating and provoking attitude, being disposed to ignore our laws, living, as they do, under the protection of our Constitution. "Thus those persons, who are not permitted by the Chilean authorities to exercise their parochial office in the churches, exercise that office in private homes, thus attempting to defeat the purpose of the permit required by the Constitution. "The Government thinks that it is time to put an end to these irregularities which threaten its sovereign rights, and to apply energetic measures 480 in order that our laws may not be evaded with impunity. * i To this effect, it has availed itself of the right conceded by international law to the sovereign of a territory, to expel from it those foreigners who do not obey its laws, and who foment discord. Article V, paragraph 2 of our Law of Individual Guarantees, expressly authorizes our Government to take such a measure. "The Government of Chile, therefore charges you with the duty of notifying those who call them- selves Peruvian parish priests, who reside in Tac- na and Arica, to leave the territory of the Repub- lic as soon as possible. You will carry out this resolution, and will keep strict watch so that not any Peruvian priests may enter that territory for the ostensible purpose of exercising his office or of making propaganda in favor of his country. Agustin Edwards." Further on you will see that, although this measure has been attacked within as well as without the coun- try, the Government has subjected itself strictly to the law, safeguarding it in its entirety. Before analyzing the juridical aspect of the measure, I think it necessary to discuss a negotiation, that has been presented before the eyes of the world as one of a conciliatory nature proposed by a competent au- thority and not accepted by the Government. It has been said that a foreign order solicited from the Chilean Government an authorization to estab- lish itself in Tacna, and that the said authorization was not granted. As no facts respecting such a solicitation, existed in this Department, the Intendant of Tacna was asked for information, and he replied, by telegram dated the 12th of the present month, as follows : 481 " I have not received any communications of any kind respecting the settling of Barefooted Friars in the province. "If I had received any such communication, I would have submitted it immediately to your con- sideration. "It is true that on one occasion, some bare- footed missionaries who happened to be in Tacna were presented to me by the parish priest, and that, during the course of our brief conversation,, they asked if, in case that their order could estab- lish a home here, the authorities would offer facili- ties therefor. I answered affirmatively. "A little over a year later, they returned to Tacna on missions, and on a visit similar to the former, they repeated their question, adding that they thought that they could obtain permission from you to settle here. On this occasion I an- swered that circumstances had changed a great deal, because the Bishop of Arequipa refused to permit Chilean priests to exercise their ministra- tions here, and that his stubborness surely would force the Chilean Government to solve the con- flict in such a manner that the sovereign, rights of the country would be safeguarded. "I stated that I could not take any steps regard- ing their petition, and that they should address themselves directly to the Government. "They did not present before me any petition nor did they even ask me to consult in the matter privately with your Department. "I again state that all this was said during the course of a conversation that lasted a few minutes, and that not at any time did they insinuate even, the fact that their bishop had entrusted them with the duty of initiating a formal negotiation. If that prelate had entertained such an idea, he would not have thought of applying to me. Lira." 482 THE LEGAL ASPECT. The Government of Chile thus being forced by the trend of affairs in spite of the constant conciliatory efforts upon its part, it could have applied extraordi- nary measures. Yet it has confined itself to carrying out the existing laws in Tacna and Arica. In Chile, as in almost all of Latin America, the re- lations between the Church and the State are carried on by the patronage system, while in the case of the Catholic countries of Europe, such relations are gov- erned by concordats pacted with the Holy See. This patronage right, which derives its origin from the old Spanish legislation, and which includes all the attributes of the State over the churches, the benefices, and the ecclesiastic persons, is, in Latin America, an integral part of national sovereignty, and sovereignty is not thought of without including patronage. The Church is, by this system, an institution of pub- lic law, and the relations established by the Constitu- tion between the Church and the State, are the logical and necessary consequence of that fact. The religion of the country is the Catholic religion, and the State protects it by providing for its expenses with part of its income. The fact that the Holy See does not expressly recog- nize this right, does not annul it. By its nature patronage gives a characteristic aspect — which is not had in Europe — to certain political and religious questions and to the relations of the Holy See, and it may be considered an institution of consti- tutional, canonical, and American international law. The Constitution places the exercise of this right in the hands of the President of the Republic, who in certain cases consults therefore the Council of State. By virtue of it, no priest can exercise the office of 483 parish priest within national territory, without the previous authorization of the Government, which is obtained by the Bishop of the respective diocese. In Tacna and Arica, the Government condescend- ingly permitted the Bishop of Arequipa to continue in the exercise of religious jurisdiction after the signing of the Treaty of Ancon, in spite of the fact that those territories had been placed under the sovereignty of Chile. And, hoping that the difficulties which this ab- normal situation necessarily would create, would be solved peacefully, for several years it did not demand the permits required by the Constitution from the parish priests appointed by the diocesan. The events spoken of above, showed that those hopes were not to be fulfilled. The growth of Chilean popu- lation made it absolutely necessary for the Govern- ment to exercise the right of patronage in that terri- tory, and to demand the corresponding supreme au- thorization from those who were to be parish priests. The Peruvian diocesan and priests refused to sub- mit themselves to this constitutional formality, alleg- ing that they did not fall within the provisions of the Constitution, which is in force, without any exceptions, in the rest of the national territory. The reasons upon which they base that theory have not been presented to the Government, and the refusal seems to have been founded until now only upon a spirit of non-compliance with our laws. Thus the Government was forced to order the clos- ing of the parochial churches so as to prevent the Con- stitution from being violated publicly and with im- punity. The Bishop of Arequipa then gave the so- called parish priests special permits so that they might continue to exercise their offices in private homes. In this manner the laws were violated, the orders given 484 by the authorities were ignored, and a religious con- flict, which the Chilean Government had tried until then to ward off, was brought about in a manner that was most offensive and odious to our national dignity. The Government, being placed in this situation, could proceed only in one of two manners; either it prosecuted criminally the infractors of the law, or it expelled, by means of the administrative authorities, those foreigners who threatened the public peace and who made attempts against the dignity of the State. If the path of judicial action were chosen, more than one clause of the Penal Code could be applied to the case of the so-called parish priests. I may recall, among others, Article 216 and Article 213 that states : "Whoever feigns to be a public authority or employee, or who practices a profession without having a license, and who carries out some act proper to such an office or to such a profession, shall be subject to the penalty of from sixty-one days to five years, and to pay a fine of from one hundred to one thousand pesos.* ' It can not be denied that the priests who pretend to exercise a parochial office, without the correspond- ing supreme authority, feigns to be a public authority or employee, and carries out acts proper to the office of parish priest without having the required license. And this case, of individuals who pretend to exercise a public office, having been appointed by a foreign au- thority, is even more serious. The Chilean Government preferred to choose the expulsion of the so-called parish priests by means of the administrative authorities, as this measure is more respectful of their sacred investiture. To this effect, the Government imparted to the In- tendant of Tacna the instructions transcribed above, 485 and the latter, complying with them, notified the Peru- vian priests who unduly exercised the office of parish priests, to leave the territory of the Republic within a brief term. This administrative measure called forth indispens- ably by national dignity, falls squarely within the pre- cepts of international law, within the principles of uni- versal common law, and within the dispositions of the Constitution of the State. It is an elemental principle of international law that a State may, to safeguard its interior and exterior peace, prohibit certain foreigners from entering its territory. Another such principle is that foreigners are subject to the laws of the country in which they reside. If they do not obey the said laws, or if they provoke a scandalous situation, they may be expelled from the territory by the offended Government. In consecrating this principle, international law has watched over the existence itself of the State, which might be threatened by foreigners, who, residing in its territory, might violate its fundamental laws, and who might pretend to exercise a public office, while the Government could not apply immediate and efficient measures to put an end to such disrespect. Basing their acts upon that principle, governments constantly are preventing foreigners from entering the national territory, or are expelling certain ones, and not any one has considered such measures to be applications of penalties. This is not the only case in which individual liberty is fettered by international law. Diplomatic agents, in spite of the inviolability that they enjoy, and in spite of the fact that they are not within local jurisdiction, may be handed their passports and thus be obliged to leave the country peremptorily. 486 In other cases, the duties imposed by neutrality, con- secrated in international law, restrain individual lib- erty. Thus, governments sometimes are obliged to ex- pel from their territories or to confine in a determined place an individual or a group of individuals, as occurs in the case of revolutionary natives of neighboring countries who conspire against them. The duties imposed by international courtesy and reciprocity likewise prescribe, in certain and deter- mined cases, the seizure and expulsion of foreigners, as for instance, in the cases of extradition and of the re- turning of deserters. Lastly, there are the cases of cession of territory in which it is stipulated often that the inhabitants of the ceded territory may choose between the nationality that they had and the new nationality of the territory. But if they choose the former, they must abandon the territory and settle outside of it. The only reason for this stipulation is the fact that it is convenient to re- move from a State's territory, all persons who are hostile to the sovereignty in force. In all of these cases, the states proceed in accord- ance with and respecting the principles of international law which complete internal legislation. To ignore these principles would be to fall outside the pale of civilized nations. Frequently, the legislation of each country points out expressly the obligations and rights that emanate from international law, and determine the procedure that must be followed in order to comply with them and to carry them out. But these obligations and rights are not destroyed by the fact that they are not expressly mentioned or regulated. In such cases the exercise of the said obligations and rights is left to the prudence of the governments, and they are respon- 437 sible for it, just as they are for all other administra- tive acts. That that right of expulsion of foreigners is derived from international law, not considering what is pre- scribed by the internal legislation of each country, is proven by the fact that conventions are celebrated often to regulate its exercise. In diverse treaties of friendship and commerce, the cases and formalities of extradition are stipulated, as are also the handing over of sailor deserters. It is established also that, "the citizens of the respective countries can not be expelled or confined in a deter- mined part of the country, in accordance with a police or governmental order,' 1 unless there exist serious motives, and unless -such motives and the documents to verify them have been presented to the diplomatic or consular agents of the respective nation. If the right of expulsion were not inherent to and de- rived from the general principles of international law, the contracting governments would not provide for its regulation, except in the case where it would be consecrated in the internal legislation of one of the states. But in many cases that legislation does not exist, and yet the right of expulsion is regulated by a con- vention, as in the case, for instance, of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation which Peru and Chile pacted on January 20, 1835, and which is not abrogated. That Treaty, signed two years after the promulgation of the Constitution, contains a stipu- lation that proves that in the minds of the contracting Governments, the constitutional guarantees respecting individual liberty do not apply to the cases governed by international law. Article 5 of that Treaty states : 488 "If (may God forbid it) war should ensue be- tween the two Republics, the citizens of each one of them, who at the breaking out of hostilities should be upon the territory of the other, shall en- joy complete safety therein, they may continue to carry on freely their businesses or professions, • without being persecuted or molested, as long as they do not infringe the laws, or actually damage the interests of the country of their residence. In the latter case, if it should become necessary to expel them, they shall be given passports, and suf- ficient time shall be granted them so that they may arrange their affairs and dispose of their prop- erty, which in no case may be confiscated or at- tached. ' ' But not only by virtue of the. general principles of international law, has the Government of Chile been able to expel the so-called Peruvian parish priests from Tacna and Arica. That right is conceded to it also by the internal legislation of the Republic. Article 10 of the Constitution states : "The Constitution assures all the inhabitants of the Republic * * * 4th. The right to remain in any part of the Re- public, to move from one part to another, or to leave its territory, observing always the police regulations and providing that his leaving does not prove detrimental to a third party, and no one may be imprisoned, detained, or banished ex- cept in the mann'er prescribed by the laws. ' ' The precept is clear: individual liberty can not be absolute. It is limited by law, by police regulations, and by the rights of third parties. Only thus are abuses prevented. When the Constitution refers to law it implies in- ternational law as well as civil law, as it has been dc- 489 clared more than once that the former is an integral part of our general legislation. From among the many dispositions that verify this statement, may be cited Article 1 of the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure, which states: "The Courts of the Republic have jurisdiction over Chileans and foreigners to try the crimes and misdemeanors committed within the national ter- ritory, save in those cases where exceptions have been introduced by the recognized general rules of international law." The Law of Individual Guarantees," cited further on, contains an analogous disposition. And lastly, there is Article 117 of the Organic Law of Tribunals, which recognizes expressly that there are cases that must be tried in accordance with interna- tional law. It is not admissible that a foreigner, under the pro- tection of the right of free residence in a country, may conspire against its laws and against its government. Such is the case with the so-called parish priests of Tacna, who plead that right in order to violate, pub- licly and systematically, all the precepts of the Con- stitution, and to threaten the prestige and the very ex- istence of the constituted authorities. All police ordinances are based precisely upon the necessity of preventing the disturbance of the public peace. In some cases, ordinary justice is called upon to intervene according to the dispositions of the Penal Code. In others, the administrative action is sufficient to check the abuse. The right to expel foreigners falls within such action, as also the right to prohibit them from entering the national territory. The Constitution grants the Executive sufficient power, in certain and determined cases, to apply such 490 police measures as lie may estimate necessary, without referring to the judicial authorities, because in reality, the application of those measures, severe as they may appear, does not constitute the infliction of a penalty. In these cases, those who are deprived temporarily of the right of free residence, suffer only the conse- quences derived from an administrative measure which tends to the preservation of the public peace. This occurs, for example, when the President of the Republic, after certain formalities, declares martial law in one or more regions of the country, and thus the effects of the law of individual guarantees are sus- pended. The Constitution has granted the President, besides, police powers sufficient to safeguard public peace and to insure the internal and external safety of the country. In the present case, it is very important not to con- found the power to expel which is derived from the general principle of international law, with the pe- nalty of banishment or exile prescribed by the inter- nal legislation. The former may be exercised by the Executive Power, while the latter may be applied only By the Judicial Power. Although the material effects of expulsion and of banishment or exile may be the same, the nature and juridical essence of the two are absolutely different. The mass expulsion because of war, the handing of his passports to a diplomatic agent, the expulsion of an individual who threatens public peace, all produce the same effects as the banishment or exile of a com- mon criminal. In all of those cases, the abandonment of the ter- ritory of the Republic took place under compulsion. It is to be observed, however, that expulsion cannot 491 take place except in the case of foreigners, and must be carried out by the administrative authori- ties. Banishment or exile can be applied to natives as well as to foreigners, but only by the judicial authorities. Banishment or exile almost always brings with it accessory disqualifications, and if the convicted per- son is guilty anew, he is considered a second time offender. In the case of expulsion, as that is a mea- sure applied without trial, the person affected is not a convict. He may enter again the territory of the Republic if he can give assurances of not repeating the acts that gave rise to or originated his expulsion. The "Law of individual Guarantees" of 1884,, ex- pressly safeguards the rights granted to the Govern- ment by the general principles of international law. Article 5 states: "The provisions contained in the three pre- ceding articles do not apply. * * * "2nd. To what is enacted in accordance with treaties pacted with foreign nations, or with the general principles of international law." * * * Thus, it is beyond all doubt that the Government has proceeded in complete accordance with the law, in putting an end to a state of affairs that is irregular and lowering to national dignity. Public opinion, weary of seeing its dearest interests' damaged in Tacna and Arica, demanded insistently that the Government should make use of all its powers in order to impose the respect that its laws and its be- liefs merit. The Chilean civil authorities were defied and the Chilean priests were outlawed. 492 The tolerance practiced for a quarter of a century must be ended. The inflexibility of the Diocesan of Arequipa, and the conduct of the so-called parish priests, demanded that it should be ended. The complete justice with which the Government proceeds, and the perfect right on which it bases its acts, will justify the measure that it has applied, within and without the Republic. May God keep you, Agustin Edwards. Charge d' Affaires of Peru in Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] Santiago, March 19, 1910. Mr. Minister : The persevering' steps taken by the Government of Peru to induce the Government of Chile to decide to undertake a reparative action, in view of the hostilities of which Peruvian inhabitants of Tacna and Arica have been the victims, in conformity with the policy adopted by Your Excellency's Government, have been fruitless. The expulsion of the priests that exercised parochial functions in these territories has been recently effected in a violent manner. This act shows that the Government of Chile is re- solved to maintain the attitude that it has assumed, which tends to suppress, systematically and forcibly, the Peruvian element in the occupied provinces. My Government, in view of this situation, considers useless the maintenance of its diplomatic representa- tion in this capital, and it has ordered me to return to 493 Peru, after lodging its protest against the acts to which I have referred : a duty that I perform by means of the present communication. I take this opportunity to assure Your Excellency of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Arturo Garcia. To His Excellency, Sehor Don Agustin Edwards, Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to Charge d' Af- faires of Peru in Chile. [Translation.] Vina del Mar /March 20, 1910. Mr. Charge d'affaires: I have in my possession your communication under date of yesterday. You say that "the persevering steps taken by the Government of Peru to induce the Government of Chile to decide to undertake a reparative action, in view of the hostilities of which Peruvian inhabitants of Tacna and Arica have been the victims, in con- formity with the policy adopted by it, have been fruit- less." You add that "the expulsion of the priests that ex- ercised parochial functions in these territories has been recently effected in a violent manner/ y and that "this act shows that the Government of Chile is re- solved to maintain the attitude that it has assumed, which tends to suppress, systematically and forcibly, the Peruvian element " in what Your Honor calls the "occupied provinces." 494 You end by saying that your Government, in view of this situation, considers useless the maintenance of its diplomatic representation in Santiago, and has ordered you to return to Peru, after lodging its protest against the acts to which you make reference. This is not the first time that the Government of Peru has decided to withdraw its diplomatic repre- sentation from my country, and still less the first pro- test it has made against acts or measures that my Government effects in the use of the sovereign powers that the Treaty of Ancon confers on it in the terri- tories of Tacna and Arica. Nevertheless, on this occasion, the decision of your Government is doubly grave and serious, reached, as it has been, almost immediately after the proposals contained in a note addressed by mine under date of March 3rd last, with a view^to effecting the plebiscite on bases that insure the fullest equity and that are in perfect harmony with the stipulations of the Treaty of Ancon. My Government did not expect that your Govern- ment would reply to those proposals by withdrawing once more the diplomatic representation accredited to . it. This decision shows how far from your Govern- ment 's will are the sincere designs of an understanding that animate my Government, which places the respon- sibility on that of Peru, while testifying to Chile's efforts, as continuous as they have been fruitless, to arrive at an accord, easy to be achieved, if the cordial and friendly spirit that animates it were reciprocated. The situation that your Government creates, in truth, relieves mine from seeking to refute the asser- tions that it makes, all of them without plausible foundation. 495 I deem it necessary, nevertheless, to make it clear to you that my Government, taking its stand on the general principles of international law, has proceeded to expel from Tacna and Arica Peruvian priests that sought incumbencies — as you yourself say — without the proper supreme authorization, thus deliberately violating the Constitution and laws of the Republic. Their continuance in Tacna and Arica in the exer- cise of their functions would not have merited any ob- servation whatsoever, if, like the other priests, na- tional and foreign, that live in the country, they had respected the laws and recognized the authorities that govern it. There is no reason, therefore — as you sug- gest — for an act of reparation on the part of the Gov- ernment of Chile that is, in reality, incumbent on those that violated the laws. I take this opportunity to offer to you the assurances of my distinguished consideration. Agustin Edwards. To His Excellency, Senor Don Arturo Garcia Salazar, Charge d 'Affaires of Peru. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] (Telegram.) Lima, November 10, 1912. My Government desires to renew cordial and stable relations with that of Your Excellency, with a view to national prosperity and the higher interests of America. Animated by a desire to end the dispute over Tacna and Arica, I propose to Your Excellency, 496 at once, to postpone until 1933 the plebiscite, which will be effected under the direction of boards formed by a committee that will proceed by a majority vote and will be composed of five delegates, namely : two Chile- ans appointed by Chile, two Peruvians appointed by Peru and the the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, who will serve as chairman. Persons born in Tacna and Arica and Chileans and Peruvians that may have resided for three years in the territory will be entitled to vote. All the voters must be able to read and write. As soon as Your Excellency shall signify to me by cable your acceptance of these designs, and we shall also have ratified them by cable, we shall accredit a Minister Plenipotentiary, who shall con- tribute to the immediate formalization of this conven- tion and shall seek to carry into effect mutually ad- vantageous arrangements in respect of commerce and navigation. Wenceslao Valera. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. [Translation.] (Telegram.) Santiago, November 10, 1912. My Government desires to renew cordial and stable relations with that of Your Excellency, with a view to national prosperity and the higher interests of America. Animated by a desire to end the dispute over Tacna and Arica, I propose to Your Excellency, at once, to postpone until 1933 the plebiscite, which 497 will be effected under the direction of boards formed by a committee that will proceed by a majority vote and will be composed of five delegates, namely: two Chileans appointed by Chile, two Peruvians appointed by Peru and the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, who will serve as chairman. Persons born in Tacna and Arica and Chileans and Peruvians that may have resided for three years in the territory will be entitled to vote. All the voters must be able to read and write. As soon as Your Excellency shall signify to me by cable your acceptance of these designs, and we shall also have ratified them by cable, we shall accredit a Minister Plenipotentiary, who shall con- tribute to the immediate formalization of this conven- tion and shall seek to carry into effect mutually ad- vantageous arrangements in respect of commerce and navigation. My Government, desiring to strengthen its commercial ties with Peru, will deliver to Your Ex- cellency five hundred thousand pounds sterling, which the Government of Peru will be able freely to invest. I courteously salute Your Excellency. Antonio Httneeus. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] (Telegram.) Lima, November 10, 1912. I acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's cable message under date of today, in which Your Excel- lency expresses your desire that stable and cordial re- 498 lations shall be renewed between the Governments of Peru and Chile. At the same time Your Excellency is pleased to mention the bases on which Your Excel- lency desires to end the dispute over Tacna and Arica. In reply to your courteous cable message, I take pleasure in sincerely and earnestly confirming to Your Excellency, in all its parts, my cable message of today in which I express to Your Excellency the same desire in respect of the reestablishment of our rela- tions, and I propose, as to the plebiscite of Tacna and Arica, its postponement until 1933 and its celebration under boards formed by a committee that will be com- posed of five delegates, namely: two Chileans ap- pointed by Chile, two Peruvians, appointed by Peru and the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, who will serve as chairman. Persons born in Tacna and Arica and Chileans and Peruvians that may have resided for three years in the territory will be en- titled to vote. All the voters must be able to read and write. As a consequence, my Government shall pro- ceed to accredit a Minister Plenipotentiary, who shall contribute to the immediate formalization of this con- vention and shall seek to carry into effect mutually ad- vantageous arrangements for commerce and naviga- tion. Accept, Your Excellency, my most sincere and dis- tinguished consideration. Wenceslao Valeba, To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. 499 Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] (Telegram.) Lima, November 10, 1912. The five hundred thousand sterling pounds in the form proposed by Your Excellency by cable of this date accepted. Wenceslao Valeka. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Minister , of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. [Translation.] (Telegram.) Santiago, November 10, 1912. I acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's cable message under date of today, in which Your Ex- cellency expresses your desire that stable and cordial relations shall be renewed between the Governments of Peru and Chile. At the same time Your Excellency is pleased to mention the bases on which Your Excel- lency desires to end the dispute over Tacna and Arica. In reply to your courteous cable message, I take pleasure in sincerely and earnestly confirming to Your Excellency, in all its parts, my cable message of today in which I express to Your Excellency the same desire in respect of the reestablishment of our relations, and I propose, as to the plebiscite of Tacna and Arica, its postponement until 1933 and its celebration under boards formed by a committee that will be composed 500 of five delegates, namely: two Chileans appointed by Chile, two Peruvians appointed by Peru and the Presi- dent of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, who will serve as chairman. Persons born in Tacna and Arica and Chileans and Peruvians that may have re- sided for three years in the territory will be entitled to vote. All the voters must be able to read and write. As soon as I receive Your Excellency's cabled reply to the present cable message, my Government will pro- ceed to accredit a Minister Plenipotentiary, who shall contribute to the immediate formalization of this con- vention and shall seek to carry into effect mutually ad- vantageous arrangements for commerce and naviga- tion. I note that, as is said in Your Excellency's second telegram, of the date of today, Your Excellency's Gov- ernment accepts the five hundred thousand pounds that my Government offers it, in the manner proposed by my Government. Accept, Your Excellency, my highest and most dis- tinguished consideration. Antonio Htjneeus. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. Secret Message of President Billinghurst to Congress of Peru, Delivered on the 30th of November, 1912. [Translation.] My Government has just agreed by cable, recipro- cally with the Government of Chile, and on the same day, the 10th instant, to reestablish the diplomatic re- lations that were broken off and has agreed at the same time relative to the bases of the plebiscite 501 that must decide, in a definite manner, the future of our provinces of Tacna and Arica, occupied by Chile, the former since May 26, 1880, and the latter since the date unforgettable because of the intensity of its unparalleled glory, the 7th of June of the same year. You know, Honorable Congressmen, the painful problem that has been developing with reference to the retention of that portion of our territory, a problem known by all America and the solution of which, in harmony with the rights and the expectations of Peru, was becoming more remote, in view of the nature of the course of events imposed by a war favorable to Chile, by the extent and the weight of her material strength, by the activity and the resources of her Chan- cellery, by the coolness, the indifference and the toler- ance of the other States of the continent, which, if any came to interfere as an expression of sympathy for our cause did so cautiously and in order to endorse the idea, stated by Chile and accepted by our Chancellery, of solving the conflict by means of dividing the occu- pied territory giving Arica to Chile and Tacna remain- ing for Peru. To me, Honorable Congressmen, who had the honor to carry on the negotiations in 1898 resulting in the Treaty known as the ' ' Billinghurst-Latorre Treaty,' ' any scheme of division could not but mean the carrying out in itself of the unjustified abrogation of our rights and with it the abdication of the national dignity. And notwithstanding this fact our Chancellery at- tempted, I must repeat, to obtain the backing of other nations in support of a division, a scheme that, un- fortunately, was found to be the most convenient for- 502 mula for putting an end to the questions relating to the sovereignty of the "captive" provinces. The course of time and the failure of the negotia- tions, anxiously carried on for the purpose of putting an end to the question proved in themselves that not even that formula would be acceptable to the interna- tional policy of Chile, which found occasion to empha- size, without concealment, her intention to definitely incorporate the "captive" provinces within her do- main by means of a one-sided plebiscite and to give them representation in Congress, as any other of the Chilean provinces. Broken, on the other hand, the diplomatic relations of Peru with Chile, a difficult and uncertain situation was created for us, because, since that moment we have had, on our international horizon all the shadows, the menaces and the dangers coming from Bolivia, Ecua- dor and Colombia, thus forming, in an intolerable man- ner throughout the American world, an atmosphere that has become completely unfavorable to Peru. The Minister of Foreign Eelations will soon give you, in detail, for your more perfect understanding, all the data concerned with the short synopsis I am placing before you, in order to slightly refer to ques- tions with which you are already familiar and that be- cause of their great and almost world-wide publicity, must be known to you, they not being a secret in their main points to anyone who has had the opportunity to observe the international life of Peru during the last three years of her existence. In the meantime, imperative duties force us to look at the present situation without prejudice, without illusions, without fantasies, without passion, but only in the light of reality so as to point with keenness and patriotism to the truthful course of its future : and not 503 in the heat of sentiment, which 'blinds and misleads but with the bright clarity of reason which, endorsed by serene and profound meditation, solves all in the best possible way, without renouncing the highest expecta- tions of the future. In the light of truth, appreciating with upright and serene mind the grave problem of Tacna and Arica, considering its antecedents and the irrevocable char- acter of the facts, which although it is possible to ap- preciate them in different ways in regard to their form and meaning, it is impossible in any way to destroy them ; that problem can only be solved as it now stands, either by the use of force, that is, by war declared by Peru, or by the adoption of diplomatic methods that, without overlooking her rights, and without loss of honor, would allow our country in the course of time to solve the present difficulties and prepare, with all the energies of her patriotism for the coming of an epoch which would place her in a position to reconquer, fairly and legally in peace-time that which, for differ- ent reasons, was unfortunately lost in war. The former — the recourse to arms — is a question which cold facts reject in view of the indisputable military superiority of Chile, as well as the uncertain state of relations between Peru and her neighboring countries, over which a powerful and decisive influence is being exercised by the persevering policy of Chile. There only remains the other alternative, exhausted as are, with profoundly discouraging results, all the other recourses tried from the attempted arbitration in Mexico to the above mentioned scheme of dividing Tacna and Arica between Chile and Peru. To accept, on the other hand, the continuance of the present state in which Chile exercises dominion in a way depressing and humiliating for Peru, is to deliber- 504 ately consent, before the entire world, to the maintain- ing of that dominion without the slightest hope of ob- taining in the future, in the continent, either justifica- tion or sympathy for our cause. My Government has decided, then, frankly and steadfastly, for the second alternative, sure that the chosen way is in obedience to the same spirit that pre- vails in the Billinghurst-Latorre Treaty of 1898, that is to prepare the field for the exercising of our rights, always under the protection of the national honor. The diplomatic agreement of which I have the honor to inform you, substitutes, ipso facto, reality, that is, a situation unqualifiable and detrimental for a position of right that at the present moment saves the honor of the country; a position which signifies respect and guaranty to the inhabitants, and as a result, the ex- plicit acknowledgment of our sovereignty for so long discussed. The agreement with Chile referred to is, in brief, as follows: First: Eesumption of diplomatic relations. Second: Bases for the plebiscite that shall be car- ried out so as to definitely determine the future na- tionality of Tacna and Arica. Third: The date on which the plebiscite shall take place. Fourth : The amount of money that Chile proposes to hand over. The simultaneous reestablishment of diplomatic re- lations, that has just been taking place, substantially changes the position of Peru, as I have already stated, placing it on an equal footing with Chile so as to at- tempt a definite solution under the shadow of peace, and in the exercise of her recognized rights. 505 This circumstance implies, furthermore, a total change of tactics in the international policy of Chile, since it puts aside here reiterated pretensions, in re- gard to the understanding not only of the text, but of the spirit of the Treaty of Ancon, maintained in all its parts and in every possible way, with persistence and uniformity by her statesmen during the course of thirty years, and according to which the above mentioned Treaty would not mean, so far as Tacna and Arica are concerned, but a carefully simulated territorial ces- sion. On the other hand, the reestablishment of diplo- matic relations, putting an end to a de facto situation, in the different phases of its existence, highly unfavor- able to Peru, is not in truth, an act that is not, in itself, detrimental and since it is not detrimental it may be stated that that fact is favorable for the present and the future of the country. It is possible that the spirit of suspicion or of obses- sion will awaken doubts or cast shadows on the field that has been discovered but the strength of the facts shall dispel those doubts ; and the light of truth, pene- trating the consciousness, will remove all the shadows that, in good faith or maliciously, might be projected. For the high-minded spirits who have a clear vision of the country, the reestablishment of the diplomatic relations with Chile, and the agreement that brings it about, are not a sudden isolated fact, without solid foundation, without guarantees of real consequences. The recent facts, relative to the meeting in this capital of the Students Congress, showed the culture of our social classes and the tact and fairness of our people, who with their civil and friendly attitude knew how to win the enthusiastic approval of the Govern- ment, society, and the popular classes of Chile. And 506 thus, the parade with which the cities of Santiago and Valparaiso honored our Independence, and the cour- tesy and the sympathy shown to the crew of the S. S. I quit os in Punta Arenas are proof that the atmos- phere heated by the violent passions, is becoming transformed in an environment of cordiality, justice and respect. If there are still to be found in Chile spirits heated and biased against Peru, it cannot be denied that they are in a very small minority, as is shown and confirmed by the attitude of the Government of Chile, the mani- festations of her society, and the almost unanimous opinion of her press* I must add to what has already been said, that the manifestations I allude to on the part of Chile are by no means a surprise to me, since, when I had the op- portunity to act in the negotiations of the Protocol of 1898, I had occasion to find in the best circles of Chilean society, many people of high position, with a decided inclination for friendship with Peru, which explains the success that I had in the carrying out of the negotiations, and in which as it has been said and proven, I always looked for that that might be more advantageous for the honor and interests of my coun- try. And as, when in her service I have never con- cealed my thoughts nor my conduct in the arcanum of mystery, and in order to confirm my statements as well as for the purpose that you, with your high-minded- ness may be able to form an exact judgment upon this matter, I will read the pertinent paragraphs of the pri- vate letter addressed to me on December 7, 1898, by the President of the Eepublic of Chile, His Excellency Don Federico Errazuriz, and which reads as follows ; 507 "I consider it almost useless to express to you my true* regret because the protocol signed by you and Sefior Latorre, fixing the manner for the compliance with what has been stipulated in the Treaty of Ancon with respect to the provinces of Tacna and Arica, has not yet been passed in the Chamber of Deputies. "This business has been made by some into a political question and others, interested in the payment of the Bolivian credits, objected thereto, believing that after an agreement with Peru had been made, they would lose all hopes of getting their money. "Then, there presented themselves the last complications of the Argentine question which completely absorbed the attention of the Govern- ment, of the Congress, and of public opinion, and that has at last been solved in the manner known to you. "These things have been overlooked in Peru, as also they have forgotten that our Chambers are governed by the most unfortunate of regu- lations, making it possible for a small minority to obstruct the passing of any project. "I overlooked to tell you that the Cabinet crisis in which I find myself at present, caused by the resignation of Senor Latorre and his Balma- cedista colleague began before the Argentine question was ended and it has been another ob- stacle to the prompt consideration of the Tacna- Arica problem immediately upon the closing of the Puna de'Atacama question. "In the belief that the pending pacts with Bo- livia interfere in no way with your protocol, we have ordered the liquidation of the credits of that country so that both questions can be jointly dis- cussed and approved. The said liquidation is al- most concluded and I hope that before the close of the special sessions we shall approve both-nego- tiations. 508 "You know my own ideas about the subject and from what I have done you will believe that • I wish for my country the most cordial friend- ship with Peru. "I have been deeply preoccupied with your po- litical stand as given me by letters and telegrams of Jose Domingo Amunategui, who is one of my best friends, and I am sure that your resource- fulness will have overcome all the obstacles which . presented themselves. I close, wishing you and your family every happiness, and I offer myself as your friend in all that may be useful to you. Federico Errazuriz. ' ' Confirming the statements contained in the above letter, I quote in part, the correspondence that I re- ceived on the same day from the Charge of the Lega- tion of Peru in Santiago, Don Manuel F. Benavides, and which says : " Legation of Peru in Chile, — December 6, 1898. "Senor Don Guillermo Billinghurst. " Honored Sir and Distinguished Friend: i t * # # # # * "We (Seiiores Errazuriz and Benavides) talked after a few moments ; he began by expressing his surprise at the course of events relative to the opposition that your candidacy has excited. T an- swered him that in my opinion your triumph was very probable and that the passing of the proto- col would completely assure it, giving you great prestige. "He told me that he insisted that our conven- tion be approved as soon as possible, that he had just read a note of mine asking for a solving of this question but that politics were in such an entanglement that I should be a little more patient, that in his opinion all the opposition to the pro- tocol was caused by questions of private interests and that an agreement with the creditors of Bo- 509 livia was a necessary formality; that all those accounts had been liquidated except that of an American concern, which was demanding an ex- orbitant amount of money, and for the prompt close of this question cabled instructions had been sent to the Minister in Washington. "He assured me that as soon as this question was closed the Government would ask preference to be given to the discussion of the Peruvian and Bolivian Protocols and that both would be simul- taneously passed without difficulty, which he as- sured me would take place before the close of the special session of Congress. "He assured me also, that he already knew, by letter of Matias Errazuriz, the judgment to be given by the Queen of Spain, who, the case hav- ing been placed before her, would decide that the vote only be given to those born in the provinces of Tacna and Arica. "He linished by saying that nothing would be more agreeable to him than the general solution of this problem with Peru." The preceding paragraphs of Sehor Benavides' let- ter showed that His Excellency Sehor Errazuriz, at the end of the year 1898, knew that the judgment of the Queen of Spain, in case the plebiscite protocol had been submitted to Her Majesty, would have been entirely favorable to Peru. In, spite of this the Pres- ident of Chile, as may be inferred from the personal letter quoted by me, did not change his attitude of mind in regard to the fulfillment of the Billinghurst- Latorre Protocol. • The bases established in the agreement that is at present being discussed settled the way and the form for the carrying out of the plebiscite, determining the date on which it shall take place, for the purpose of knowing, in the last instance, the will of the provinces 510 of Tacna and Arica with reference to the nationality they desired to adopt. The absence of these bases, set forth as they are in a vague manner in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon has been one of the causes, if not the pretext, that Chile has had for continuing the occupation de facto of that part of our territory, thus exceeding the ten year period of possession re- ferred to in the same article. Would it be convenient for Peru to prolong such a state of affairs, not only indefinite so far as period of time is concerned, but even vexatious to her dignity and pride, because, it only remains for Peru to pro- test, although without result, and to sadly contemplate the reign of might that at last has forced upon our countrymen, sons or residents, in the held provinces the unbearable position of outlaws, leaving them with- out right, without guaranties and without the pro- tection of their country? This agreement intended to obviate such a regret- table situation by suppressing the cause and the pre- text which have created and maintained it, because the date having been named and the definite conditions for a plebiscite having been set forth, the repetition of the uncertainties of the past and of the difficulties of the present are definitely avoided. In conformity with the bases agreed to, Peru has been assured of the right to vote for all those born in Tacna and Arica with or without residence in those provinces and the same right is granted to the Peru- vians not born there, and to the Chileans, provided either have at least a three years residence on the date of the plebiscitary votation. A period of twenty-one years has been agreed to for the carrying out of the plebiscte, too long a period if we consider it from the sentiment of nationality — 511 a reasonable period if we consider it in the light of the present facts and the dictates of foresight. Would the immediate carding out of. the plebiscite be suitable for Peru? To endorse this statement would mean taking the daring resolution of legalizing, with- out advantage and in a precipitate and inconceivable manner, the occupation by Chile. To believe this it is only necessary to look at it with open eyes and a clear conscience. After a long time has elapsed and after the events have taken place, caused first by disasters and then by the efforts and aimless attempts of our Chancel- lery ; and considering the economic position of the Re- public, some time must necessarily elapse before the consolidation of her public institutions, the strengthen- ing of her finances, before her energies are restored, and her morale raised so as at last to place our country in a condition for fighting and victory. And in the life of a nation this is certainly not the work of a moment. When a country has fallen so low, and when it is only possible to revive by means of her own efforts, she must do so in a manner that will avoid the re- petition of such a fall, and climb up with a sure and firm step, although it be slow. If we look, then, to the real importance of the con- siderations stated, we must agree that they are the outcome of the present situation, and that they are the reasonings of a practical mind that cannot be objected to by the most exalted patriot and that they take into account, as far as possible, the interests of Peru, instead of the present difficulties, disadvantages and dangers of all kinds. If the present plebiscite bases are compared, with serene impartiality, with those proposed by the Chan- 512 cellery of Chile to the Chancellery of Peru, in official communication of March 3, 1910, the great differences to be found between them can be pointed out at first glance such as, the qualifications of the voters com- prising Peruvians, Chileans and foreigners with only a six months ' residence; such as the period for the carrying out of the plebiscite, fixing it when almost all the Peruvian population that should have polled their votes would have been absent, for reasons of open hostilities, from the provinces held by Chile; such as the organization of the electoral commission in which only one Peruvian was allowed as a member, the other two being a Chilean and a foreigner, the latter elected by the Consular Board of Tacna, and the Presidency of the Electoral Commission to be vested in the dele- gate of the Government of Chile. There is a substantial difference between the bases proposed on that former occasion and those proposed at present and the difference of method is even more evident, if we remember the earnest action of our Chancellery in order to solve the fate of Tacna and Arica by means of a territorial division, as I have al- ready stated. The Electoral Commission of this plebi- scite, according to this last agreement, shall be com- posed of two representatives of Peru and two of Chile, presided over by the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of the latter nation. As far as time is con- cerned twenty-one years shall elapse, — a period of time in which the Peruvian element will enjoy in Tacna and Arica, as in any other part of Chile, all the rights and guaranties accorded to foreign residents by the Constitution and other laws of that country, — a pe- riod of time in which, thanks to peaceful relations maintained by reciprocal interests, will surely allow, by reason of the good name of the two nations and as 513 homage to the harmony and civilization of the country, the fulfillment of its designs, both countries being in- spired by the dictates of justice and fair dealing. The obligation contracted by Chile dealt with by me in the first part of this message, to give to Peru the sum of 500,000 pounds sterling is at present put aside. This circumstance would pardon me for giving it further consideration at this time, but that obligation appeared in the agreement of the 10th instant and for the same reason I believe that you should know the causes of its origin and the motives that, to my deep regret, have induced me to disregard it. In the preliminary negotiations that reciprocally and necessarily took place for the consummation of the agreement we have under consideration, my Govern- ment demanded of Chile an annual payment of 30,000 pounds sterling as a rent for the territories of Tacna and Arica during the twenty-one years fixed for the carrying out of the plebiscite. The Government of Chile stated, in reply, that in- stead of the annual payment, it would give in one in- stallment the amount indicated above, and fixed the 500,000 pounds sterling, not as a rent but as a man- ifestation of the desire to strengthen her commercial relations with Peru, and without that amount having any relation to the 10,000,000 pesos referred to in Article III of the Treaty of October 20, 1883. In this understanding the obligation mentioned above was re- corded in the agreement of the 10th instant. My Government, nevertheless, attentive to the fears to which the news of the delivery of the 500,000 pounds sterling gave rise, thought it proper to specify the motives for this payment and to this effect in- formed the Government of Chile that it would accept it as the customs revenues of Arica and Sama, and for no other reason. 514 As the Government of Chile insisted on its purpose stated above, the last formula proposed by our Chancellery was without result; and, furthermore with the purpose of obviating any difficulties that could retard or be in the way of the success of the agreement, the fundamental bases of which modify in a positive manner the difficult position of Peru in this debated question, my Government has thought that it should act as it has, eliminating from the agree- ment the delivery of the 500,000 pounds sterling. To be able to appreciate the clauses of the agree- ment in its entirety, and to measure its scope, it is necessary to look at them in the light of the interests and the decorum of our country, for which purpose we must take into consideration the uncertainties and the dangers of the present moment. On the one hand we have the de facto situation, unfavorable to Peru, created by the non-fulfillment by Chile of the Treaty of Ancon. By the present agreement that position is modified and the field is open for the Peruvian citizens to freely exercise their rights under the protection of the laws and guaranties offered to its inhabitants by any civil- ized country. By this same agreement the occupation of Tacna and Arica has no longer the effect of a pretended cession, as has been claimed by Chile, but of an es- sentially transitory occupation subject to a definite period of time and to the results of a plebiscite. The hazardous uncertainties of the future, as a con- sequence of a long and indefinite occupation, are re- placed by a definite period of time within which, — placing in its proper category the juridical situation of Chile with regard to Tacna and Arica, — the ca- pacity of this nation to perform acts not in conformity 515 with her constitutional provisions, and that might affect the exercise of a permanent and definite sovereignty, is annulled. Instead of the failure of the negotiations carried on in America for intervention or cooperation in the solution of the conflict, in the sense of Peru expressly resigning the most valuable part, from the industrial and economic point of view, of the occupied territory y this agreement offers the expectation of its total re- incorporation as there are grounds for hoping, if the Peruvian patriotism puts forth all its available re- sources during the twenty-one years that will elapse for the carrying out of the plebiscite. Within this period, if we consider the great deeds that we must perform, in order to be prepared for the opening of the Panama Canal, Peru will be able to attain, under the light of peace, real internal progress, the strengthening of her economic forces and her mil- itary and political capacity, thus shortening the dis- tance that at present separates her from Chile, which finds herself with a financial standing far superior to ours, thanks to the fabulous indemnity we had to pay as a consequence of the disastrous war of 1879. Reasons of economic character endorsing the agree- ment dealt with in this message are also to be found: A. Our financial standing will surely never reach the development claimed by the necessities and as- pirations of our country, while we are made uneasy because of the controversy with Chile. This is on everyone's conscience and it is unnecessary to prove it. B. The exhaustion of our resources because of an armed peace and an exaggerated militarization takes away from useful occupations the youth of the nation. C. The advantages derived from the commercial un- 516 derstanding along the Pacafic coast must be taken into consideration. D. The dangers of a regime of competition at the opening of the Panama Canal under the combined ac- tion of the. other countries of this part of America can- not be overlooked. E. On the other hand the advantage that may be derived by the economic interests of Peru in the ter- ritory of Tacna and Arica, the free mercantile and industrial access we shall have to those markets, and the unavoidable influence over the Peruvian national- ity in those territories, shall be considered. F. So, in regard to the possible neutralization of the competition between the railways from Arica to La Paz and the Mollendo road, the protection given to private Peruvian interests in Tacna, Arica and Tara- paca, and many other questions of the same nature, that cannot possibly be referred to in the rough scheme of the agreement I am placing before you for discussion. The press of the Argentine Republic, which with such an authoritative voice speaks within and outside our country, approves the agreement which is further- more in accord with the reiterated insinuations of respected and friendly Chancelleries, in order to put an end to our troubles w T ith Chile, already for half a century attracting the attention of the American continent. The agreement of the Chancellery that has just come into existence, is by its nature and scope, but a preliminary pact consummated under the conditions which I have set forth, in which my Government has had solely in mind the vehement desire to clearly and definitely state a situation where the rights and the honor of the nation will be predominating, for the 517 purpose of protecting the rights and the expectations of our fellow countrymen of Tacna and Arica. I doubt not that the legislators of our nation, inspired with high sentiments of brotherly love and justice, and attentive to the great and true interests of our Fatherland, far above all other interests, regardless of their importance, will eventually give the necessary approval which is required as a great and positive service that they will perform in deference to the future of Peru. As we are dealing with the most important prob- lem in the international life of Peru I have not hes- itated to come before you, in person, so that when you perform your august functions relative to the agreement so many times mentioned, you will know in studying the various stipulations the purposes and the spirit — in their nature, manner, antecedents, and details — animating this Government which are not, and can never be but the purposes and spirit of an un- flinchingly honest conscience only desirous and am- bitious for the peace, progress and the greatness of our Eepublic. The Minister of Foreign Relations, when complying with the duty imposed by the Constitution on the Gov- ernment, to present for your consideration inter- national treaties, will place before you all the data concerning this important subject that may be of in- terest to you. So far as I am concerned, I can only say to you in conclusion, Honorable Congressmen, that I Jove my country as can only those who have struggled for her sovereignty and for her honor in war and in peace. Lima, November 30, 1912. 518 President of Chile to Confidential Agent of Chile Be- fore Government of Peru. [Translation.] Santiago, August 16, 1920. Distinguished Sir and Friend: I have been informed through a trustworthy chan- nel, that His Excellency the President of Peru cher- ishes the desire to find some way that may admit of his endeavoring to arrange a settlement of the ques- tions which divide our two countries. As I have learned that you are going north in a few days, on a trip for your health, I consider that no more propitious opportunity could be afforded for the satisfaction of the lofty purpose of the President of Peru. As you pass through Lima, you might ar- range an interview with His Excellency Sefior Leguia and discuss that important matter with him in a con- fidential way. It is a signal good fortune that the coincidence of your trip allows me to avail myself of your services for the accomplishment of this delicate mission. You who have discharged, brilliantly, on more than one occasion, the office of Minister of Foreign Relations, and are conversant with the opinion of this Government and understand, as few do, the an- tecedents of the problem, — you are, in my judgment, the person best fitted to carry through the charge which I venture to entrust to your faithful friendship, your talents and your patriotism. Juan Luis Sanfuentes. Seiior Federico Puga Borne, Santiago. 519 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Confidential Agent of Chile Before Government of Peru. [Translation.] Santiago, August 17, 1920. Most Highly Esteemed Sib : In accordance with the desires expressed by you, and even though the undersigned does not consider it necessary to give any special instructions for the correct and faithful accomplishment of the mission that carries you to Lima, this Ministry ventures to offer the following suggestions: "If, as the result of your conversations with His Excellency Sefior Leguia, it were possible to consider a friendly and direct settlement with the Government of Peru, and if you should seek to come to an agreement with that object in view, please proceed in accordance , with the purposes manifested by our Government to that of Peru on other occasions, by keeping yourself, in so far as possible, within the lines traced out in former propositions which our Government may have formulated or accepted, especially in' the course of the Vial Solar-Jimenez, Puga Borne- Seoane and Huneeus-Varela negotiations." I deem it superfluous to state that this recommenda- tion in no way hinders you from hearing and trans- mitting to this Department any other idea or solution, that may be submitted to you and which, in your opinion, merits being taken into consideration, on ac- count of favoring our interests and not being op- posed to the doctrines which Chile has always sus- tained in international affairs and, especially, in re- spect to our differences with Peru, derived from the interpretation of the second clause of Article III, of the Ancon Treaty. Luis Aldtjnate. Senor Don Federico Puga Borne, Santiago. 520 Circular of Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Ministers of Foreign Relations Abroad. [Translation.] Lima, September 20, 1921. Mr. Minister: The Executive of Chile has promulgated, under date of the 13th of the present month, the law approved by the Congress of that country that incorporates the de- partment of Tarata, created nearly ten years ago, to that of Tacna, which it possesses precariously by vir- tue of the Peruvian-Chilean Treaty of Peace of Oc- tober 20, 1883, thus effacing, by absorption, a terri- torial circumscription which it never had a right to occupy and upon the restitution of which to its legiti- mate owner and sovereign, Peru, an old diplomatic reclamation initiated immediately after the ratification of the said Treaty of Peace, was pending. Such a vio- lent procedure is today more than ever before incom- patible with the respect due to the power of interna- tional justice, the sway of which upon the world has consolidated universal conscience as one of the great- est results obtained three years ago by the allied and associated powers in the most formidable war that has afflicted humanity. It is for this reason that I have decided to place this grave affair before Your Excel- lency, although it is in itself scarcely a detail in the transcendental political conflict that Chile has pro- voked in America, by refusing to restore the territories of which she stripped Peru after the War of the Pa- cific, and the return of which is demanded energetically by my Government. Article III of the Treaty of Peace of October 20, 1883, prescribed that the territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, which are bounded on the north by 521 the River Sama, from its source in the mountains limit- ing with Bolivia, to its outlet into the sea, would con- tinue to be possessed by Chile and subject to Chilean legislation and authorities during a term of ten years, counted from the ratification of the Treaty of Peace, on March 28, 1884. As it is deduced clearly from the terms of that Ar- ticle III, only the two Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica, bounded by the River Sama, passed into the tem- porary possession of Chile. That this was so, is proven by the significant fact that one of the first acts of the Peruvian Government of General Iglesias, who ne- gotiated and signed the Treaty with Chile, was to pro- claim the law of March 31, 1884 — three days after the ratifications of the Treaty of Peace were exchanged — to create the department of Moquegua, in which the province of Tarata was included, " whose capital, it stated, shall be the town of that same name (since then and until now occupied by Chile) and shall include the districts of which it consists at present with their same capitals;" this law is the authentic interpretation of what the Treaty of Peace prescribed about the bound- ary line of the River Sama, as it was proclaimed im- mediately after the perfecting of the said Treaty, by one of the parties to it, and without the least attention thereto on the part of the Chilean Government. This law having been abrogated in October 25, 1886, to- gether with all the internal governmental acts of the Government of General Iglesias, was substituted by that of October 12th of the same year, which kept the same interpretation of two and a half years before, respecting Tarata. And before I proceed, permit me, for the sake of greater clearness in this exposition, to point out the difference that exists between the definitions given, in 522 Peru and Chile, to the circumscriptions into which the respective national territories are divided. The Pe- ruvian territory is divided into departments, these into provinces, and these in turn into districts. The Chil- ean territory is divided into provinces, these into de- partments, which are divided in turn into subdelega- tions; therefore a Peruvian department is equivalent to a Chilean province; and a Chilean department to a Peruvian province; and a district to a sub delegation. The Peruvian department of Tacna created by law of June 16, 1875, included the provinces of Tacna, Arica and Tarata. The first was composed of the districts of Tacna, Pachia, Cabana, Sama, Ilabaya, and Locumba; the second, of those of Arica, Codpa, Lluta, Belen, Socoroma, and Livircar; and the third, of Tarata, Candarane, Tiscaco, Estique, Curibaya, and Tarucachi, all towns, and besides the settlements of Quilahuani, Huaytire, Turunturo, Maure, Chaspaya, Sitajara, Cano, Palquilla, Talabaya, Toquela, Huacano, Quilla ; the villages of Cairani, Camilaca, Pallatu, Cala- cala, Susapaya, Chucatamani, Tala Yabroco, Putina, Londaniza, Pistala, Corocroro, Challaguaya, Estique Pampa, Huamara, and of the Totora ranch, with a total of 8,000 inhabitants in 1883; that is to say, the eastern limits of the province of Tarata are made up of the Mauri River which separates it from the Pe- ruvian department of Puno and from Bolivia; and the southern limits, of the ravines of Caquilloco, Chero, Quilla, Palquilla, to the town of Toquela, which is at the foot of the Barroso, following the Usuchuma River, the snow-capped mountains of Quenuta, Visi- viri, Humapalca, Cosapilla, and Mascano, to the Bo- livian border. According to Article III of the Treaty of Peace, Chile must occupy only the territory of the Peruvian 523 province of Arica and that part of Tacna to the south of the Sama Eiver; therefore, she did not have any right to retain any part of the province of Tarata, all of it situated to the north of that river, with an area of 4,979 square kilometres, and that was not mentioned even, by the Treaty, which fixed the northern limits of the territory that would continue to be occupied in the province of Tacna, stating that it was the Sama River, from its source in the mountains limiting with Bolivia to its outlet into the sea. Thus the territories, the occupation of which by Chile for a period of ten years was consented to by Peru, were set out doubly ; by the denominations of the Peruvian territorial demarka- tion, which upon expressly including the provinces of Tacna and Arica, excluded tacitly but undoubtedly, the territories of the province of Tarata, which was not mentioned, and by the fixing of the Sama River as the provisional border, thus excluding implicitly the entire zone that extended to the north of that river, from its true source down to the sea. If, then, any doubt could be possible, and honestly it could not be, about the course of the Sama, all that it was necessary to do was to appeal to the prompt resort of establishing what the territorial comprisal was, according to the Peruvian laws, of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, since the denomination with which they were designated gave to understand clearly that it referred to the territory that Peru assigned to them, because in the Chilean demar- kation such provinces did not then exist. Peru, upon her part, and until the carrying out of the plebiscite which, after ten years of Chilean occupation, should return to her the provinces which she surrendered pro- visionally, maintained, by law of October 12, 1886, the Peruvian department of Tacna, composed of the prov- ince of Tarata and the district of Locumba. Tarata, 524 which until the proclamation of Independence had been only a town, was made into a district by decree of the Liberator Bolivar; having been raised to the rank of a province by the law of October 12, 1874, which raised to the rank of districts, the towns of Ticaco and Taru- cachi. . The law of February 5, 1875, created the district of Curibaya also for the province of Tarata, subdivid- ing that of Candarave. When in 1884 the Peruvian authorities demanded the fulfillment of the Treaty of Peace, in the part that referred to the integral return of the province of Tarata, the Chilean Commandant Silva Arriagada, whose forces occupied it, refused to do so, alleging that in view of the information acquired by the politi- cal head of Tacna, the upper part of the Sama River was composed of the Ticalaco ravine and river, thus taking as origin of the Sama, one of its smallest tribu- taries. This arbitrary act of the Chilean authorities meant the deforcement of the districts of Tarata, Taru- cachi and Estique which embrace a territorial exten- sion of 637 square kilometres, with nearly 4,000 in- habitants. The geographic error in which the Chilean authori- ties incurred, was too obvious to be involuntary. The Sama River starts in the mountains called Barroso Grande and Barroso Pequeno, of a height of more than 20,000 feet, situated within the Peruvian territory of Tarata; and from its origin, down to its confluence with the Tarata River, it is known as the Estique River. From there down to its outlet into the sea it takes the name of Sama, the name of the valley that it crosses and enriches. That the Estique is the prin- cipal origin of the Sama, and not the Ticalaco, is proven by the facts that the origin of the first is in the 525 highest peaks of the Barroso ; the volume of its waters — much greater than that of the Ticalaco; the course that it follows, and its hydrographical system. The Ticalaco arises in the secondary water-sheds of the foot-hills of the Barroso, at the foot of the snow-capped mountains of Tarata. My Government could not become reconciled to such an arbitrary interpretation of the Treaty of Peace ; and this department, directly before the Chilean Legation in Lima, as well as through the Peruvian Legation in Santiago, insistently claimed the right of having all the territory of the province of Tarata, that is to say, the districts of Tarata, Tarucachi, and Estique, re- turned to it, meeting always with the tacit delay, of which Chilean diplomacy is so fond, that, although not denying the justice and the clearness of the rights claimed by Peru, in fact did not give to it the satisfac- tion demanded. On January 20, 1885, the Chilean Government issued a decree that organized, politically and administra- tively, the subdelegation of Tarata, as an intergral part of the province of Tacna. This decree fixed the limits of the subdelegation farther north than the River Ticalaco, at the River Chasapaya, known also as the River Cano or River Salado, thus enlarging upon the plunder committed by the Chilean authorities, as the River Chasapaya, Cano, or Salado did cover not only the usurped districts of Tarata, Tarucachi and Estique, as did the Ticalaco River, but also another district of the Peruvian province of Tarata, that of Ticaco, with one town and three villages and a popu- lation of over 2,000 inhabitants. Before such an alarm- ing attitude, Peru was not long in starting a negotia- tion, succeeding in having the justice of her reclama- tion acknowledged, at least in part. 526 This partial success did not cause Peru to forget the necessity of obtaining complete reparation for the out- rage that still subsisted, by the retention of the three districts of Tarata occupied by the Chilean authori- ties; and during the time between 1866 and 1890, the Peruvian Minister at Santiago, obeying the instruc- tions of this Ministry, insisted consistently in his ne- gotiations that looked to the restitution of those dis- tricts. Being thus pressed, the Government of Chile could not ignore the reclamation; to save the difficulty, it renewed to the Peruvian representative the proposal made four years before by the same Chilean Govern- ment, and which Peru then refused because of the diffi- culties that there would be in the appointment, by the two interested countries, of a joint commission to make the topographic studies necessary to establish- ing the true course of the Sama River, as a step prior to resolving the Peruvian reclamation. This course already was perfectly well known to us, through the unanimous reports of the Peruvian inhabitants of that region; reports that soon were confirmed by the tech- nical study entrusted by the Geographic Society of Lima to the Colonel of Engineers, Teobaldo Elespuru, according to which the Sama River is formed by three principal rivers : the Chasapaya, the Ticalaco, and the Estique, which flow through a very broken, mountain- ous region where eruptive rocks may be seen ; and be- yond the high peaks toward the Desaguadero, are seen sandstones, alternating with the calcareous rocks, in almost all of the sedimentary spots. The Chasapaya is formed in its origin by two streamlets; the Taya- vera (cold water), which starts near Chutana; and the Untuavira (hot water), which springs up from the side of the volcano Yucamani. The Ticalaco starts at the Unalzu ridges and receives several streams of water 527 which originate in the thaws of the Mamaraya, Li bine, and Chaquiro mountains. At the foot of the Ticaco, the Ticalaco receives another affluent called the Tarata Corchaviro Eiver which starts at the foot of the snow- capped Caparaja. The Estique has its origin at the foot of the Barroso mountain, and by the west longi- tude of its origin (69° 55' 30"), it is the one that is nearest to the Bolivian frontier. The Estique is formed of two principal rivulets ; the one that springs directly from the Barroso and passes through Taru- cachi; and the one that originates in the Iscahuaila ridge and passes through Talabai. My Government, which knew this perfectly since long ago, and which feared to further the policy of calculated delay that Chile pursued in this affair, refused to concur in the formation of the proposed commission, insinuating that the Government of Chile should obtain alone the information which it lacked to resolve the just Pe- ruvian reclamation. This insinuation was accepted by the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations, on October 23, 1890, but never was put into practice for the spe- cious reasons given fifty days later. Internal political events, first in Chile and then in Peru, forced the postponement of the question of Tarata. On April 16, 1898, the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol was signed at Santiago by the Peruvian Plenipoten- tiary and the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations, to determine the manner of carrying out the plebiscite which, according to Article III of the Treaty of Peace of October 20, 1883, must decide the definite situation of the Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica. Ac- cording to this protocol, the three districts of Tarata retained by Chile, must also take part in the plebisci- 528 tary voting; but Article XIV of the same diplomatic act states : - ' ' The fact that the registering and the receiving commissions of which the preceding articles spjeak, are functioning in Tarata, does not means that Peru desists from the pending reclamation with respect to a part of this region, although this does not mean that no indemnity will be asked for, for the time that Chile has occupied it." The President of Peru, explaining the meaning of this clause, stated in a message to the Peruvian Con- gress : "The plebiscite which shall take place in Tacna and Arica shall also include Tarata; and being- favorable to us, as it is bound to be, it will not leave any question whatsoever unsolved. "In case, simply hypothetical, that the plebiscite should result adverse to us, the pact has decidedly safeguarded the integrity of the rights that we claim. The plebiscite in Tarata will not have any value, therefore, except in the sole case of that of Tacna and Arica being favorable to us, and yet without any possibility of injuring us in the contrary case. "Any other procedure would have prolonged the Chilean occupation indefinitely, to the sole damage of Peru, or would have left the interna- tional problem unsolved. "If the pact to which I refer is worthy of a spe- cial recommendation, it is because of the discreet manner in which it treats the question of Tarata, the importance of which has led me to occupy myself with it now." . This protocol, which was approved by the Chilean Senate, was not approved by the Chamber of Deputies. 529 And, demanding its approval, the Minister of Peru at Santiago stated in the note of June 12, 1900, re- ferring to his conference of May 3 with the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations : "I recalled also that upon the celebration of the Billinghurst-Latorre agreement, several impor- tant negotiations had been left in abeyance, among others that relating to the occupation by Chile of a part of the province of Tarata, always esteemed as illegal by Peru. This question and others that- exist, such as the closing of the schools of Tacna and Arica that were managed by Peruvian teach- ers, would be solved implicitly, or would be in the way of being solved within a short term, upon the definite sanction of the said agreement. If this is not approved, these questions will have to enter again into a new period of activity to the detri- ment of the harmony that should rule the relations between both countries.' ' This allegation was not answered explicitly by the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations. The same Peruvian representative, when referring to the non-approval of the protocol, stated to the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations, ratifying his former opinions, in the note of January 19, 1901 : ' * Your Excellency has not forgotten certainly that, before all this, and scarcely had the Treaty of Peace between our respective nations been signed, Peru protested before Chile, against the illegal approbation by the latter of a part of the province of Tarata. Chile did not oppose any serious arguments to this reclamation. She of- fered, in 1890, to send engineers to study for her own enlightenment, the origin and the course of the Sama River; and in spite of the fact that ten 530 years have elapsed since the date of that offer, the result of the studies effected are not known, nor the manner in which the Peruvian reclamations have been resolved. In the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol a solution for this affair had been planned ; but as that agreement has been put aside, the said reclamations became effective again in their entirety. These expressions, as the former, did not receive any answer from the Chilean Min- ister of Foreign Eelations. For that reason, one of my honorable predecessors, in the communica- tion which he addressed on May 26, 1901, to the Ministry which is today under the meritorious charge of Your Excellency stated : ' That situation (the vexing discussions de- rived from the demands of the foreign creditors of Peru, and the opposition of Chile to acknowl- edging herself responsible for the payments im- posed upon her by the Treaty of Peace) favored the purpose of ignoring the stipulations of the Treaty. And thus, rmon organizing the delega- tions and subdelegations. a form in which, ac- cording to Chilean law, the provinces of Tacna and Arica must be administered, part of the province of Tarata. adjoining Tacna, and with it the towns and villages situated to the north of the Sama River was incorDorated to the ter- ritory submitted to the temporary occupation of Chile, the Sama Eiver being the boundary pointed by Article IIT. And, ui)on exposing these facts, concluded statin " Then the most odious situation that has existed be- tween Peru and Chile after the War of the Pacific, was created, due to the activity called Chileanization, which had as its purpose the bringing out of the 531 disappearance of the Peruvian element from the terri- tories that Chile snatched from Peru through the Treaty of Peace, and even from those that were not mentioned in the Treaty, such as Tarata. This activ- ity consisted of the putting into effect by the Chilean Government of a series of measures of a most irritating violence, which were executed brutally by its authori- ties, and which included, the closing of the Peruvian schools and churches; the prohibition of employing Peruvian help in the commerce and industries of Arica, Tacna and Tarapaca; the plunder of the Peruvian be- nevolent societies; the expulsion of Peruvian priests; the obligatory enrollment in the Chilean army of Pe- ruvians who proclaimed their nationality; and when these and other similar measures did not give the de- sired results, the expatriation, en masse, of the Peruv- ians and their families, was appealed to, unscrupu- lously, forcing them to leave suddenly, and without giving them time to take with them those household goods indispensable to existence, in order that every- thing should be abandoned to the pillage of the Chilean hordes, whose ferocious instincts were incited by the authorities themselves by means of special agents. It was in these circumstances that the Chilean Gov- ernment thought to serve its purposes better by send- ing to Tacna as the chief authority, the person who a few years before had failed notoriously as diplomatic representative in Lima, and who speculated crying out his hatred toward Peru. Among the many initiatives of this functionary of unsound mind was that of rais- ing the subdelegation of Tarata to the rank of depart- ment (equivalent to a Peruvian province), "to send, he stated, to that important zone an intelligent func- tionary who may accomplish a fruitful work in favor 532 of the Chilean interests." And in support of this ini- tiative, he wrote to the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations: "You know how this subdelegation (Ta- rata) preoccupies me. There the Peruvians have the greater part of their electoral forces, there we also could organize them, and nevertheless we insist in leav- ing it abandoned." This obfuscation respecting Ta- rata had led the Chilean Government to issue the de- cree of February 1, 1908, subdividing Tarata into six districts, from the three of which it was composed. The old districts were as has been stated, Tarata, Taru- cachi, and Estique, and those that were added were Chucatamani, Putlina, and Mauri; this last was not mentioned in the decree; but the boundaries marked out show that the Mauri region, which is bounded on the south by the Ancomara ridge, was included, a re- gion to which Chile never had any right ; and realizing the geographical absurdity of marking out the bound- ary line which the Treaty of Peace fixed as the River Sama, not by the water courses which might be con- sidered, with or without reason, the origin of that river, but by the Ticaco River, its affluent, fixed the boividary upon orographic references such as the Chasparra and Molleraco hills, thus to extend the illegal occupation of Chile to the Mauri River, which starts at the snow-capped Cauchiri, although this river and the Sama belong to different hydrographic basins, and between them lying the branch of the high moun- tains of the two Barrosos. Something, which must be supposed came from the moral store of conscience, made fruitless for several months the personal efforts of the Intendant of Tacna to secure the raising of Tarata from a subdelegation to a department ; but the visit paid by the President 533 of Chile in April, 1909, afforded the Intendant the op- portunity of gaining the support of the President for his project. Withal, the Chilean Government feared the scandal of asking its Congress directly to promote Tarata territorially; and it availed itself therefore of the private initiative of a Deputy of the Government party, and thus the objective sought was reached, as on November 29, 1911, the law which created the de- partment of Tarata with the territory of the eighth and ninth subdelegations, that is, with the three Pe- ruvian districts of Tarata, Tarucachi, and Estique, was promulgated. The Peruvian Government, in spite of the situation created by the withdrawal of the Legations of Peru and Chile, from Santiago and from Lima, respectively, did not fail to adopt the attitude which corresponded to it, protesting with energy against this law, even before it was proclaimed; this gave place to an exchange of notes between the Ministers of Foreign Relations of the two countries ; but without any other practical re- sult than the making evident of the justice that as- sisted Peru, and of the decision of the Chilean Gov- ernment of not stopping at any outrage in order to procure the absorption of territories that were and would continue to be Peruvian, because, among other reasons, Chile is a small and poor country, and with- out sufficient force of assimilation to carry out an en- terprise such as the imposing of a nationality upon foreign territories and people, an enterprise in which even the greatest nations have failed. By one of those strange contradictions caused by lack of international morality, the Chilean Govern- ment, that alleged as the chief reason for altering the legal condition of the usurped territory of Tarata in 534 raising it to a department, "the necessity of bettering all the administrative services, supplying them with superior authorities of Government, of justice, and of public security," today abolishes it, as though it wished to announce that that unfortunate Peruvian territory, which it retains without any right, now shall not have good administrative services, and that the subordinate Chilean authorities which might better them, shall not do a work of government, of justice, or of public security. Purposely or not, this strange con- trast proclaims the reality of the situation created for the Peruvians in Tarata as well as for those in the other Peruvian territories retained by Chile between the Rivers Sama and Loa. Still, in 1912, Chilean forces which since ten years ago occupied the Coalliri station upon the right bank of the Mauri River, occu- pied Conchachire, which was profaned by making it serve as a lodging place for the Chilean soldiers, all the demands that were made for reparations for this unheard-of outrage, being fruitless. Tarata, a town before 1824, a district after that date, a province in 1874, pursues an ascending career within its own nation, Peru, that ever fondly watched over its progress and development. Usurped by Chile, during thirty-seven years, it is converted first into a subdele- gation, the lowest territorial category; and, although according to the Chilean military authority in 1884, the boundary line of Ticalaco which maintained Ta- rata, Tarucachi, and Estique within the Chilean occu- pation "was provisional and subject to the agreements which may be made later by the respective Govern- ments,' ' nevertheless, Tarata being raised by circum- stantial needs to the rank of a Chilean department, it ,is today degraded and effaced from the territorial de- 535 markation of Chile. The purpose is manifest. Feeling that the hour for great historical reparations in the New World approaches an hour that already has ar- rived in Europe, an attempt is made to cover the tracks of a clamorous international attempt, the offender wishing to escape the penal sanction by hiding the fruit of his crime; but we harbor the close persuasion that when justice, which is on the way, arrives to carry out its work, the heroic lands of Tarata, which were at- tempted to be disguised before and which are attempted to be hidden now, shall cry out that they are Peruvian, as they have been since the most remote times. In the meantime, my Government hastens to inform that of Your Excellency, as to the facts of the so-called "Question of Tarata," and to protest energetically against the procedure followed by the Chilean Govern- ment with respect to it, convinced that, in the senti- ments of justice that characterize the Government of Your Excellency, mine shall find in this emergency a generous reception. I avail myself of this opportunity of expressing to you, Sir, the assurances of my highest and most dis- tinguished consideration. A. Salomon. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of * * * 536 Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. (Telegram.) [Translation.] Santiago, December 12, 1921. Mr. Minister: The negotiations carried on directly between our two Governments in the month of November, 1912, for the purpose of fixing the bases which should govern the plebiscite whereby the definite sovereignty of the territories of Tacna and Arica is to be determined, were interrupted in the last stages of their proceed- ings for well known reasons that were entirely beyond our control. Inasmuch as on that date our Governments for the first time, after long and unfruitful discussions, came to an agreement relative to the additional protocol mentioned in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon nothing can be more lamentable than that the causes above mentioned should have disturbed the agree- ment that was designed to end all the differences still existing between the two countries. His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Chile, who has the firm intention of seeking, as soon as possible, the way to solve the Tacna and Arica problem, has instructed me to address the Government of Your Excellency for the purpose of reaching, the sooner the better, a solution of pending difficulties. No way more equitable for obtaining the just and complete fulfillment of the Treaty of 1883 can be found than in the negotiations of 1912, referred to at the beginning of this note because as Your Excellency undoubtedly knows, it would entirely satisfy the hopes of the Government of Peru since that Government was 537 anxious to find a formula which would give Chile no credit for exercising that initiative. For this reason, the same hour and the same day of the month of Nov- ember, 1912, the Ministers of Foreign Relations of both countries exchanged identical telegraphic com- munications inviting each other to renew cordial and permanent relations, in order to insure national pros- perity and to satisfy the best American interests. In these telegraphic dispatches, immediately rati- fied in the same way [telegraphically] it was estab- lished that the plebiscite, referred to in the Treaty of Ancon to determine the definite sovereignty of Tacna and Arica, should be carried out upon the fol- lowing bases: 1st. The plebiscite shall be held under the direction of a Committee that shall make decisions by majority vote and that said Committee shall be composed of five delegates, namely: two Chileans appointed by Chile, two Peruvians appointed by Peru, and the President of the Supreme Court of Chile, who shall preside. 2d. Those born in Tacna and Arica and the Chileans and the Peruvians having a residence of three years in the territory shall have the right to vote. 3d. All the voters must be able to read and write. With these simple formulas, immediately ratified by cable as has been said, and as especially stipulated, the sole difficulties that had impeded the definite ful- fillment of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon were re- moved. With this agreement formulated in such cor- dial and perfect terms, there was no reason for post- poning the fulfillment or dropping the negotiations. It is true that by that agreement, the fulfillment of the plebiscite would have been postponed until the year 1933; and that such a postponement would have kept alive in America the possibility of international con- 538 . flict. Peru and Chile, and perhaps other countries would thus have been forced to expend excessive amounts for military preparation, at this time when the Great War has taught the nations of this continent to apply their best efforts toward the conservation and development of their natural resources. The fact of our country exercising sovereignty over Tacna and Arica, as expressly stated in the Treaty of Ancon, makes the postponement of the plebiscite advantageous because of a possible natural increase of its interests during the course of years ; but Chile, be- cause of a high spirit of continental cordiality, is ready to accept an earlier date than that specified in the agreement of 1912 for the fulfillment of the plebiscite. Inspired by these purposes, my Government invites Your Excellency's Government, without loss of time, to carry out the agreement reached in November of 1912 in order to verify in Tacna and Arica the plebiscite provided for in Clause III of the Treaty of Ancon. I confidently trust that Your Excellency's Govern- ment will not refuse to accept this invitation since it is founded upon the bases set forth by the Govern- ment of Peru and inspired by the same principles — although it is not so advantageous for the country ex- ercising the sovereignty — established for the plebisci- tary acts contemplated in the Treaty of Versailles, which the Government of Your Excellency has ap- proved and signed. In formulating this invitation, in a high spirit of in- ternational harmony, I may assure Your Excellency that my Government will gladly consider any sug- gestion of Your Excellency's Government which will tend to give to this act the greatest solemnity, guar- anteeing in a most positive manner the free exercise of the will of those called upon to decide the future of this territory. 539 I avail myself of this opportunity to express to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and most dis- tinguished consideration. Ernesto Barros. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] (Telegram.) Lima, December 17, 1921. Mr. Minister: I have the honor to reply to the telegraphic com- munication of Your Excellency, which was received with surprise on the 12th instant, and which has for its purpose the inviting of my Government to carry out what is termed telegraphic agreements of the month of November, 1912, between this Ministry and that of Your Excellency. Diplomatic relations between Peru and Chile having been broken off since 1910, and this interruption hav- ing been intensified by the withdrawal of the consular agents in 1918, as a consequence of the violent persei cution and the mass expulsion of the Peruvian resit dents in the territories of Tacna, Arica and Tarj- apaca, which in itself would be sufficient to make the plebiscite impossible, there would have been excellent reason for hoping that, because of the diplomatic pro- cedure to which all the countries are subject, you would have sought, first of all, the means of resuming the interrupted relations in order to be able to im- 540 mediately enter into amicable discussion of the political question which, whatever might be the solution reached, could not be resolved by the means of ir- regular proceedings. It is surprising that Your Excellency attributes executive power to a mere exchange of ideas by tele- graph, which in order to be vested with the character of an international pact must pass through certain de- finite and necessary steps, and above all, to receive the legislative sanction of the two countries. Your Excellency well knows that your own Government dropped these preliminary negotiations, as shown by the documents published in the Memoria of the Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile covering the period between October, 1911, and July, 1914, pages 288 to 293; and it is furthermore proven by the fact that not even the appointments of ministers in Lima and Santiago referred to in those telegrams were made. Therefore, it is very strange that Your Excellency invokes the ideas set forth in the course of a negotiation which was a failure, to think of it as the first agreement of our Governments, and to attempt to utilize those ideas now as a reasonable basis for the carrying out of the plebiscite. It is also strange that the rules drawn for the holding of the plebiscite fourteen years before in the Protocol of April 16, 1898, approved by the Con- gress of Peru and the Senate of Chile were overlooked, although the acceptance of the carrying out of this same Protocol would at present be impossible for my Government because Your Excellency's Government has violated the greater part of the articles of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of October 20, 1883, from which the above mentioned Protocol should em- anate. 541 I also believe indefensible Your Excellency's asser- tion that the so-called bases of 1912 are inspired by the same principles as those established for the plebi- scite contemplated in the Treaty of Versailles, which Peru has signed. To prove this, it is sufficient to call attention to the fact that in those plebiscitary acts that which has been primarily guaranteed is the free- dom of the vote in three ways, namely: the power pre* siding over the voting, the polling of the vote, and the counting thereof. In the meantime, and even after having accomplished the mass expulsion of the Peruvian population and after pretending that the plebiscite would be carried out under the jurisdiction of the holder of the provinces, directly interested in the result, the Chilean authorities of Tacna, Arica and Tarata have dedicated themselves, since a month ago, by order from the Government, to making the inhabi- tants of those provinces, regardless of their national- ity, sign printed statements containing the promise to vote in favor of Chile for the definitive annexation of the above mentioned territories. Notwithstanding' the foregoing, and regardless of the unjustified affronts of Chile to Peru in the last 27 years, my Government in the interest of American cordiality curbs the impetus of its natural resentment although still firm in the belief that a plebiscite un- der the auspices of Chile, after the years elapsed, in- stead of eradicating the existing differences, would only serve to intensify them. The desire of Peru is and has been, to prevent any new reasons arising for broadening the distance be- tween and the enmity against Chile, and to this end it has striven for and will insist on the continued seek- ing for a fair solution of the problem of the Southern Pacific, by means of an honest and unbiased arbitra- 542 tion. It is but recently that the Chilean Government, at Geneva, through its representatives, refused to rec- ognize the jurisdiction of the League of Nations over the existing differences between Chile and Bolivia, bas- ing its argument upon the fact that they were Ameri- can political problems. In harmony with this idea which consequently involved the seeking of a corres- ponding solution within our own continent, my Govern- ment, in accordance with the traditions of its invariable international policy in favor of arbitration, invites that of Your Excellency to submit jointly the entire question of the South-Pacific which divides us, to an arbitra- tion, agreed to through the initiative of the Govern- ment of the United States of America, a procedure which I am sure will bring a satisfactory solution of this question which has so endangered the peace of the continent, and thus put an end to the entire contro- versy in accordance with the new views on peace and on justice which rule the world. On submitting this proposal to the high considera- tion of Your Excellency I offer to your Excellency my highest and most distinguished consideration. Alberto Salomon. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. (Telegram.) [Translation.] Santiago, December 20, 1921, Mr. Minister: In answering your telegraphic note of the 17th in- stant, in which Your Excellency has replied to the invi- 543 tation which I had the honor to address to you for the purpose of carrying out the plebiscite duly recorded in the third Clause of the Treaty of Ancon, from which comes the expectation of Peru for the recovery of the sovereignty of Tacna and Arica, let me first justify the chosen method of procedure, that is, addressing myself directly to Your Excellency, notwithstanding the fact that the diplomatic relations between the two countries are broken off. My Government, Mr. Minister, considers necessary and adequate all the proper means for seeking the so- lution of the difficulties which exist with Peru ; for this reason I am unable to understand why these chosen proceedings should be a surprise to Your Excellency, since I can not but attribute to the Government of Peru the same generous and open state of mind as that which has inspired the Government of Chile in the so- lution of the pending difficulties; a state of mind be- fore which a simple protocol formality would stand as naught and which has not even the merit of originality since it can be found many times in the communica- tions which the Government of Your Excellency has addressed directly to the Chilean Government, not- withstanding the breaking off of diplomatic relations. Your Excellency asserts that the proper method would have been to seek, first of all, a means of re- establishing the interrupted relations; but, undoubt- edly, Your Excellency forgets that for that purpose in the year 1920 the Chilean Government sent to Lima an ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, who did not have the good fortune to be received by His Excellency Seiior Leguia. Your Excellency states that the negotiations which the Government of Chile has chosen as a bases for for- mulating an invitation to the Peruvian Government to 544 carry out the plebiscite set forth in Clause III of the Treaty of 1883, was a mere telegraphic exchange of ideas which never had the character of ' ' agreements ' ' given them by me. Nevertheless the last White Book published by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru concerning the Tacna and Arica problem, refers to this negotiation in the same terms as I, repeatedly calling it, on Page XL VIII "covenant" or "agreement celebrated," these expressions being concordant with what is stated in the Memoria of the Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile, which was erroneously quoted by Your Excel- lency. However, invited by the undersigned, as was Your Excellency, to suggest the changes you deemed proper to the bases proposed, my Government deplores that Your Excellency, in your communication, has not taken advantage of the opportunity for setting forth the points of view of Peru regarding the plebiscite, points of view which within the proper limits, we should have been glad to take into consideration. Your Excellency, however, referred to the mass ex- pulsion of the Peruvians from Tacna and Arica and to the impossibility of the carrying out of the plebi- scite, due to this fact. If the expulsions decreed by the Government of Chile are not those requested by Your Excellency, be- cause of a fear of revolutionary agitators, I do not know which ones are meant by the references in your communication but, in any event, I am pleased to offer to the Government of Your Excellency the guarantee which may be requested for the return of the Peruvian citizens meeting the voting requirements and who prove that they have left Tacna and Arica because of violence. 545 Your Excellency has thought opportune to set forth strange statements, for which no proof is given, or could be given, to the effect that Chile has violated al- most all the clauses of the Treaty of Peace and Friend- ship of 1883. I shall not exert myself to call Your Excellency's at- tention to the fact that it would be impossible for Chile to commit such a violation, since the clauses referred to establish obligations not imposed on Chile in favor of Peru, but exactly the reverse. However, permit me to avail myself of this oppor- tunity to state that the only provisions of the Treaty of Ancon which have not yet been fully complied with are the often mentioned Article III and Article XII, the latter prescribing the payment of certain indemni- ties by the Government of Your Excellency, for the indemnification of certain Chilean citizens. Your Ex- cellency well knows that the Chilean Government can not in any way be made responsible for the non-fulfill- ment of these two provisions. In addition to other statements made by Your Ex- cellency, my examination and complete refutation of which yould take us far from the useful and friendly consummation sought by my Government, Your Ex- cellency formulates an invitation to "submit jointly the entire question of the South Pacific which divides us, to an arbitration agreed to through the initiative of the Government of the United States of America. ' ' The only question which divides us, and to which, undoubtedly, Your Excellency has wished to refer, is the difference of understanding existing with regard to the manner of carrying out the third Clause of the Treaty of 1883. Your Excellency, in the communication to which I herein make reply, does not even set forth the extent 546 of the rights due from the point of view of the Govern- ment of Your Excellency in as far as they emanate from the Treaty, and thus makes it necessary that be- fore agreeing to an arbitration, which Chile does not refuse, the exact points of the question should be fixed — on which I flatter myself it will be possible to find the necessary formula with Your Excellency — and to know exactly what the differences of the plebiscite for- malities may be which would force us to ask the opinion of another country so that perfect accord might be reached. With this understanding I invite your Government, in the name of the Government of Chile, to continue direct negotiations in the manner which Your Excel- lency judges proper to the end of procuring in a broad spirit of concord the harmonious solution which would be compatible with the Treaty of Ancon, a treaty from whose terms it is unlawful for the signatory Govern- ments to depart, as much because of the respect that is due to covenants between nations as because it is not possible to change historic facts, essential and funda- mental to international entities. I feel assured that Your Excellency, seeing in this communication the noble spirit of cordiality of the Government of Chile, will be willing to accept the invi- tation herein and will do all that is possible for the mutual welfare of our two nations and of all America, the advent of an era of peace, of harmony and of co- operation that circumstances make ever more press- ing. I reiterate to Your Excellency the assurance of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Ernesto Barros. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru. 547 Circular of Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Legations of Chile Abroad. [Translation.] Santiago, December 20, 1921. Mk. Ministek: Eeasons of an administrative nature, advised the dictation of Law Number 3802, promulgated on Sep- tember 22d of the present year, which abolishes the department of Tarata, created by Law Number 2575 of December 2, 1911. By reason of this, the Government of Peru ad- dressed, on September 20, 1921, a circular note to the foreign Chancelleries placing in their knowledge the so-called "Question of Tarata" and "its protest against the procedure followed by the Chilean Gov- ernment with respect to it." Upon reading the said document, which is lengthy, diffuse, and written in a violent language, it is deduced that Peru avails itself of the occasion of a law having been dictated to reor- ganize the province of Tacna, to insist upon, not only the returning to her of the territory to the south of the boundary line established by the Treaty of Peace of 1883 whose chief center is the town of Tarata, but also of all the territories that were ceded "perpetually and unconditionally" as a consequence of the War of the Pacific. This circumstance does not permit giving to the Peruvian note a greater importance than that of a document of propaganda, written perhaps simply to maintain in activity the passions within the country, which is convulsed by the dictatorial regime implanted by President August o B. Leguia, because it is difficult to conceive that enlightened Governments, friends of 548 peace and of order, conscious of the true interests of their people, should pretend to do away with a Treaty that signifies sacrifices that no one can forget, and that no one can permit to be forgotten. Desirous, nevertheless, of safeguarding the good name of my country, its foreign policies, and its acts, I believe it to be necessary to provide Your Excel- lency with some facts respecting the question pro- moted by the Peruvian note. The Chilean Military Occupation After the taking of Tacna, in 1880, the Chilean mili- tary authorities often were forced to send expeditions into the interior, to attack and to destroy the irregular forces that the Peruvian guerrillas formed in the mountains for the purpose of capturing the city. Several encounters took place during this time, in one of which the Peruvian Colonel Albarracin, one of the chieftains who maintained the province in uneasi- ness, was slain. Of all these expeditions, the most important per- haps was that which Major Subercaseaux carried out in 1884. He followed the road from Pachia to Palca, in pursuit of the guerrilla Pacheco Cespedes, then con- tinued along the western slopes of the Barroso moun- tain, "taking definite possession (states an official doc- ument), of all the sources of the Sama, to Candarave." Therefore, the towns of Talabaya, Estique, Tarucache, Tarata, Ticaco, Chayahuaya, Yabroco, Susapaya, and Chasapaya were occupied. Referring to the Chilean military occupation, the Intendant of Tacna states, in a memorandum dated November 5, 1897, as follows ; "It was then, in 1883-4, that the military head of Tarata, Commandant Ricardo Silva Arriagada, 549 fixed the general boundaries of the province of Tacna on the north, occupying Ticalaco, Sitapara, and Yatoraco, and designating, as boundary line, the course of the Chasapaya, or Salado River, from its source in the Mountains of Yabroco, the ' nearest to the Peruvian-Bolivian frontier. These indications served to fix definitely the limits of the province of Tacna in the form expressed by the Treaty of Ancon." The military expeditions, as is easy to understand, were not designed to occupy mountain territories of scant industrial value, thus diverting forces, and in- curring useless expenses; therefore, after punishing the enemy and returning to the towns their tranquility, the garrisons were withdrawn to points nearer to the capital of the province. In this manner, the towns mentioned were left without garrisons, excepting Ta- rata where a subdelegate was established perma- nently. The Peruvian authorities availed themselves of this circumstance to exercise jurisdiction over the aban- doned towns, establishing finally their most advanced post at Ticaco, on the north bank of the Ticalaco, a short distance from Tarata. •The Chilean authorities, nevertheless, always con- sidered the Salado or Chasapaya River to be the boundary line with Peru. The Northern Boundary According to the Treaty of Ancon. Article III of the Treaty of Peace with Peru estab- lishes the condition in which the territory of Tacna remained occupied by Chile and incidentally fixes the boundary line between the two countries. It states : 550 4 'The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, which are bounded on the north' by the Santa River, from its source in the mountains limiting with Bolivia, down to its outlet into the sea; on the south, by the ravine and Eiver Cama- rones; on the east, by the Republic of Bolivia; and on the west, by the Pacific Ocean, shall con- tinue being possessed by Chile, and subjected to the Chilean legislation and authorities, etc." This definition of the limits of the territory that re- mained under Chilean jurisdiction was interpreted from the first moment in the sense that it included, on the north, the entire territorial extension south of the Sama and its tributaries. The negotiators of the Treaty undoubtedly thought of the convenience of fixing a conspicuous boundary line such as the Sama, the most important river of the region, expressly indicating that its sources must be found in the ranges of the Bolivian mountains. In other words, the attempt was made to establish a geographical unanimity which would prevent later conflicts of authorities. The Peruvians pretend that the administrative de- markation that they had of the territory must prevail, which is not acceptable as it was always arbitrary and changeable, and did not correspond to an international resolution. This principle being established, it will be easy to prove that the Chilean authorities always adjusted themselves to it, dictating laws of administrative or- ganization, and putting into effect municipal disposi- tions for the collection of taxes in all the places where they had representatives. 551 The Sama River and Its Tributaries. According to the document cited by the Peruvian note of September 20th, prepared by the engineer Ele- spuru, T • "the Sama River is formed of three chief rivers: the Chasapaya, the Ticalaco, and the Estique, which flow through a very broken mountainous region where eruptive rocks are seen * * *" "The Chasapaya, at its source, is formed of two rivulets; the Tayavira (cold water), which starts near Chutana; and the Untuavira (hot water), which springs from the side of the Yuca- mani volcano. c i The Ticalaco starts on the slope of the Unalzu ridge and receives several streams of water which originate in the thaws of the snow-capped Mara- maya, Libine, and Chaquiro. At the foot of Ticaco it receives another tributary called River Tarata or Chaviro and which has its source at the . foot of the snow-capped Caparaja. "The Estique has its source at the foot of the Barroso mountain, and because of the west longi- tude of its origin (69° 55' 30") it is the nearest to the Bolivian frontier. The Estique is composed of two chief rivulets ; the one that springs directly from the Barroso and passes through Tarucachi, and the one that comes from the Iztahualla ridge and passes through Talabay." If any of the tributaries is taken from the demarka- tion of the boundary line, it is easily proved that the definition of the Treaty of Peace would be, from this point of view, inexact and incomplete. In fact, if the map is examined, it is seen that the source of these tributaries is very far, from 50 to 70 kilometres, from 552 the Bolivian border and, therefore, to give a rational interpretation to the Treaty, it must be understood that the frontier includes all the sources of the Sama and that it runs along the peaks that separate the re- gions of Tacna and Puno from Bolivia. This is the boundary pointed out by all the legislative and administrative acts of the Chilean Government, since 1884 and up to the present time. Creation of the Province of Tacna, Of the territories placed under the sovereignty of Chile in the conditions established by Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, the province of Tacna was formed, a province being the most extensive political circumscription within the Chilean administrative system. In fact, the Treaty with Peru scarcely being pro- claimed, on May 21, 1884, the Chilean Government hastened to organize the public services, and to nor- malize the condition of those territories that had been subjected to the military authorities within a pro- visional system. Therefore, the law of October 31, 1884, was dictated, Article I of which disposed that the territories of Tacna and Arica should be considered as one province of the Republic, with the name of Tacna, and that the limits of which should be those pointed out by the Treaty of Peace. Article II established that Chilean law would rule the new. province, and that its inhabitants would enjoy the same guarantees which the Constitution grants to the inhabitants of the rest of the Republic. Article III divided the province into two depart- ments, called Tacna and Arica. 553 The following article fixed the limits of the depart- ment of Tacna, specifying that npon the north, the east, and the west, they wonld consist of those given to the province. By virtue of the law, the President of the Republic enacted the decree of January 20, 1885, by which the department of Tacna is divided into eight subdelega- tions, of which Tarata was the fifth, and Sama the sixth. Tarata a Subdelegation of the Department of Tacna, The limits of Tarata were established as follows : ' ' Fifth subdelegation, Tarata, shall be bounded on the north by the river and ravine of Chasapaya, which is the same River Sama, following up its course * * * on the east by the border of Bolivia and of the Department of Puno." So that there would not exist any doubts as to the limits which the Chilean Government understood must be assigned to the- territory, the decree enumerated the chief towns that were to remain included within the national jurisdiction, as follows : "This subdelegation (the fifth, Tarata) shall in- clude the towns and villages of Talabaya, Esti- que, Tarucachi, Tarata, Ticaco, Challaguaya, Sitajara, Tala Pistala, Chucatamani, Londaniza, Putina, Yabroco, Coropuro, Mauri, and Cano. The ravines of Chero and Quilla and their villages also remain subjected to its jurisdiction. ,, 554 By decree of November 9, 1885, the previous de- markation was confirmed, better specifying the divis- ion of the districts of the subdelegations. In this de- cree, Tarata appears as the eighth subdelegation of the department of Tacna and Sama as the ninth. The political division of the department of Tacna made in conformity with the decrees of January 20, and of November 9, 1885, endured until the year 1911, when the law of December 2 was enacted, Article first of which states as follows : "The Department of Tarata is hereby created from the territories composed of the eighth and ninth subdelegations of the department of Tacna, according to the decree of November 9, 1885." The department of Tarata endured until September 22, 1921, the date upon which Law Number 3,802 was enacted, annulling that of December 2, 1911. Therefore, the subdelegations of Tarata and Sama were again incorporated to the department of Tacna. According to the dispositions of the said law number 3,802, the decree of October 11 was enacted, by which the departments of Tacna and Arica were divided into subdelegations, of which Tarata is the sixth. The Official Limits and the Conventional Limits of the Province of Tacna. According to the indications of the Treaty of Peace and to the official documents which were had in mind when the limits of the province were fixed, and in view of the reclamations initiated by Peru because of the occupation of Tarata and its incorporations to the de- partment of Tacna, the law of September 22d, which 555 dissolved the department of Tarata, fixed definitely the limits of the department of Tacna, as follows : " Article II. — The department of Tacna, of the province of that name, shall have the following limits: On the north, the boundary line with Peru, to the intersection on the north with the as- tronomical meridian of Ucure hill, international boundary line that is made up of the Sama River in its western part; on the east, the astronomical meridian of Ucure hill from its intersection with the Peruvian line to the north of the said hill, up to its peak; the ridge of Guaracarane, the range that borders upon the north with the hydrographic bed of the Usuchima River, to the mountain of Barroso, the hills of Gunacure, the line of peaks that borders upon the east with the hydrographic bed of the Caplina River and its tributaries, pass- ing through the gorge of Quinuta; the hills of Paralocos and Chupiquina, and the ridge of Huali- las, to the pass of Huailas ; on the south, the ravine of Caunani from its source at the pass of Huailas to its outlet into the sea ; and on the west, the Pa- cific Ocean from the outlet of the Caunani ravine to the outlet of the Sama River.' ' To fix the limits precisely, as has been done by the law of September 22d, the studies, explorations, and drawings made by Chilean geographers for nearly twenty years, have been had in mind, as is logical. The international border, nevertheless, as we have noted elsewhere, has not been respected by Peru, as since 1884 she established authorities at the town of Ticaco. Since then the de facto boundary line between the two countries has remained established at the River Tala, Pistala, Ticalaco, Guayatire, following, toward the east, "an imaginary line that terminates at Con- 556 chachiri, a small place situated on the banks of the Mauri and a short distance from its source," as was stated by the Intendant of Tacna in a Memorandum presented to the Government in 1897. The Peruvian Interpretation. The circular note sent to the foreign Governments on September 20th by the Peruvian Foreign Office, states that, according to Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, Chile must occupy only the territory of the Peruvian province of Arica and that part of that of Tacna which lay to the south of the Eiver Sama. t i Therefore, it adds, she did not have any right to retain any part of the province of Tarata, all of it situated to the north of that river, with an area of 4,979 square kilometres, and that was not men- tioned even, by the Treaty, which fixed the north- ern limits of the territory that would continue to he occupied in the province of Tacna, stating that it was the Sama River, from its source in the mountains limiting with Bolivia to its outlet into the sea." Precisely, based upon the letter of the pact, the Chilean Government fixed the northern boundary at the highest tributary of the Sama, because it could not consider the administrative demarkations of Peru, which varied several times before the war, and which, after the signing of the Treaty of Peace, changed again upon the creation of the department of Moquegua, which includes the zone called Free Tacna. Further on, the note relates that, in 1884, when the Peruvian authorities, after taking possession, in the 557 manner known to us, of the section which lies between the Ticalaco and Salado Rivers, demanded the return of the part of Tarata that was occupied by Chile. "The Chilean Commandant Silva Arriagada, whose forces occupied it, refused to do so, alleg- ing that in view of the information acquired by the political head of Tacna, the upper part of the Sama Eiver was composed of the Ticalaco ravine and river, thus taking, as origin of the Sama, one of its smallest tributaries. This arbitrary act of the Chilean authorities meant the detention of the districts of Tarata, Tarucachi, and Estique which embrace a territorial extension of 637 square kilo- metres, with nearly 4,000 inhabitants." We already have stated the circumstances under which the de facto boundary at the Ticalaco River was established. Therefore, we need not prove the error which the Peruvian note incurs in pretending to dem- onstrate that that river does not constitute the chief tributary of the Sama, upon which fact we are agreed.. Loyally interpreting the Treaty of Peace, the supreme decrees of January 20th and of November 9, 1885, fixed the boundary at the River Chasapaya, Salado, or Cano, all of which names have been given to the upper- most tributary of the Sama, during its long drawn out course. As an historic fact, it must be remembered that the Chilean negotiator of the Treaty of Peace proposed the Locumba River, which is a great deal farther north than the Sama, as the boundary, and that only after two lengthy conferences did he accept this latter river as the boundary. But Peru does not wish to agree upon the rational Chilean interpretation, and pretends, on the contrary, that we accept as the boundary, the River Estique 558 which is the southermost tributary, and which has its source in the Barroso mountain, in the very Chilean territory of Tacna, and certainly very distant from the mountains that separate us from Bolivia. Intent upon demonstrating that the Ticalaco can serve as the boundary as it is a short tributary and one of small volume, she forgets that the legal question is another matter, and that her arguments, in proving too much, prove nothing, as is said in forensic jargon. It would have been rational and logical that, there being no agreement, Peru should have proposed the appointment of a joint commission that should investi- gate the truth, and thus render more easy, an agree- ment between the two countries. She did not do this, and in her place, the initiative was taken by the same Chilean negotiator of the Treaty of Peace, Don Jovino Novoa, as we shall show. i Peru Does Not Accept the Appointment of a Commis- sion of Experts. The Peruvian Government protested against a de- cree enacted by the political head of Tacna, by which certain municipal taxes were imposed upon the in- habitants of Tarata, as well as upon those of the rest of the province, and because of the administrative division ordered by the decrees already mentioned. Upon these subjects, it addressed a note to Sr. Novoa. on February 16, 1885, which note could not be answered until some time later, because the Chilean Minister left Lima to come home. Upon returning to Peru, Sr. Novoa addressed to the Minister of Foreign Relations the note of March 17, 1886, in which the following may be read : 559 ' ' My Government, wishing to have new reports, in spite of the sure data that it possessed, inter- viewed the political head of Tacna, who stated that the taxes imposed, which also had been the object of observations, as well as the subdelegations created, were within the jurisdiction of Chile, ac- cording to the Treaty of October 20th. " The River Sama being the northern boundary of the territories whose possession belonged to Chile for a term of ten years— a boundary, the fix- ing of which was in fact the object of two long conferences — the Chilean jurisdiction exercised therein, is beyond all discussion. "The undersigned was convinced that the po- litical authorities of that territory had adjusted their acts to that stipulation and to the supreme orders and dispositions issued in obedience to what had been covenanted; and that is why, upon ac- knowledging receipt on February 18th of the said note of the 16th, I hastened to express that I would hand it to my Government on the trip to Val- paraiso, upon which I was starting on that very same day; but that since now I could anticipate that, as the honorable predecessor of Your Excel- lency stated with so much reason, it was impossible to suppose that Chile would have then, or ever, the intention of altering to the smallest extent that which she clearly and categorically had cove- nanted. The uprightness of her acts does not per- mit it to be suspected, I added, even in hypothesis, arid I am satisfied to observe, that the Supreme Government of Your Excellency does honor to the loyalty with which the Republic that I represent respects what is due an honest country. ' ' To offer Your Excellency an unequivocal proof that it desires to solve all difficulties, my Govern- ment proposes a means of simple and correct solu- tion, that is, that a commission of experts, one ap- pointed by Chile and another by Peru, shall come together and study the data that they may deem 560 necessary by inspecting the course followed by the Sama River from its sources to its outlet. The boundary line thus fixed, in a clear and unequivocal manner, a friendly and definite solution will have been reached, and all doubts will be settled.'' Jo- vino Novoa. The Peruvian Government answered on April 2d, that in its opinion the question consisted of knowing which were the limits of the province of Tarata, which had been excluded from the possession to which Article III of the Treaty refers, and did not accept the idea of a commission of experts, in the following terms : "The commission which Your Excellency pro- poses, besides being liable to incur in an error because of the lack of exactness of Article III of the Treaty in speaking of the Sama River, also has the disadvantage that if the opinions of the two commissioners do not concur, it will be diffi- cult to adjust this difference. ' ' Thus Peru refused to follow the course pointed out to her loyalty by Chile, in spite of the fact that she acknowledged the lack of exactness of the definition of the boundary line as contained in the Treaty, and left, therefore, the way clear to initiate new discussion whenever it should be convenient to her. This Is a Geographical Question. Without referring anew to the equitable and ra- tional proposition of the Chilean Government, nine months later Peru again opened the question of Tarata. The Peruvian Minister, Sr. Elias, on October 13th, ad- dressed to the Foreign Office a note that insisted that 561 it was a serious mistake to consider the Tarata River as the origin of the Sama River, when in reality the international boundary was fixed by Chilean law at the Salado or Chasapaya River, " which is the same Sama following up its course," as was stated in the decree of January 20, 1885. In a memorandum presented on March 5, 1887, to the Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile, the same Sr. Elias insists upon the Estique River as the bound- ary. By note of April 18th he communicates to his Government the answer of this Ministry, dated the 14th. In it, Sr. Francisco Freire states as follows : "The reading of that document (the memoran- dum) and the examination itself of the light sketch that you have presented to me persuade my Gov- ernment, more and more, that this is a geograph- ical question, the elucidation of which, demands an exact knowledge of the topography of those territories, which my Government and the techni- cal offices of Chile now do not possess.' ' Therefore, the interpretation of the Treaty of Peace, the text of which is clear, and with which my Gov- ernment has complied religiously, not being affected, Sr. Freire insists upon the advisability of appointing a Chilean-Peruvian commission of experts, and thus reaching an agreement. Peru again eluded the solution proposed and the affair was cast into oblivion. In a confidential note of July 10, 1890, published among the annexes to the circular note of the Peruvian Foreign Office May 26, 1901, Sr. Elias, who is once more on a mission before the Chilean Government, re- 562 cords the fact that the Peruvian Government had not answered until then the reiterated Chilean proposal. In the meantime, Sr. Elias had protested against the inclusion of Tarata in the bill which was then be- fore Congress, about the organization of the munici- palities of the Republic. At last, on October 1st, Sr. Elias answered nega- tively respecting the appointment of a commission of experts. Why Peru Did Not Accept the Investigation of Experts. It is superflous to state that Peru insisted, in the said note, that the northern border was the Estique River, and that Chile alone could obtain the information that she thought necessary to remove her doubts. The same strange reason is adduced by the note of September 20, 1921, adding the entirely inexact state- ment that the Peruvian insinuation, accepted by Chile, never was carried out. As this is far from the truth, it requires some explanations. In the first place, we must keep in mind the note addressed by Sr. Elias to his Government on Decem- ber 13, 1890, to which the circular note refers. "Sr. Godoy," states the Peruvian Minister, 1 ' answered me that he maintained the declarations of this Chancellery, and that the commissioner would be sent as soon as possible, but that we must have in mind the political situation here and the consequent preoccupations of the Gov- ernment ; that besides, with the coming of the Ar- gentine boundary commission, it had been neces- sary to employ the most competent persons, and therefore the appointment of a person to carry 563 out the said investigation must be carefully con- sidered, so that the work shall be well done. ' ' These were the moments when the grave conflict between Congress and the Government, which broke out within a month, was brewing; at this moment also, the difficult questions with the Argentine Eepublic were being solved. These causes of the delay in the promised investigation, were branded by the Peruvian note as "specious reasons.' ' The capricious statement that Chile never carried out the investigation is so evidently false, that proofs to the contrary are almost unnecessary; it would be sufficient to exhibit all the maps and documents which give evidence as to the work of Chilean geographers. We can cite, among many others, the reports of the engineer Sr. Bertrand, director of the Boundary Office, respecting the frontiers with Bolivia and with Peru; the reports of the engineers who worked in the Land Survey Office and, lastly, the large map of Chile published in 1910 by this same office. According to Sr. Bertrand, "whichever tributary of the Sama is considered as its origin, there is still a considerable distance (from 50 to 70 kilometres) be- tween the source of that tributary and the Bolivian border/ ' and therefore, the same engineer observes truly that the definition given to the northern boundary with Peru, by the Treaty, is inexact and incomplete. "The Sama, concludes Sr. Bertrand, does not have its source in the mountains of Bolivia.' ' This is in open contradiction to the Peruvian af- firmation, maliciously repeated, that the source of that river is found in the Estique River, which is a subordinate tributary. 564 Sr. Bertrand, basing his opinion upon the works of Chilean engineers, and taking into consideration the views of the Peruvian authorities, Paz Soldan and Eaimondi, as well as those of the Bolivians, Ondarza, Dalenee, and others, fixed the initial point of the Bo- livian border somewhat to the north of the Mauri Eiver, at an approximate latitude of 17° 14'. ' ' To complete the northern boundary of the de- partment and of the province of Tacna from the Pacific coast, it is necessary to join' this point with the source of the Chasapaya River or of the Ticaloco River.' ' It is thus proven that the Peruvian affirmation, that our Government never had carried out the promised investigation, is totally erroneous. Still more ; the topographic investigations that were necessary to settle the point under discussion were carried out always in the face of the systematic oppo- sition of Peru. As an example, we are going to cite the words of the Chilean engineer, Carlos Soza Bruna, sent in 1905 to search for the traditional boundary which was said to exist between Bolivia and Peru. ' ' The Peruvian authorities, ' ' he states in his re- port of December 12th, "made a display of force, following my footsteps through the present fron- tier, and letting me know that they would not permit engineers of the Chilean Government to do any work whatsoever upon Peruvian territory. "In the town of Ticaco, which is separated from Tarata only by the Eiver Ticalaco, resided a Pe- ruvian Commandant, whose name is Sotillo, the head of the frontier district adjoining Chile; a 565 governor, a police commissioner, a customs agent, and some police forces. During my sojourn in that region, the chief of police Candarave came, accompanied by more police, to re-enforce the said detachment. Part of this detachment was re- moved to the source of the Mauri, on each of my excursions to the interior." Those were the conditions under which the Chilean engineers must work, and thus is revealed the syste- matic plan of Peru not to settle fairly the so-called "Question of Tarata." The Peruvian Reclamation and the Treaty of Ancon, If the Peruvian Government had accepted the invi- tation made to it by Chile through the negotiator of the Treaty of Peace, Sr. Novoa, to study the question of the sources of the Sama upon the ground, the strange controversy that it maintains until now, sus- taining that the region of Tarata was not ceded to our country by the pact of Ancon, would have disappeared. It is curious to note the fact that Peru should con- tinue making this allegation after having declared that treaty null. The circular note of September 20th is devoted wholly to proving that Chile occupies that territory unlawfully. We have seen already that Peru refused to appoint a commission of experts to study the frontier line; that it insinuated afterwards to my Government that the latter should make, on its own account, the inves- tigations necessary, and lastly, that when Chilean en- gineers went to the limiting mountains to carry out topographic studies, the Peruvian forces placed all 566 sorts of obstacles in their way and prevented them from crossing the de facto frontier which they them- selves had established, and which was tolerated by the Chilean Government in order to prevent greater difficulties. The reasons given by Peru for her refusal to concur in an expert investigation are of two sorts : on the one hand, she pretends that Chile would accept without discussion what she, Peru, considers as the source of the Sama Eiver, and, on the other hand, that Chile would submit herself to the Peruvian regulations re- specting administrative demarcations. Our Government never having accepted these capri- cious pretensions, Peru has believed that she has the right to protest, each time that the occasion has ap- peared favorable to her, against any resolution which Chile might have taken respecting the division of the territories which she occupied at the time of the sign- ing of the Treaty of Peace, and which were handed over to her conditionally by Article III of that Pact. The first protests were made, as we have recalled, upon the enactment of the law which created the province of Tacna and upon the issuance of the com- plementary decrees of the year 1885. In 1890, she protests again against the dispositions of the project regarding the organization of the mu- nicipalities. In 1911, she protests once more because the depart- ment of Tarata was formed from the subdelegations of Sama and Tarata. Now in the circular note of September 20th, there is a new protest because that measure was left without effect and the subdelegations named, aerain formed a 567 part of the department to which they formerly had belonged. These are the Peruvian tactics ; never to resolve the questions that she brings up to Chile, so that she may have the pleasure of protesting and of picking a quar- rel with our country, each time that the internal politi- cal situation requires that a conflict, and hatred should be used as the means of maintaining the dictatorship in power. This is the truth which we know too well, and al- though we know that it is a loss of time, so far as it respects Peru, to prove the error of the Peruvian thesis upon the question of Tarata, we do it nevertheless, in order to let you know all the details of this ques- tion so that you may transmit them to the Foreign Office of that country, and, if you esteem it convenient, to public opinion by means of the press. We desire, specially, that the bases of the policy that Chile has pursued with respect to the interpretation of that clause of the Treaty of Peace which points out the boundary between the two countries, be known. Before terminating, I think it convenient to add a few facts about the geographic situation of Tarata in the opinion of a Peruvian geographer, and about the industrial and strategic importance, to Chile, of pos- sessing Tarata. The Situation of Tarata as Made Clear by a Peruvian Geographer. We have not any doubts respecting the true inter- national situation of the territories that belong to the northern frontier. The same thing seems to occur with the Peruvian 568 geographers and their testimony serves to sustain the Chilean thesis in all of its parts. We recalled the opinion of the engineer Teobaldo Elespuru, cited in the Peruvian note of September 20th, according to which there are three tributaries to the Sama Eiver, of which the upper and the lower carry the most water.. The expert investigation could have established upon a certainty that the first is the longer and the more regular, and therefore may be considered as the same River Sama, in its upper course. Now we are going to cite the description of the boundaries and territories in question made by an- other Peruvian geographer, the navy captain, German Stighich, author of the "Geografia Comentada del Peru." In his recent work, "Diccionario Geografico del Peru" and "Almanaque de La Croiiica" for 1918, edited by N. Moral, at Lima, the following paragraphs are found : ' ' Page 3. — Position and political division of Peru; with Brazil, the boundary extends from the Caqueta River to the Acre; with Bolivia, from the latter to the Mauri; and with Chile (the pro- visional boundary), from the confluence of the Mauri with the Ancomarca and to the sea along the Sama River. "Page 428. — Tacna. — This southern circum- scription of Peru was divided into two parts by the Treaty of Ancon; one, which is occupied by Chile, as the plebiscite has not been held yet, and the other, which is under Peruvian sovereignty. The latter is called Free Tacna. The former is composed of the provinces of Tacna, incomplete, Arica, and part of that of Tarata. On the Peru- vian side, only remain the rest of Tacna and what 569 is left of Tarata. The Sama River separates the Chilean occupation. The Eiver Camarones, on the south, separates Tarapaca from the Depart- ment of Tacna. ' ' Page 437.— Tarata.— This province, until the enactment of the law of November 12, 1874, formed part of that of Tacna. The said law created the province from some of the districts of Tacna. The Treaty of Ancon, in pointing out the Sama River as the boundary between Peru and Chile until the fate of the captive provinces is decided has ex- cluded a part of Tarata from our dominion, that is to say, the districts of Tarata, Estique and Tarucachi; the capital of Tarata was Tarata, until the decree of October 12, 1886, made Can- darave the capital of the Peruvian section. Tarata is separated from Moquegua by the ravine of Ingenio. ' ' Page 438. — Tarata. — The district of Tarata is occupied by Chile as it is on the left side of the Sama River." This is what Peruvian geographers know, and teach us. The Government thinks otherwise. We do not know the reasons therefor, but they may be deduced by glancing upon the map, and by having in mind the gen- eral considerations with which we shall put an end to our discretion. The Industrial and Strategic Importance of Tarata. In the territory occupied by the subdelegation of Tarata is found the town of that name which may be considered as the capital of the Sierra, and as the com- mercial center for the frontier towns. Tarata is built upon the slope of the Santa Barbara 570 hill, and is divided by a gully into two districts, called Yungas and Lupaja, respectively. In the extreme southeastern part of the latter district, there is an- other section called Calvario. The town consists of about 500 houses, the greater part of which are thatch roofed huts. According to the 1920 census, the inhabi- tants number 2,000. The area of the cultivated territories surrounding Tarata is about 4,000 topos (one topo being equal to 5,000 square yards). The greater or lesser extension of cultivation, depends on the greater or lesser abund- ance of water. The chief products of Tarata are corn, potatoes, and alfalfa, the production being very high consider- ing the small extension of ground cultivated. , The system of intensive farming and the careful atten- tion with which the work is done, are remarkable, es- pecially the system of irrigation used to carry water to the steep slopes where are the sown fields. The commercial importance of Tarata is not based upon its agricultural production alone, but also upon the situation occupied by this town as the most im- portant center of the Sierra, as well upon the Chilean side as upon the Peruvian. From Tarata* there are good roads to Puno, to Are- quipa, to the interior of Bolivia, to the towns and val- leys beyond the frontier, to Tacna, and to all the villages of the subdelegation. Upon these roads, cat- tle is seen constantly being driven from Peru to Tarata to be fattened, and then to supply the mar- kets of Tacna, Arica, and Tarapaca with meat; also, packs of mules, donkeys, and llamas laden with kind- ling-wood from Mauri or from the Bolivian woodlands, 571 and carrying in return corn, potatoes, or merchandise bought in the shops of Tarata. Tarata also possesses great strategic value ; the val- ley of Tacna cannot be invaded by an enemy army, if a division of our army occupies Tarata and from there keeps careful watch upon the line of the Sama. The frontier between Chile and Peru is composed of a series of ravines which form one great defile. Therefore, a few light columns stationed at Tarata can prevent any advance of enemy forces. The natural resources of Tarata make possible the permanent providing of a division quartered there, and the threatening of Tacna, as was done in 1883 by the Peruvian guerrilla, Pacheco Cespedes, who at the head of cavalry troops and of a column of in- fantry, which he transported by mounting them to- gether with the horsemen, and who, in possession of Tarata, made frequent incursions to the very gates of Tacna, where a division of the reserve army was sta- tioned. An army that would march from Tacna to attack troops quartered at Tarata, doubtlessly would be de- stroyed in the mountain passes, even by a small num- ber of light troops. It may be affirmed categorically that, if Tarata were in the hands of enemy forces capable of operating, it would be impossible to protect the railroad from Arica to La Paz from surprise attacks. The possession of Tarata is of importance to Chile also because in this subdelegation, and precisely in the zone that is to the north of the Estique Eiver, are found the sources of the principal rivers of Tacna, those that make possible its agriculture. 572 If we should accept the Peruvian pretension of con- sidering the Estique River as the continuation of the Sanaa up to its source in the mountain of Barroso, as the boundary line between Chile and Peru, we would be leaving in Peruvian territory the Mauri Eiver and twelve of its principal tributaries, as well as the Uchusuma River with all its tributaries. Ernesto Barros. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] (Telegram.) Lima, December 24, 1921, Mr. Minister: If the gravity of the question, the solution of which absorbs the efforts and hopes of my Government, would permit its subordination to the discussion of matters of secondary importance it would be easy to demonstrate that the communications addressed by my predecessors to those of Your Excellency in 1904 and 1905, the diplomatic relations between Chile and Peru being at that time interrupted, but not in the vio- lent manner which characterized the withdrawal of the Peruvian Consular Agents, had a different significance from that shown by the communication of Your Ex- cellency of the 12th instant. It was not meant, ignoring international practices, to initiate any negotiation, but to comply in one case with the duty of safeguarding the rights of Peru be- 573 cause of the arbitrary delimitation of the Provinces of Arica and Pisagua, and, in the other case, with the no less unavoidable duty of protesting against the pro- visions of the Bolivian-Chilean Treaty referring to the construction of the railroad from Arica to La Paz. Similarly, I could prove that, no matter what the designation given to the unfruitful exchange of cables in November, 1912, for the fixing of the plebiscite bases and the reestablishing of the broken relations between the two countries, they never had, nor could they ever have, the character of a covenant with power for its reviving nine years later. I could also prove the expulsion of more than eighteen thousand Peruvians from Tacna, Arica and Tarapaca, by only repeating the text of the circulars addressed by this Minister to the Legations of Peru abroad, under dates of January 12 and February 14, 1919, answering those of Senor Luis Barros Borgono of December 6, 1918, and January 10, 1919 ; and I could also enumerate the violations committed by the Gov- ernment of Chile against the Treaty of Peace of 1883, as have been cited, by the maltreating of persons, by the plundering and burning of the property of my countrymen in Pisagua, November 2, 1918, in Iquique, the 31st of October, and the 2nd and 24th of November of the same year, with the consequent deportation of Peruvians without other cause than that of their na- tionality; all acts in violation of Article I of the Treaty, which declared that the relations of peace and friendship between our- two countries had been re- established with the consequent guarantee for the re- spective countrymen in each country. I could also record : the annexing of the borax fields of Chilcaya to the territories that had been perma- nently ceded to Chile, although it had been acknowl- 574 edged by experts, judges and courts of Chile that they belonged to Arica, and were, therefore, within the ter- ritories, the re-annexation of which was assured to Peru, thus unlawfully changing the stipulations of Ar- ticle II; the usurpation of a large part of the Province of Tarata that was not even mentioned in Article III; and the difficulties imposed by Chile for the holding of the plebiscite, in opposition, therefore, to the provisions of the same article. With what has been previously said, that has so deeply hurt the national soul, all direct understanding between Peru and Chile was made impossible. It is opportune to state at this time that the ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, referred to by Your Excel- lency could not be received last year by President Leguia, notwithstanding the fact of the modification of the letter which seemed to accredit him as Agent from Chile, because the modification was maintained in the same inaccep table terms. It could, also finally, place upon record the retention of a part of the price of the guano of the Lobos Islands ceded to Peru in accord- ance with Article X, and other additional infractions. But, as I have stated above, it is not my intention, nor does my Government think it opportune to recall at this moment incidents that, notwithstanding the con- clusive nature of the evidence, are eclipsed by the fun- damental question at present dividing Chile from Peru, and for the sake of which honest and fair solution we are obliged to eliminate the difficulties that would arise from the refutation, in extenso, of the points alluded to in the telegraphic communication of Your Excel- lency, dated the 20th instant, to w T hich I have the honor to refer. Coming, therefore, to that which might lead us to eliminate from America the general uneasiness pro- 575 voked by our longstanding conflict, it is with pleasure that I declare to Your Excellency that I take due no- tice, as Your Excellency informs me, that Chile is dis- posed not to refuse the arbitration for the settlement of the political question pending with Peru. With this attitude of mind, the only one possible from the standpoint of justice and for the mutual advantage of both countries, there are no differences that could not be solved; therefore, in order to accept the invitation given by Your Excellency for the purpose of continu- ing the negotiations, I hope that Your Excellency will formulate your declaration in favor of full arbitration which should settle all the questions originating from the violation of the Treaty of Peace of 1883. Peru does not, therefore, agree with Chile that the only problem to be debated between both countries is the fulfillment of Article III of the said Treaty; it is exactly because of this disagreement that an arbitra- tion is made necessary for the solving of all differences and that is why I have proposed an unbiased Ameri- can arbitration under the auspices of the Government of United States of America, which would bring us an immediate and appreciable advantage, that of saving a vexatious and aggravating direct discussion about the differences. I hope Your Excellency will join me in this opinion and will contribute your valuable assistance for the safeguarding of the issue of the arbitration. I wish to tell you that, in that event, my Government will be glad to appoint a representative in order, that as soon as possible, he may meet at Washington with him whom Your Excellency would care to appoint for the purpose of discussing and agreeing to detailed bases and the object of the arbitration which would then be submitted for the definite approval of the two Governments for its fulfillment. 576 In thus well defining the policy of Peru, in its rela- tion with Chile, I meet in the most efficacious way the spirit of cordiality invoked by the Government of Your Excellency, sure as I am that in this way only we shall succeed in establishing peace and harmony in our con- tinent, so long delayed and that can only return under the auspices of just proceedings and international honesty. Reiterating, Mr. Minister, the sentiments of my highest and most distinguished consideration, I am, Alberto Salomon. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru. [Translation.] (Telegram.) Santiago, December 26, 1921. Me. Minister: The answer that Your Excellency was kind enough to give to my telegraphic note of the 20th instant, causes rejoicing for the possibility of a satisfactory settlement of the controversy which keeps our two countries apart. I always have thought that with the contact of di- rect conversations, nobly inspired, very many of the reefs that until now have obstructed the perfect re- sumption of our commercial and political relations might disappear ; and it is for that reason that I note, with deep satisfaction, that Your Excellency has so willingly received the idea of negotiating directly in Washington, for the purpose of reaching an agreement 577 regarding the plebiscitary difficulties that have until now delayed the fulfillment of the Treaty of 1883 and of submitting to the decision of an arbitrator those dif- ferences which the good will of the negotiators and the noble dispositions of their Governments would not alone be enough to adjust and remove. I attribute exclusively to the long diplomatic inter- diction that has existed between Chile and Peru and to the unfounded suspicions and lack of confidence that it has provoked, the circumstance that Your Excellency renews to my Government the imputation of having violated in different parts the Treaty of 1883. No doubt, the contact of our plenipotentiaries in Washington will be sufficient to remove such supposi- tions, as it will be very easy to exhibit pertinent docu- ments- in each particular case, which will prove that those suppositions are but creations of that atmosphere of animosity in which Peru and Chile have lived dur- ing these last years, with such mutual disadvantage. The Treaty of 1883, to which in exact and opportune phrase the Minister of Peru in Chile, His Excellency Senor Seoane, attributed in 1908 "the force of inter- national law," will be fulfilled by my Government in all its parts; although it will not allow its mandates and regulations to be at any time altered, I can assure Your Excellency that it will be willing to consider and settle in a friendly way all the difficulties which may have arisen to prevent its proper fulfillment. Therefore, my Government will create in Washing- ton a mission duly instructed to attempt, together with the mission which Your Excellency's Government may send, to reach a settlement of the pending difficulties and fix, in agreements which will be submitted for the approval of both Governments, the bases and matters for an arbitration to solve those differences which 578 should prove impossible of solution through direct agreement and which may be indispensable for the exact and true fulfillment of the Treaty of 1883. I agree with Your Excellency that there is no justi- fication for continuing these telegraphic conversations, through which it seems impossible to introduce new elements of understanding and agreement, and I feel assured that our plenipotentiaries will complete, in Washington, the work which the Government of Chile initiated with such high aspirations of cordiality and peace. I renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Eknesto Barros. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru. Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. (Telegram.) [Translation.] Lima, Deoember 28, 1921. Mr. Minister: The favorable disposition shown by the Chilean Government, according to the telegraphic communica- tion of Your Excellency, dated the 26th instant, which I was much pleased to receive, to obtain a settlement of all existing differences between Peru and Chile, by means of arbitration, gives confidence that this time it will be possible to reach a prompt, definite and satis- factory solution of the said differences, inasmuch as the solution is protected by this atmosphere of con- ciliation. 579 I think it would be reciprocally beneficial not to im- pede the wholesome movement of understanding that has been initiated and there will be nothing more efficacious for continuing it than to avoid in the future the possibility of ill-feelings arising which may make our efforts fruitless. For this purpose I wish to note that my Government has at no time intended nor expressed the purpose to negotiate directly in Washington for the purpose of reaching an agreement regarding the plebiscitary difficulties, but only for submitting to the decision of an arbitrator the differences which are impossible to remove and solve directly. No. The renewal of direct discussions on this topic which for such a long time has been treated in that form without the slightest success will not now bring about harmonious results. I reiterate, then, the proposal which I made to Your Excellency with full clarity that as soon as the declara- tion of Your Excellency in favor of the full arbitra- tion might be presented in a formal way my Govern- ment would be willing to appoint a representative to meet in Washington with the representative of Chile, for the purpose of jointly and solemnly submitting our differences to the decision of an arbitrator. I also believe convenient — as an unavoidable mani- festation of courtesy to the Government of the United States and I thus propose to Your Excellency — that before proceeding to the appointment of the person who will truly represent each Government in the carrying out of this negotiation in Washington, that simultaneously telegraphic messages to the Govern- ment of the United States of America ought to be sent through the Honorable Secretary of State, on the date and hour that Your Excellency desires, for the pur- 580 pose of asking not only the necessary consent for the negotiation to take place at that Federal Capital, but with the main purpose of obtaining from the President of the United States of America, the acceptance of the arbitral functions in order to decide unappealably relative to all the differences existing between Peru and Chile, growing out of the Treaty of Peace of Oc- tober 20, 1883. Reiterating, Mr. Minister, the sentiments of my highest and most distinguished consideration Alberto Salomon. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Mimster of Foreign Relations of Peru. [Translation.] (Telegram.) Santiago, December 29, 1921. Mk. Minister: With the intention of denning historical responsi- bilities emanating from the invitation which I had the honor to direct to the Government of Your Excellency under date of the 12th instant, with the purpose of carrying out the plebiscite that is to determine the definitive nationality of the territories of Tacna and Arica, it seems opportune to insist on the attitude of my Government on this question which periodically disturbs the tranquility of America. Your Excellency cannot ignore that after a long and bloody war of four years duration, which my country was forced to endure with indescribable sacrifice, a 581 pact that definitely re-established the relations of peace and friendship between the two countries was agreed to with Peru. One of the provisions of this Treaty gave to Chile, as Your Excellency has stated, the unconditional and perpetual ownership of the province of Tarapaca, and another provision of the same Treaty gave Chile the dominion and sovereignty over the provinces of Tacna and Arica, under the condition that a plebiscite, expressing the will of its inhabitants, should decide, later on, its definite future'. Eeasons, which it is not my intention to record at this time, and which enumeration would confirm the sincerity and the persistence with which my country has always sought to reach an accord with that of Your Excellency to agree upon the plebiscitary bases, have until now impeded the carrying out of that act prescribed by the Treaty of Ancon. It is opportune to record that the plebiscite has not been carried out, notwithstanding the fact that on more than one occasion perfect accord between the two Governments relative to its bases and its essential characteristics has been reached; resolutions, the ex- istence of which, however, were recognized in recent notes of Your Excellency have been indiscriminately repudiated by the Government of Your Excellency during the course of the present telegraphic con- versation initiated by my Government. The Government of Chile, actually and freely ex- ercising sovereignty over the territories mentioned, could easily have excused itself from promoting, as with generous and fair disposition it has been willing to promote, the arrival of the sole condition on which rest the hopes of the Peruvian expectations of recover- ing the dominion over Tacna and Arica; but, anxious to dissipate once and for all the international restless- 582 ness caused by this problem, has invited the Govern- ment of Your Excellency to seek a solution founded on the plebiscitary bases as proposed by Peru in the year 1912 and to consider the just and equitable modifica- tion of those which Your Excellency has been willing to suggest. Within those terms, and accepted by my Govern- ment, the arbitral solution for settling the disagree- ments which might have emanated from the direct negotiations, it might have been expected that Chile and Peru would have at last fraternally reached a friendly solution of their existing difficulties. Unfortunately, Your Excellency has desired to indi- cate as the sole manner of reaching the accord sought by my Government, the holding of a "full arbitration " not only comprising the pending differences, as has been proposed by my Government, but other ques- tions, which Your Excellency has not even taken the trouble to point out, even if only to justify before the world the new point of view apart from all the terms about which the diplomatic debates have been so far maintained, and which suddenly bursts forth obstruc- ing a solution which seemed certain of results. Your Excellency wants us to submit to arbitration the results of the War of the Pacific, 38 years after its conclusion; to refer its results for revision by an out- sider ; and to violently distort the course of historical facts placing under discussion the rights derived therefrom, rights that have the full force of a definite situation. Because of this initiative of settlement our eager- ness for conciliation and harmony has gone as far as possible. Unfortunately, the Government of Your Ex- cellency has desired to resist coming to an agreement as much as we have tried to obtain it. 583 Peremptorily rejected by you the invitation to hold the plebiscite; rejected the arbitration for the equit- able fixing of its external formalities ; rejected, after- wards, the friendly solution offered by the Chilean Government to settle all the other claims, stated by Your Excellency, that have arisen or may arise out of the exact fulfillment of the Treaty of 1883 ; and pro- posed in place thereof a "full arbitration " without definite shape, and impossible, on account of its own vagueness, of being carried out in accordance with the invariable principles of international law, Your Ex- cellency can therefore but agree with me in the con- clusion that it is best to put an end to this telegraphic exchange of ideas, deploring as I do the fruitlessness of the untiring efforts my Government has made in the cause of American peace and concord. From Your Excellency's far-sightedness, undoubt- edly, will not escape the juridical consequences follow- ing upon the placing of obstacles in the way of the celebration of a plebiscite, which is the only expect- ancy that Peru has for the reincorporation under her sovereignty of her former provinces of Tacna and Arica; nor can the fact be hidden that — unless there is a change of course in the Peruvian policy — we might understand that Your Excellency's Government is in- clined to accept the results that may naturally arise from its present position. I renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Ernesto Barros. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Eelations of Peru. 584 Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] (Telegram.) Lima, December 31, 1921. Mr. Minister: The attitude that Your Excellency has thought con- venient to assume on learning the sole and concrete bases on which it would be possible for Peru to reach a complete and definite settlement of all the existing difficulties between Peru and Chile, forces me, in de- fense of the privileges of right and history, to correct the unfounded statements contained in the telegraphic message of Your Excellency which I had the honor to receive yesterday. On answering the three first notes from Your Ex- cellency, it would not be right for me to forget the antecedents of the Treaty of Peace of 1883, that put an end to the War of the Pacific, begun more than four years before, the 5th of April, 1879. The im- prints of that horrible struggle have not yet been effaced ; they are preserved intact in the hearts of all Peruvians and, principally in those of the mothers, wives and sons of the twenty thousand compatriots that were sacrificed in the fields of battle where even the defenseless wounded were killed, in the ruins still blacked by the smoke, showing the path of the invad- ing army that sacked and burned towns, villages and farms ; in the parts of our own territory groaning under the oppression of the conquest, and in the sufferings of those thousands of Peruvians that Chile expels periodically from the soil and homes that were theirs, as if Chile desired thereby to notify our fellow-citizens that the hostilities of a war which legally ended thirty- 585 seven years ago are still being carried on. All this contributes to keeping fresh in the memory of Peru everything pertaining to the Treaty of Peace and each one of its stipulations, in none of which are assigned to Chile the dominion and sovereignty over the provinces of Tacna and Arica, as Article III of the Treaty only says that the territory of that province will continue in possession of Chile and subject to Chilean authori- ties and legislation during the period of ten years, which is contrary to the idea of dominion and sover- eignty which are, by their nature, permanent and not limited to a period and to the condition which Your Excellency yourself points out. It is not possible for me to pass over the statement of Your Excellency relative to the eagerness and sin- cerity with which it is assured that your country has sought to reach an accord with my country in order to agree upon the plebiscitary bases ; those deserving purposes were not, undoubtedly, those which made your Government disregard its own initiative in 1892 to solve the question of Tacna and Arica after seven months of negotiations; nor those which inspired the stubbornness of the Chilean negotiators at Lima in 1893; nor the repudiation of the general bases for a definitive procotol on the plebiscite, after having been formally accepted by the representatives of Chile, at the beginning of 1894; nor the conditional transfer of Tacna and Arica to Bolivia, agreed upon by Chile with- out any right in 1895 ; nor the bold monetary exigen- cies of Minister Lira in the negotiations which ended the 6th of February, 1896 ; nor the delaying tactics of the Chilean Minister who succeeded him in his post at Lima when invited in 1897 to continue the carrying out of the negotiations ; nor the proceedings which fol- lowed the Protocol signed on April 6, 1898, for the ful- 586 fillment of the plebiscite, which approved in the same year by the Congress of Pern and the Senate of Chile, was rejected in an ambiguous way by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies in 1901; nor the proposals that one of the predecessors of Your Excellency made to the Minister of Peru at Santiago in 1908, for the solu- tion of the problem of our captive provinces, regard- less of the terms of the Treaty of Peace ; nor the pro- posals which .were made in the year 1910 for the carry- ing out of the plebsicite, drafted to suit Chilean pur- poses; nor the failure occasioned by the Chilean Gov-, ernment itself of the negotiations initiated simultane- ously by the two interested Governments in 1912, all of which make us wonder at the remark of Your Ex- cellency that, notwithstanding my Government having recognized the existence of perfect accords on the sub- ject involved, it would have indiscriminately repudi- ated them all. A perfect accord was only reached in the bases agreed upon the 26th of January, 1894, rejected a few months afterwards by Chile, because even the Protocol of April 16, 1898, that almost came to the point of being fully approved, was not so because of the vote passed by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies. The policy of the Government of Your Excellency with re- gard to the unsolved problems with Peru, is the only cause for the attitude of my Government not yet being fully appreciated by Chile; the fact that Chile exer- cises transitory authority over the disputed territory does not endow her with the dominion and sovereignty which Peru keeps only for herself, nor can the initiative begun by Your Excellency nineteen days ago be char- acterized as generous. The main consideration must be given to a solemn Treaty that gave Chile an enormous wealth which un- 587 doubtedly has been the reason for her power and mak- ing it thus possible for her not to fulfill the Treaty in those provisions that might have been favorable to Peru ; thus our line of conduct today could not be otherwise, precisely because we are seeking a definite settlement of all the pending difficulties and a sincere reconciliation. To pretend to believe that there are no difficulties other than the carrying out of the plebiscite already unrealizable under bases abandoned by the Govern- ment which should have profited by them is to close the eyes to the light of reason and justice in order to see but what is convenient for the interests of the Chilean Government. As far as Peru is concerned, it is not only the plebi- scite provided for in the Treaty of Peace of 1883 which Chile has failed to fulfill; and if the Government of Your Excellency does not believe this to be true,, the way to obtain an honorable and satisfactory solution is open ; by resorting to an arbitrator who may decide whether the Treaty has been violated or not and the manner in which such violations are to be remedied, as stated in my communication of the 23d of this month. My Government does not pretend, therefore, that the result of the War of the Pacific which ended more than thirty-seven years ago should now be submitted to arbitration ; what we claim is fair and easy ; that all the infractions committed by Chile of the Treaty that was imposed by force and that was only fulfilled by Peru, should be submitted to arbitration. This is by no means the closing of the door to any agreement. It is, on the contrary to seek one with the open mind that should guide a sovereign nation, assured of its rights. Besides, in the high spirit of conciliation which has actuated and will actuate my Government if Your Ex- 588 cellency, moved by the suggestions of peace and justice, should reconsider its illogical attitude, we shall accept, as heretofore, the consequences coming from defend- ing the sacred cause of Peru before the imperialistic policy of Chile. The course of the policy of my country cannot be subjected to any change because it is rooted in the national soul and it is founded on law and justice. I express to you, Mr. Minister, my highest and most distinguished consideration. Alberto Salomon. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile. Ambassador of the United States in Chile to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Santiago, January 18, 1922. No. 36. Excellency : I am instructed by the Secretary of State of the United States to transmit to Your Excellency the fol- lowing : "The Government of the United States, through the courtesy of the Ambassadors of Peru and Chile in Washington, has been kept informed of the progress of their negotiations carried on di- rectly by telegraph between the two Governments of Peru and Chile looking toward a settlement of the long standing controversy with respect to the unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of Ancon. . It has noted with the greatest pleasure and satisfac- tion, the lofty spirit of conciliation which has ani- 589 J mated the two Governments, and that as a result of these direct exchanges of views the idea of arbitration of the pending difficulties is acceptable in principle to both. It has also taken note of the suggestion that representatives of the two Gov- ernments be named to meet in Washington with a view to finding the means of settling the difficul- ties which have divided the two countries. "Desiring in the interest of American peace and concord to assist in a manner agreeable to both Governments concerned in finding a way to end this long standing controversy, the President of the United States would be pleased to, welcome in Washington the representatives which the Gov- ernments of Peru and Chile may see fit to appoint to the end that such representatives may settle, if happily it may be, the existing difficulties or may arrange for the settlement of them by arbitra- tion.; ■ In discharging the agreeable duty of extending this invitation to the Government of Chile, I avail myself of the opportunity of reiterating to Your Excellency the assurances of my most distinguished consideration. William Millek Colliek. To His Excellency, The Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile to Ambassador of the United States in Chile. [Translation.] MlNISTEY OF FOEEIGN RELATIONS, Santiago, January 19, 1922. Me. Ambassadoe: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of Your Ex- cellency 's favored communication of yesterday in 590 which you were good enough to transmit to me a mes- sage from the Secretary of State of the United States, whose expressions of deep international cordiality I take pleasure in immediately acknowledging with thanks. The high inspiration of His Excellency, the Presi- dent of the United States for inviting the representa- tives of Chile and Peru to try to arrive, in Washington, at a settlement of the long controversy still pending over the unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of Ancon finds in my Government the most cordial accept- ance, and shows that the Government of Your Excel- lency has fully appreciated the high spirit of inter- national conciliation which dominated the Chilean ini- tiative of December 12th last. My Government will be represented in Washington, as soon as possible, by named plenipotentiaries who will have sufficient instructions for arriving at an agreement with the representatives from Peru as to the solution of the disputes to which the invitation of the Government of the United States refers. Would Your Excellency convey to His Excellency, the Secretary of State, and to His Excellency, the President of the United States, for his high interven- tion, the expressions of our lasting gratitude for the great opportunity which he has seen fit to offer us for beginning direct conferences with Peru, which may lead us to the exact and loyal execution of the Treaty of Ancon, by suitable action of the two Governments or by other friendly means. I am pleased to avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my high- est consideration. Ernesto Bareos. To His Excellency, The Ambassador of the United States in Chile. 591 Speech Delivered by Secretary of State, Mr. Charles E. Hughes, at the Inaugural Session of the Chilean-Peruvian Conference in Washington, D. C, May 15, 1922. Excellencies : It is with the utmost gratification that I extend to you a cordial welcome to this capital and felicitate you upon this meeting for the purpose of ending a long-standing controversy. You will find here, I trust, an atmosphere congenial to your endeavors, and you can not fail to be impressed with the deep in- terest that we feel in all that pertains to the welfare of Chile and Peru and of all our sister Republics in Latin America. This meeting place, devoted to Pan American friendship, has the most inspiring memories. What has been accomplished within these walls must remain a lasting assurance that the most difficult prob- lems can be solved when nations take counsel of the interest of peace and seek with united purpose a bet- ter understanding. Here we have witnessed the as- tounding spectacle of great naval powers voluntarily agreeing to scrap a large proportion of their capital ships and to end the most serious competition in naval armament, thus relieving their peoples of an intoler- able burden and affording convincing proof of the ab- sence of policies of aggression. Here, nations espe- cially interested in the Far East, have been able to dispel apprehension and distrust and find through their common endeavors a basis for amity and cooperation. Surely this is an auspicious time to heal old wounds and to end whatever differences may exist in Latin America, and there could be no more agreeable harbin- ger of a better day and of a lasting peace upon this hemisphere than the convening of this conference of 592 the representatives of the Republics of Chile and Peru. I congratulate you upon the high purpose and the noble and conciliatory spirit which have animated both Governments in the approach of this meeting and upon the earnest desire which both have manifested that through this friendly intercourse a mutually sat- isfactory settlement may be found. Permit me to express not only the hope but the firm conviction that your zealous and well-directed endeavors domi- nated by this friendly spirit will be crowned with com- plete success. It may be appropriate for me to repeat the terms of the invitation extended by the Government of the United States to the Governments of Chile and Peru, the acceptance of which has led to this conference. I had the honor, on behalf of my Government, of addres- sing both Governments as follows: The Government of the United States, through the courtesy of the Ambassadors of Chile and Peru in Washington, has been kept informed of the progress of the recent negotiations carried on di- rectly by telegraph between the Governments of Chile and Peru, looking toward a settlement of the long standing controversy with respect to the unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of An- con. It has noted with the greatest pleasure and satisfaction the lofty spirit of conciliation which has animated the two Governments, and that as the result of these direct exchanges of views, the idea of arbitration of the pending difficulties is ' acceptable in principle to both. It has also taken note of the suggestion that representatives of the two Governments be named to meet in Wash- ington with a view to finding the means of settling the difficulties which have divided the two coun- tries. 593 Desiring in the interests of American peace and concord to assist, in a manner agreeable to both Governments concerned, in finding a way to end this long-standing controversy, the President of the United States would be pleased to welcome in Washington the representatives which the Governments of Chile and Peru may see fit to appoint, to the end that such representatives may settle, if happily it may be, the existing difficulties or may arrange for the settlement of them by arbitration. You have here the privilege and responsibility of exceptional opportunity. Perhaps no event has ever been contemplated by the American Eepublics with deeper interest and more fervent hope. The only re- lief for a troubled world is in resort to the processes of reason in lieu of those of force. Direct and candid interchanges, a sincere desire to make an amicable adjustment, the promotion of mutual understanding, and the determination to avoid unnecessary points of difference in order that attention may be centered upon what is fair and practicable — these are of the es- sence of the processes of reason. The pathway to an enduring concord and to the prosperity of a mutual helpfulness lies open before you. What is done here will have an effect upon the security and happiness of all peoples, inasmuch as the success of this conference through your agreement will not only demonstrate your wisdom and lofty conceptions of duty, but will furnish the world with a needed and inspiring ex- ample of the practice of peace. The Government of the United States gives you welcome and Godspeed. 594 Speech Delivered by Chilean Delegate, Sr. Luis Izquierdo, at the Inaugural Session of the Chilean- Peruvian Conference in Washington, D. C, May 15, 1922. Mr. Secretary: On behalf of the Chilean Delegation I have the honor to express to you, Mr. Secretary, our cordial appreci- ation of the able and eloquent words which we have just heard. At the same time I desire to give utter- ance, with special emphasis, to the warm gratitude of the Government of Chile for the invitation tendered to Chile and Peru by His Excellency President Harding to meet at Washington, at this opportune moment, in the conference which to-day is holding its opening session. The Government of Chile, Mr. Secretary, lost no time in complying with the generous inspiration of your Government, and I may add that it did this inspired by a high spirit of international conciliation, which I hope and confidently expect will be reflected in our de- liberations. The long-pending question which divides Peru and Chile and which has its roots in the circumstance that the two Governments have failed to agree, up to the present time, on the manner of carrying out some unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of Ancon, is the one question which unfavorably affects their political and social intercourse as well as their economic and commercial relations, and which prevents these rela- tions from attaining that fuller development which, under the beneficent influence of peace, the future holds in store for them. To put an end to this pending question, through a solution in harmony with the precise and loyal fulfill- 595 ment of the Treaty of Ancon, is the aim that the Presi- dent of Chile and his Government have had in view: first, when they initiated a direct telegraphic dis- cussion with the Government of Peru toward the close of the last year, and, second, when they sent us here with instructions to endeavor to eliminate the diffi- culties standing in the way of the fulfillment of the Treaty signed by the two Republics. Convinced that our distinguished colleagues, the re- presentatives of Peru are inspired by the same senti- ments that animate us, we entertain the hope — which I am tempted to say almost reaches the level of a cer- tainty — that the present conference, due to the ini- tiative of the United States will' reestablish cordial relations between the two sister nations united by reason of common racial origin, by geographical situ- ation, by community of economic interests, and by the glorious traditions of their early history. The Government of the United States, Mr. Secretary, will thus have rendered, through its high moral in- fluence, a new and great service to the movement for an amicable settlement of international disputes; to the furtherance of the spirit of Pan Americanism; and to the cause of humanity, justice, and peace. Speech of Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile, Sr. Ernesto Barros, Delivered in the Session of the Chamber of Deputies of June 13, 1922. [Translation.] Mr. President, yesterday, at the request of the Hon- orable Deputy from Laja, Sr. Ruiz, I promised to ex- plain to this session the status which the Chilean- 596 Peruvian negotiations, now being carried on in Wash- ington, have reached, and I wish to fulfill that promise, prompted by the desire, which characterizes the whole diplomatic conduct of this, administration, to inform the National Congress and the country as to the objec- tives which the Government is pursuing in regard to ' the foreign policy and the means which it has selected to carry it out. The Chilean-Peruvian Conference of Washington, Mr. President, is a result of the diplomatic discussion started by the Government of Chile on December 12, 1921, when, putting aside the old obstacles declared by protocol, it addressed to the Government of Peru a direct cablegraphic invitation to undertake negotia- tions which would enable us to arrive at an agreement, entrusted by the Treaty of Ancon to the Chancelleries of both countries, for the execution of its third Clause., That diplomatic discussion had much notoriety all over America; had the force of exposing the designs of a persistent and planned propaganda, which at- tempted to mislead the world as to our peaceful posses- sion of the territories of Tacna and Arica, and accused us of fancifully delaying the fulfillment of the condi- tion upon which Peru bases her hopes of reincor- porating these old Peruvian provinces into her do- minion. As to the performance of the condition, we could not hope for more than Ave have; on the other hand Peru, by her intervention, might regain that which it does not hold today. Nevertheless, we were the ones who put an end to the long interdiction, and resumed the negotiations which had been interrupted for nearly ten years, guided by unselfish motives and with the full intent of bringing peace and harmony to the continent. All the world has seen the justice of this initiative. 597 The Government has had the satisfaction of receiving declarations of approval of its position from every- where. Thus we assured our international reputation which had been cunningly undermined abroad. There is another visible effect of the initiative of December 12th, which I note from the present negotia- tion. Taking the problem of Tacna and Arica from the secret chambers of the Chancelleries in order to give it full publicity, there had to be taken out a series of elements which complicated and confused it, in order that it might be presented in terms which could be ac- cepted everywhere, primarily by America and then by the rest of the world. And this was how, in the course of the diplomatic discussion, although a Constituent Congress of Peru had declared the Treaty of Ancon to be ineffective be- cause of age, and although in official publications of the Chancellery of Peru, a few days before, the revi- sion of the Treaty of 1883 and the restitution of Tara- paca and of Tacna and Arica, without any indemnity, was confirmed to be the objective of its policies, these elements disappeared to be replaced by an express recognition that the Government of Peru was not try- ing to change "the results of the War of the Pacific, which ended more than thirty-seven years ago. ' ' In spite of all, the agreement sought by the Govern- ment of Chile with so much eagerness could not be ob- tained. The terms of the last communication from Peru to our Government went outside of the bounds of moderation in conditions, which, to agree to them would have been to encourage old animosity, without any other purpose than to kindle passion in the pub- lic mind and to still further separate the two nations. 598 Our Government had nothing to hope from acts in- flamed with passion. It was because of this that it refused to follow Peru along these lines. The direct cablegraphic discussions having been in- terrupted, we had the good luck of seeing that the President of the United States concurred with us in that it was necessary to seek a means for fulfilling the unperformed clauses of the Treaty of Ancon; and on his offering us the city of Washington as a seat of such negotiations, it was very pleasing for us to immedi- ately accept such an honored invitation. " Would Your Excellency convey," I had the oppor- tunity to say to His Excellency, Mr. Collier, on accept- ing the American invitation, "to His Excellency the Secretary of State, and to His Excellency the Presi- dent of the United States for his high intervention, the expressions of our lasting gratitude for the great opportunity which he has seen fit to offer us for begin- ning direct conferences with Peru, which may lead us to the exact and loyal execution of the Treaty of An- con, by suitable action of the two Governments or, by other friendly means." When President Harding, in his note of January 29th of the present year, told Bolivia that the Confer- ences of Washington would be carried on in order to reach a settlement of- the difficulties growing out of the unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of 1883; and when the Government of Brazil, in a note to our Min- ister in Eio, dated February 6, 1922, described the ne- gotiations as designed, "to amicably agree on the prac- tical execution of certain parts of the Treaty of An- con," they set forth that which was later designated by the same Secretary of State, Mr. Hughes, as "the terms of the American invitation." 599 We did not go to Washington, then, without know- ing what we were going to; we have not taken that "jump into space,' ' to which a noted European pub- licist has so strongly objected, in the management of our foreign relations. Peru, as we did, accepted the invitation ; perhaps she knows better than we the conditions of the American invitation, since it is publicly known that the naming of her delegates, made nearly a month after ours, was preceded by a long diplomatic negotiation, whose secret procedure has not been a hindrance, because it might be published a little later in eloquent declarations. President Leguia replied to the Peruvian students, who asked the revision of the Treaty of 1883, trans- scribing to them a telegram from the head of the Peru- vian Delegation in Washington, Sr. Meliton Porras, which in the relevant part reads thus: "We have re- ceived from Lima a cablegram sent by the students, who disregard the sincere attitude of the United States and the scope of the Conferences. I would try to put an end to these declarations which only tend to make us lose the friendship of the United States and make the recovery of Tacna and Arica impossible. ' ' On the sixth day of this month, the Diario Oftcial, of Lima, and La Prensa, official instruments of the Government, concurred in their editorials that the Executive should be discharged from the responsibili- ties inherent to the abandonment of the cause for the total revision of the Treaty of 1883. The latter of these newspapers says in this regard: 1 ' The demand for the total revision of the Treaty could not be favored in the Conferences due to the fact that Chile refused it, basing her refusal ' on the terms of President Harding's invita- tion. But neither could Peru assume the re- 600 sponsibility for the failure of the Conferences which had hardly been begun.' ' I have here, Mr. President, some of the statements which make me think that the real scope of the Con- ference of Washington is as well or better known in Lima than in Santiago. Soon we may see even clearer manifestations of this thought. If we must rejoice that the conditions of the American invitation are shown so clearly from the pre- ceding events in this negotiation, we must as well, recognize that they mean nothing else than the con- secration of a permanent doctrine upon which all inter- national order rests ; the respect for treaties that have been legally subscribed. A public man such as President Harding could not do less, if he takes into consideration that he is re- presenting the generally accepted policy laid down by him in addressing the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions of the American Senate in regard to the Treaty of Versailles, on September 10, 1919: "The United States, which never has violated an international obligation, can not allow all her treaties in force to be revised and her policies and honor to be a subject for judicial proceedings by other nations." In the exercise of this rightful principle, proclaimed in such emphatic terms, which is followed by the United States as well as Chile and the rest, of the civilized nations, we logically considered ourselves as being in accord with the universal understanding. On such a basis, Mr. President, we began our nego- tiations in Washington. The Chilean and Peruvian Delegates having come together in conference, after several days of informal 601 discussion, our representatives submitted to those from Peru four unselfish propositions which were sub- ject to the voluntary option of the Peruvian Delega- tion. Our policy continued in this way, open and frank, in favor of a solution. Suspecting what would be the ultimate means with which the diplomacy of Peru would fight, proposals especially designed to make the difficulties impossible were selected — the same plebiscitary proposals as were submitted by the Government of Lima in 1909 and 1912 to the Government of Chile. Proceeding thus, we reasonably believed that the Peruvian Delegation could not maintain that this plebiscite should have been held in 1894 since if that attitude would be assumed by Sr. Meliton Porras he would find himself confronted by his own plebiscitary proposal of 1909 and since it would have been incon- sistent that a Government which in 1912 proposed the delay of the plebiscite until 1933, some years later would seek to protect itself, holding that the plebi- scite should have been carried out in 1894. Nevertheless, we regret that any part of this incon- sistency has been shown. I do not wish to refer to the first proposition of Peru, which her Delegation abandoned at the time it was made. I want to consider the second proposal by which it was made sure that Peru has yielded all she could in this regard. This proposal reads as follows: "For the purpose of determining the manner in which the stipulations of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon shall be fulfilled there shall be submitted to arbitration the question whether, in the present circumstances, the plebiscite shall or shall not be held. 602 "If it is not to be held, to which country shall belong the definitive dominion over Tacna and Arica and under what conditions. "If it is to be held, under what conditions shall the plebiscite take place." In order to bring the Peruvian proposal within "the terms of the American invitation," they had to ex- pressly record the purpose of complying with the third Clause of the Treaty of Ancon. It is hard to reconcile this purpose with the com- mitting of a point to arbitration that subjects the hold- ing of the plebiscite provided for in the Treaty of 1883 to possible elimination, but the same in- consistency of the premise with the proposition which follows it, make evident the great efforts which the Peruvian Delegates have had to make in order to reconcile these two incompatible terms: The con- ditions of the invitation and the desires of the Govern- ment of Peru to revise the Treaty. It is no great problem to know what an arbitrator would decide on being given the question as to whether or not, in order to fulfill the Treaty of Ancon, the plebiscite must be held, because if the literal terms of the pact should cause any doubt, which does not seem likely, the interpretation which the parties have given to this provision has been the same during the passing of more than thirty years, and it is well known that the supreme rule for interpretation is the understanding which the parties have given to their agreements. And we showed that understanding by invoking a Peruvian proposal for a plebiscite after the year 1894, and by asking for the proposal of the year 1912 in which the agreement of the two Governments was reached and in which Peru suggested the postpone- ment of the plebiscite until 1933. 603 The ex-President of Peru, His Excellency Sr. Bil- linghurst, in a secret message to the Peruvian Con- gress in support of the Huneeus-Valera agreement, gave the reasons, to which the Peruvian proposal yields, for deferring the plebiscite ; reasons which are entirely applicable to the hindrances which all our efforts for arriving at an agreement for the carrying out of the third Clause of the Treaty of Ancon have met in Lima: " Would the immediate carrying out of the plebiscite be suitable for Peru!" President Bil- linghurst asks himself. "To indorse this statement would mean to take the daring resolution of legalizing without advantage and in a precipitate and inconceivable manner the occupation by Chile. To believe this, it is only necessary to look at it with open eyes and clear conscience. ' ' But there is still one more reason why there should be no discussion as to whether the plebiscite shall be held or not. For a long time back the disposition of territory has ceased to be made by the fanciful action of the Governments ; the will of the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica must be sought in order to decide the definite nationality which belongs to them. As we stated in the Chilean proposal of June 7th, in the case of Tacna and Arica, universal and positive justice and right, international law and custom, and the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1883, whose in- tegral efficacy and respect were the basis of our as- sembling in Washington — agree that the plebiscite should be held. The same head of the Peruvian Delegation, in a statement to the press with regard to certain Bolivian 604 ideas as to the purchase of the port of Arica, con- curred in our doctrine in the following terms: "To undertake to trade people and territories would be at the same time, a monstrosity and an immorality. It is not possible to take territories which belong to one country and give them to an- other because the latter may want them. It is not possible to disregard the desires of the inhabi- tants and their historic rights. Such a theory is not in accord with North-American principles, nor with the ideals which were defended in the World War, which today constitute the essence of international law. ' ' Taking the statements of the head of the Delega- tion of Peru in Washington, we can say, in order to reject the Peruvian claim, that the ideals defended in the war, terminated by a Treaty in which many pro- posed plebiscites were provided for, prevent conflict with this procedure that is now an essential part of international law. For these reasons we consider that the plebiscite is the only solution prescribed in the Treaty of 1883; it is the only solution which is in accordance with the modern principles of free determination by the people; and it is the only way for obtaining an agree- ment which would guide Chile and Peru, through paths of brotherhood, toward the attainment of their great destinies. The Honorable Chamber of Deputies is acquainted with the proposal presented by the Chilean Delegates in reply to the Peruvian proposition of May 27th; it is a brief summary of the reasons which I have just explained. This proposal, then, was rejected by the Delegation from Peru, without further examination, in view of 605 the reasons stated in an official declaration, which is literally as follows: ' ' The Peruvian Delegation, though instantly ac- cepting the naming of an arbitrator, regretted that the Chilean Delegation has not made a favor- able response to its conciliatory reply, in which the expectations of both countries were con- sidered, and it deemed that the Chilean Delega- tion maintains a point of view which does not show harmony or justice, since its assertions show the desire to incidentally put aside the present circumstances and the consequences of the acts of its authorities during the twenty-eight years which have passed since the time when the plebi- scite should have been held, and a disregard for the right of Peru to ask that an impartial judge should fully examine the case." The assertion in this official Peruvian article is not accurate. We have never refused to submit our actions in Tacna and Arica since 1894 to an arbitrator; rather on the contrary, we will agree, with pleasure, to having an arbitrator take notice of such a false denouncement made by the Government of Peru, so that there may again be shown the kind of tactics with which it has seen fit to attack us. We have not made an investigation of those actions because I can say without boasting that our occupa- tion of Tacna and Arica, when compared with the oc- cupation of any other region that may have been sub- mitted to a plebiscite — for instance Eupen and Mal- medy,. upper Silesia, the Saar Valley, etc. — will show that nowhere have the authorities been more benevo- lent, respectful, and accommodating. The plan for liberty has nowhere been so complete, and the consti- 606 tutional guarantees have been executed with great equality toward all the inhabitants. It is evident that with the passing of time our na- tionalizing acts in those territories have been greatly aiding that region. The establishment of industries, the construction of railways, the betterment of the public service, and careful attention by the authori- ties, have all contributed to the fact that from day to day those territories were becoming more Chilean. On speaking of our action since 1894, is it by chance claimed that we did not have the right to help those territories advance — that we were obligated to keep them in the state of depression and stagnation in which we received them? We are not going to oppose an examination of our activities in Tacna and Arica since 1894; but on agreeing to it we must start from an absolutely sure footing that the examination will not have any consequences other than the adoption of measures by which the plebiscite bases may seek the true dec- laration of the will of the inhabitants. If we have driven Peruvians out, the arbitrator, ac- cording to our offer, could take steps in order that those Peruvians might return to the country to take part in the voting; if we have persecuted the Peru- vian inhabitants of those territories the arbitrator could take steps in order that this might not occur; but in no event could we agree that the examination of those activities could result in the non-execution of the Treaty of 1883. The proposal made on the 7th of June having been rejected by the Peruvian Delegation, the " deadlock' ' arose in the Washington Conferences. In the good spirit which both Delegations have had from the be- ginning, it was believed that this deadlock which has 607 been reached could be overcome by some conciliatory proposition acceptable to both Delegations. Although, since the 7th of this month new official meetings have not been held, this does not mean the negotiations have ended. The discussions have con- tinued informally and at the present time the Govern- ment cherishes the hope that a proposal, which falls within the instructions of the Delegates, and which would mean the resuming of the official sessions which have been interrupted, may be received for its approval. Whatever may be the agreement reached in Wash- ington between the Chilean and Peruvian Delegates, the Government will submit it to the National Con- gress, in order that is may give its official sanction, and it can be said that a proposition is being discussed in which are embodied the most representative ideals of the Republic. Nevertheless we are somewhat alarmed at the great political agitation that exists in Peru at the present time, directing its powerful forces against its own negotiators in Washington. The history of our negotiations with Peru already shows us more than one instance in which our efforts to reach a solution succeeded in producing terms of agreement with the gentlemen from the Government of Peru, but a short time later those agreements had to be abandoned because of a violent and unfortunate crisis of the Government negotiators. Happily, the well-known influence which the present President of Peru has over his people leads us to be- lieve that it is sufficient to control the chauvinistic ex- citement and to command respect for the public trust solemnly pledged. Other prior events make one think that the arrange- ment which might be reached in Washington will be 608 accompanied by unknown and secret factors, such as those which the Minister of Foreign Relations of Bo- livia, Sr. Fernandez Alonso has revealed on publishing accounts of happenings which show the existence of a secret pact between Peru and Bolivia, which was made in disregard of the invitation of the United States, for assisting, in Washington, the Bolivian de- sires for a port on the Pacific. The Honorable Chamber of Duputies is acquainted with the result of this secret pact. ' Aside from the irregularity this might signify, we would welcome these happenings — the attempted inclu- sion of certain elements of disturbance in the confer- ences which were assembled under certain conditions — because they are clearly demonstrating, as the Bolivian Government seems to understand now, that it is only within a mutual understanding and in accordance with a reciprocal agreement with Chile that it could further its aspirations which are so well known. We went to Washington to negotiate in absolute good faith, inspired by the highest spirit of American brotherhood and by the firm purpose not to evade reasonable sacrifices in order to reach an agreement in the old controversy over which we are divided with Peru. The acceptance of the American invitation juridically binding both Chile and Peru, and also the express decla- ration of the Peruvian Delegation in regard to its pur- pose to comply with Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, place the negotiations in such a status that reasonable solutions will doubtless be reached. The Government confidently awaits a favorable re- sult ; it has implicit faith in the judgment and ability of its Delegates in Washington with whom it has perfectly agreed during the entire conferences, and cherishes 609 the firm hope that, having right and justice in our favor, the definite solutions will have to be those hoped for by the national sentiment. Proceedings of the Chilean-Peruvian Conference Held in Washington, D. C, Dated on June 30, 1922. [Translation.] The Delegates Plenipotentiary of Chile and Peru, attended by the Counselors and Secretaries of the Del- egations, having met on the appointed day, it was agreed that they should all sign a joint written record of the subjects considered in the several meetings here- tofore held. The Delegate of Chile, Senor Aldunate, pointed out that, inasmuch as the Chilean Government had initi- ated the negotiations then in progress, the representa- tives of Chile did not find it inappropriate to have taken the initiative in this meeting. He expressed the view that, whatever may have been our differences of opinion, a great step forward in the settlement of the difficulties between Peru and Chile was marked by what had taken place since the telegram of December 12. The interchange of telegraphic correspondence showed clearly the wish of the two countries to reach agreement — a wish manifested in numerous declara- tions, particularly in the statements made formally at the opening session of the Conference. The Government of the United States had believed that this desired agreement is to be sought in the ful- fillment of those parts of the Treaty of Ancon that had not yet been carried out, and had extended invitations to us to come to Washington with a view to eliminate 610 the points of disagreement between the two nations with respect to the manner of fulfilling those parts of the Treaty. The Chilean Delegates were disposed to express their ideas on the subject in detail, and they would be glad to have the Delegates of Peru state, in general terms, their views regarding the way the desired end might be achieved, that is, how the unfulfilled stipula- tions of the Treaty might be given effect. Doctor Porras made clear that the Delegation of Peru had come to this Conference with the intention of contributing as decisively as possible to the realization of the lofty object of President Harding, at whose in- stance it was held. He was of the belief that an under- standing between the two countries would not be diffi- cult to bring about, if there did in fact exist a wish to be guided by the inspiration of justice — which alone may serve as the basis for the moral greatness of na- tions. He went on to add that he had no reason to refrain from pointing out the measures by which the agree- ment sought could be attained. He wished, before- hand, to be pardoned for any word or inference that might hurt the feelings of the Delegates of Chile, in- asmuch as he contemplated speaking with entire frankness. Thereupon developing the discussions suggested by Sefior Aldunate, he set forth that the only reasonable and just solution consisted in the complete restoration of the provinces of Tacna and Arica to Peru, inas- much as more than twenty-eight years had passed since the day when the term of ten years, agreed upon at Ancon, had expired, and consequently, the occupation since March 28, 1894, was unjustified. The substantial provision of the Treaty was that the territory in ques- 611 tion should belong to the country which would have a majority at the termination of the period. As it is well known and capable of proof on testimony of au- thoritative Chilean sources that Peru had at that time, and to spare, the required majority, the assertion was warranted that the plebiscite had virtually taken place, and its result had constituted a victory for Peru. The failure to hold the plebiscite was due not to Peru, but to Chile. This is a truth to be deduced from the history of the conflict in the eyes of any impartial observer. It could not be otherwise since Peru, for sentimental reasons, was interested in recovering her provinces, while no one. could be blind to the fact that Peru was in no position to impose her will in this con- nection. Chile, on the other hand, had the means to carry out her wishes, and her authorities had made the agreement regarding the plebiscite impossible of ef- fect, by various expedients, at the same time carrying 'out the plan of violently expelling the Peruvian inhabi- tants from the provinces and replacing them with Chilean elements so as to constitute the electoral ma- jority to act at the suitable moment. By reason of this policy, things had come to such a pass that the carrying out of the plebiscite could not be permitted. If it were today to be accepted it could only signify, in view of the serious events that had occurred, yielding in the face of violence. Consequently, the only admissible solution at this time precisely in rendering effective the third Clause of the Treaty already mentioned, was to defer to the will of the provinces as it was known to have been in 1894, and to return to Peru without further delay the territory that she ceded only temporarily. Senor Aldunate remarked that the Chilean Delega- tion would be actuated by the same courtesy with 612 which Sefior Porras had offered to take up the ques- tions to be dealt with in this Conference, and would not be led away from the inspiration of justice, which is intimately bound up with the good faith of treaties that are the source of right and obligations for the na- tions which sign them. The events that had recently convulsed the world had once more proved that international order rests upon the observance of the provisions of treaties. Sefior Aldunate was not of the view of Senor Porras in so far as related to that which constituted the foun- dation of his argument, namely, that Article III of the Treaty of Ancon had provided that the plebiscite to de- cide the future lot of Tacna and Arica must necessarily have been carried out within the period of ten years reckoned from the date of the Treaty. This instru- ment, on the contrary, provided that the plebiscite was to be held after the ten years had expired, and on the basis of conditions set forth in a protocol to be agreed to by both parties. There had been no period fixed for the conclusion of this protocol. It was evident that within the ten years neither party could demand the holding of the plebiscite; but it was not evident that, after the ten years, the plebiscite could not be held. The provinces of Tacna and Arica were exclusively Peruvian when the War of the Pacific ended, at which time Chile demanded them for the protection of the nitrate region line south of them, and as a safeguard of her boundaries. Peru agreed to surrender to Chile the possession and sovereignty of these territories for ten years, maintaining that after this period, a plebiscite should determine, by popular vote, whether the territory was to remain definitely under Chilean control, or to con- 613 tinue part of Peruvian territory. The plebiscite was to be held in accordance with provisions agreed to in a special protocol. In view of these stipulations, the reversion of the provinces to the possession and sovereignty of Peru had not depended, nor did it now depend, on the mere lapse of ten years, but on the conditions that Peru should win in a plebiscite held after the ten years in question, in accordance with the protocol which, as yet, it had not been possible to formulate. The surrender of the two provinces to Chile, in such circumstances, amounted to giving the latter country a free option and the fullest opportunity to make them Chilean in character. The proposal of Seiior Porras was equivalent to a claim that the plebiscite be presumed to have been held in 1894, and that Peru be presumed to have won at that time. This reasoning apparently respected the provisions of the Treaty while, in fact, it did violence to their very foundation. Nor could Chile accept any responsibility which it might be desired to attribute to her for the fact that up to the present time there had been no agreement on the protocol regarding the plebiscite. If two per- sons do not agree on a contract, or two nations on a treaty, neither is responsible for the failure to agree. Such was the opinion of Peru whenever after 1894 she had carried on negotiations with Chile regarding the basis of the plebiscite. Senor Aldunate referred to the Billinghurst-Latorre agreement of 1898, the Chil- ean-Peruvian exchange of proposals in 1909, and the Valera-Huneeus agreement of 1912, initiated by Peru, wherein the latter country proposed that the plebiscite take place forty years after the date mentioned by Senor Porras. 616 when one of the parties has force at his command, and, moreover, is in possession of the disputed thing. Very well, could it be said, that no one is to blame, when he who is in the possession of the disputed thing, and has force at his command, refuses to submit to an impar- tial judge the differences of opinion that have pre- vented the solution? Evidently not; and this was the case before them. Each of the pages of our long liti- gation was an eloquent demonstration of the intention of Chile to prevent a vote until the moment when she would find circumstances favorable. It could not be said that Chile had refused to accept arbitration because of the conditions of the plebiscite constituted an essential act of sovereignty. The regu- lation of the manner in which a thing is to be done, however weighty the act itself may be, has no char- acter such as was implied. If this were true in the case of Peru, so much the more was it in the case of Chile which has not had any portion of her territory compromised. Senor Porras went on to declare that there was ground for satisfaction that Senor Izquierdo could find it easy now to determine the points of difference to be submitted to the decision of the arbitrator. It was to be regretted that such a notion had not pre- vailed on other occasions when the plebiscite could have occurred, that is to say, when the measures adopted to render it nugatory had not assumed the ex- tent and importance that now characterized them. If these measures had not had all the success that the occupying country expected, that was no rea- son to believe baseless the right Peru now claims. The Peruvian Delegation thought that the many years that had elapsed since March, 1894, and the substantial modification of conditions in Tacna and Arica by rea- 617 son of the policy there pursued by the Chilean authori- ties obliged us not to depart from the sole and real ob- ject of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, namely, that the provinces should belong to the country which might have the majority of support at the date indi- cated; and it was well known from assertions beyond cavil and never denied that the majority of that date favored Peru. The assertion that the period of ten years had been fixed for the occupation, but none had been determined for the regulation of the plebiscite and that conse- quently the latter could occur thirty, forty, or one hundred years later, was tantamount to imagining that the negotiators gave Chile the right to lengthen four- fold, five-fold, or ten-fold the term of occupation wholly and exclusively of her own will. But they had not thought for a moment of granting Chile any such faculty. The intention of the negotia- tions was that the plebiscite should occur immediately after the conclusion of the ten years ; and such was the understanding of Peru when, in 1892, that is, at an op- portune time, she took steps although without any re- sult to bring about the agreement that the case re- quired. The fact that Peru had discussed, some years back, but subsequent to 1894, the conditions upon which the plebiscite might be based never signified any surrender of her rights nor any justification of the events that had previously transpired. Peru, in an effort to at- tain a just and reasonable agreement, had voluntarily overlooked them. Unfortunately, this yielding for the moment on certain conditions never produced the ex- pected solution. The Valera-Huneeus negotiations had, as their point of departure, to be sure, the post- ponement of the plebiscite; but for that very reason 616 when one of the parties has force at his command, and, moreover, is in possession of the disputed thing. Very well, could it be said, that no one is to blame, when he who is in the possession of the disputed thing, and has force at his command, refuses to submit to an impar- tial judge the differences of opinion that have pre- vented the solution? Evidently not; and this was the case before them. Each of the pages of our long liti- gation was an eloquent demonstration of the intention of Chile to prevent a vote until the moment when she would find circumstances favorable. It could not be said that Chile had refused to accept arbitration because of the conditions of the plebiscite constituted an essential act of sovereignty. The regu- lation of the manner in which a thing is to be done, however weighty the act itself may be, has no char- acter such as was implied. If this were true in the case of Peru, so much the more was it in the case of Chile which has not had any portion of her territory compromised. Senor Porras went on to declare that there was ground for satisfaction that Senor Izquierdo could find it easy now to determine the points of difference to be submitted to the decision of the arbitrator. It was to be regretted that such a notion had not pre- vailed on other occasions when the plebiscite could have occurred, that is to say, when the measures adopted to render it nugatory had not assumed the ex- tent and importance that now characterized them. If these measures had not had all the success that the occupying country expected, that was no rea- son to believe baseless the right Peru now claims. The Peruvian Delegation thought that the many years that had elapsed since March, 1894, and the substantial modification of conditions in Tacna and Arica by rea- 617 son of the policy there pursued by the Chilean authori- ties obliged us not to depart from the sole and real ob- ject of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, namely, that the provinces should belong to the country which might have the majority of support at the date indi- cated; and it was well known from assertions beyond cavil and never denied that the majority of that date favored Peru. The assertion that the period of ten years had been fixed for the occupation, but none had been determined for the regulation of the plebiscite and that conse- quently the latter could occur thirty, forty, or one hundred years later, was tantamount to imagining that the negotiators gave Chile the right to lengthen four- fold, five-fold, or ten-fold the term of occupation wholly and exclusively of her own will. But they had not thought for a moment of granting Chile any such faculty. The intention of the negotia- tions was that the plebiscite should occur immediately after the conclusion of the ten years ; and such was the understanding of Peru when, in 1892, that is, at an op- portune time, she took steps although without any re- sult to bring about the agreement that the case re- quired. The fact that Peru had discussed, some years back, but subsequent to 1894, the conditions upon which the plebiscite might be based never signified any surrender of her rights nor any justification of the events that had previously transpired. Peru, in an effort to at- tain a just and reasonable agreement, had voluntarily overlooked them. Unfortunately, this yielding for the moment on certain conditions never produced the ex- pected solution. The Valera-Huneeus negotiations had, as their point of departure, to be sure, the post- ponement of the plebiscite; but for that very reason 618 this plan did not enjoy the approval of the Peruvian people. Its aim was to avoid at any cost the persecu- tion of which the people of Tacna and Arica were vic- tims, and which were year by year growing worse, making more dangerous the international complications that Chile would be in a position to provoke, to the consequent risk of the nation's peace. The Executive of Peru believed it necessary to strengthen the country and put it in a position to make headway effectively in the solution of all its pending problems. Nevertheless, the plan was not accepted by public opinion for the reason indicated, in contrast to the Protocol of 1898 which was approved by the Congress of Peru and which indeed enjoyed popular support because it put an end, and on acceptable terms, to the postpone- ment of the solution by plebiscite. Neither at that time nor at any other had Peru abandoned her ardent aspiration to recover the terri- tory which had been ceded for ten years, not with the object of protecting the nitrate region or as a safe- guard of the new Chilean frontiers, but in reality as the guarantee of an indemnity which was to be added to that represented by the cession of Tarapaca — terri- tory that exceeded in value, as is well known, all the indemnities of war ever recorded. In conclusion, Senor Porras expressed his confi- dence that the present step of the Government of Chile towards an understanding with Peru based on justice, would open a new horizon for international re- lations; and to this object the distinguished persons who represented Chile would contribute by permitting the discussion to continue along a frank line towards conciliation. Sehor Aldunate could not understand the reluctance of Senor Porras to accept the Chilean request for the 619 holding of the plebiscite required by Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, since this plebiscite was a right derived from the letter and spirit of the Article, and recognized and claimed by Peru throughout the negotiations, as was demonstrated by the agreements of 1898 and 1912, and the proposals for a plebiscite of Senor Porras himself in 1909. ' ' We had come to Washington animated by a spirit of conciliation ; but we had come to fulfill the Treaty, and not to leave without effect the provision for a plebi- scite. ' ' When an agreement stipulates an appeal to the popular will, it is no excuse for not fulfilling it to pre- sume that the vote may favor one or the other side. He could not understand why Peru should describe as strange or ridiculous the plebiscite requested for 1922 or 1923, when Peru herself suggested it for 1933. The argument of Senor Porras would lead to the position that Chile was obliged to accept the conditions for the plebiscite that Peru might propose, and that the penalty for losing the territory because of a pre- sumption that she was unjustifiably delaying the plebiscite. This agreement could be turned against Peru, which had proposed conditions as strange as the one that only Peruvians should vote, and had thus led to Chile 's rejection of them and the postponement of the plebiscite. All that could be gathered from the arguments of Senor Porras was that the provision of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon was harsh ; but it was being over- looked that the War of the Pacific was hard for Chile, which had not provoked it, and which ran the risk of seeing her territory invaded, of losing all the nitrate and mining regions within her former boundaries, and of being converted into a power of the third rank 620 in Latin-America. Senor Porras had said that the cession of Tacna and Arica was stipulated only as a guarantee for monetary indemnity. Such, in fact, was the form of the cession claimed at the Conferences on the ' ' Lackawanna ' ' after the first and second cam- paigns ; but after the Lima campaign, Chile demanded possession of, and sovereignty over, these provinces with a view to acquire the definitive control of them. Sehor Aldunate felt obliged also to draw attention to the acts of violence attributed to the Chilean au- thorities with the implication of an idea of modifying the electoral situation in Tacna and Arica. He was of the view that this description could not be given to the acts of sovereignty carried out in pursuance of the Treaty of Ancon, nor to the acts necessary to render ineffective the sovereignty which Peru pretended to exercise by indirect measures over the territories after 1893. Nor was it an act of violence to have expelled some agitators as a measure of public order. In the long stretch of almost forty years not fifty cases could be counted, each of which was individually justified, which would certainly not change the result of a plebis- cite in a population of about 40,000 souls. In recent times, an attempt had been made to con- fuse the situation of Tacna and Arica with episodes in Tarapaca, a purely Chilean province. The Peru- vians resident in this province, who had always worked in the nitrate deposits and had freely enjoyed the fruits of their labors in the shelter of the laws of Chile, began to agitate under the influence of the pro- paganda for the recovery emanating from Lima, with the idea that through the annulment of the Treaty of Ancon, Peru would recover the province of Tarapaca. With this agitation, there synchronized the suspension of work in the nitrate fields by reason of the falling off 621 in world consumption of nitrate ; and as a result, there followed the obligatory exodus of the laborers. Thou- sands of Bolivian workmen made their way to the plateau. Thousands of Chilean workmen took ships for the south. The Peruvian laborers had also to leave, by the thousands, and they left first because of the state of patriotic excitement that had been stirred up by the Peruvian propaganda. Such being the cir- cumstances, there had occurred certain acts of violence among individuals, the responsibility for which was not accepted by the Government of Chile. And even on the assumption that these events which occurred only in Tarapaca could have been prevented by the Chilean authorities, it was evident that these episodes had nothing to do with the situation of Tacna and Arica nor with the problem of the plebiscite. In conclusion, Sehor Aldunate made clear that he discerned the lofty spirit of the Peruvian Delegates and their sincere desire to achieve an understanding, and he would take the liberty of inviting them to con- tinue the discussion on the basis of the agreement of 1912 concerning the plebiscite, that had been proposed by the Government of Peru and accepted by that of Chile, and that had not been perfected because of cir- cumstances foreign to the will of both Governments. This agreement was the most advanced step taken in the long negotiations, and in a matter of such im- portance it would not be right to go back. If Peru thought the lapse of time until 1933 too long, and pro- posed its reduction, Senor Aldunate added that Chile would accept the same. Senor Porras declared that, in view of the insistence of the line of argument of Senor Aldunate, he was con- tenting himself with setting forth the following decla- rations, some of which he had already made, and which 622 he offered to support with ample documentary proof if desired : That the real origin of the war is a matter thoroughly explored by nationals and foreigners, and that, consequently it is of little use to discuss it for the time being. That it is an error to assert that the proposition for indemnification with regard to Tacna and Arica dis- appeared after the Lima campaign, since the Protocol of Vina del Mar, signed more than a year after that date, demonstrates the contrary to be the fact. That Tacna and Arica were ceded for ten years and not forty. As Chile has retained, by her own acts, this territory longer than the term agreed upon, she alone has prevented the Treaty from being effective, since the hypothetical alternative, namely, that Peru was in- terested in not recovering her territory is absurd. That during the long debate over the conditions of the plebsicite, Peru was always disposed to submit to arbitration the differences that arise, that Chile never consented to this, and that, in consequence, the con- tinuation of disagreement is due to Chile and not to Peru. That the negotiations that Peru has sought to begin from time to time in the past constituted generous con- cessions made with the object of obtaining immediate results, but they never signified any recognition of the right of Chile to dispose of the fate of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, and that the postponement pro- posed by the Executive of the year 1912, upon which Senor Aldunate puts such emphasis, had the object heretofore explained. It has already been pointed out that it is incorrect to say that the 1912 agreement was the most advanced step in the debate over the plebiscite, since it was not 623 approved by the Congress or the public opinion of Peru, quite the opposite of what took place with the Billinghurst-Latorre protocol of 1898, which was in fact approved by Peru because it was to be given effect at once, and because it appealed to arbitration to settle the differences of opinion that had presented them- selves. That the plebiscite, in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, is important as a means and not as an end. The end indicated was that the provinces should be- long to whichever country should have the majority in March, 1894, and not in 1922 or later. To wish that Peru should humbly content herself with imagining that we are living in 1894 and that we are to forget all that has since transpired is to try to have the means prevail over the end. That the events which occurred in 1918 and before and since that time in Tarapaca, Tacna, Arica and other places to which reference is made in the official Peruvian documents dealing with them, did in fact take place, and had a very grave character. This is the point to be dealt with on another occasion. In short, the Delegation of Peru can not accept the discussion of conditions for the plebiscite, neither on the basis of the negotiation of 1912, nor any other. Its dignity, and the right it has to consider that Peru/ virtually won the plebiscite of 1894, prevent it from doing so. Yet, as the Delegates of Chile do not admit this con- clusion, and insist on the ideas they have expressed, it seems unnecessary, Senor Porras adds to recall events and reenact discussions annoying for some and sad for others. Consequently, taking into consideration the essential obligations of the present Conference, Senor Porras proposes the following agreement : 624 There would be submitted to the arbitrator, as the essential point that is the subject of our discussions, the following: "For the purpose of determining the manner in which the stipulations of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon shall be fulfilled there shall be submitted to arbitration the question whether, in the present circumstances, the plebiscite shall or shall not be held. "If it is not to be held, to which country shall be- long the definitive dominion over Tacna and Arica and under what conditions. "If it is to be held, under what conditions shall the plebiscite take place. ' ' Senor Izquierdo, without setting out to answer the arguments forcefully and brilliantly presented by Senor Porras, to which Senor Aldunate would address himself, stated that the Chilean Delegation could not accept the agreement just proposed, inasmuch as it tended to render doubtful the validity of one of the provisions of the Treaty, upon the exact and loyal ful- fillment of which both Delegations were set. . Senor Izquierdo was of the view that it would not be opportune to discuss at that moment the causes of the War of the Pacific. The Conference had just the noble object of causing it to be forgotten by wiping out in both countries the feelings that threatened to continue even after the generations that witnessed the war. Nor did he attach excessive importance to the point that had been made as to the value of the various negotia- tions begun to settle the handling of the plebiscite. Al- though it was in his opinion beyond question that the negotiations of 1912 were those that should constitute the point of departure, since they were most recent, and the only negotiations in which there was a direct and complete understanding between the negotiators, 625 he believed that the Conference could adopt other bases of discussion which would carry it away from the draft that Doctor Porras was endorsing, on the margin, as it were, of the Treaty. In reality, Sehor Izquierdo went on to add, the most advanced negotia- tions and the one nearest the termination of the diffi- culties were those being held as a result of the initia- tive of the United States, and in which Peru and Chile alike had accepted beforehand submission to arbitra- tion of the insoluble differences of opinion blocking the aim of the Conference, namely, the fulfillment of the unfulfilled portions of the Treaty of Ancon. This being his understanding of the case, and he himself being desirous to smooth the way to the selection by Peru of a basis of discussion not going outside the field set aside for the Conference, he was going to pro- pose an agreement which he would formulate without delay, and in which, in addition to the negotiations of 1912 indicated by Senor Alplunate, he would include others which could not fail to be well received by the Delegation of Peru. Finally, Senor Izquierdo felt obliged to maintain that under the Treaty, under its express and inescapa- ble terms, and in accordance with the spirit that in- spired it and even in view of the possibility of giving it effect in practice, it was not possible to ignore the wishes of the inhabitants, nor the plebiscite as a means of ascertaining those wishes, in order to determine the future nationality of the territory in dispute. Other- wise, without the plebiscite, the fate of this territory would remain uncertain and in the air, and it would be necessary to have recourse to proceedings entirely for- eign to the Treaty, such as that suggested by the Dele- gates of Peru. It would be necessary to entrust to the Government of the United States, or to some other 626 Government, the decision ad libitum as to the fate of the provinces ; and this wonld not properly be arbitra- tion, but an inadmissible delegation of sovereignty. Sehor Izquierdo proposed in conclusion the follow- ing draft : "The Delegation of Chile submits as a basis of discussion, in order to reach agreement on the con- ditions of the plebiscite that is to be carried out in accordance with Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, and with a view to determine the points of disagreement which would be subject-matter for arbitration, the following propositions : 1. The Huneeus-Valera negotiations of 1912; 2. The counter proposal submitted by Sen or Porras in his capacity as Minister of Foreign Af- fairs of Peru to the Legation of Chile in Lima on November 5, 1909, together with the modifications to be proposed by the Chilean Delegates ; 3. The immediate submission to arbitration of all the conditions of the plebiscite on which there had been no previous agreement between the two Governments, or on which there had been contra- dictory conclusions." Senor Aldunate explained that the proposal of the bases of 1912 had been made as a starting point for the discussion of the subject of the plebiscite, and he had, in consequence, no difficulty in accepting the proposals of Senor Izquierdo. He was even able to add the fol- lowing : "4. The commencement of discussions on the bases of the plebiscite without reference to any of the previous negotiations, the differences to be submitted to arbitration. ' ' The foregoing proposal, remarked Senor Aldunate, and the three included in the draft of Senor Izquierdo 627 would be taken up as bases for discussion at the op- tion of the Peruvian Delegates, without prejudice, naturally, to the right of Chile to ask the arbitrators to accept the ideas contained in any one of them. The concluding proposal of Sehor Porras, was not acceptable according to the ideas of Sehor Aldunate, for it went outside the terms of the engagement that had brought us to Washington, that is — as has been repeatedly stated, the search for a manner of giving effect to the unfulfilled parts of the Treaty of Ancon. The Peruvian formula amounted in substance to a re- quest that the arbitrator declare settled or ineffective the stipulation in Article III concerning the plebiscite. Far from facilitating the fulfillment of the Treaty, it would facilitate its non-fulfillment. Nevertheless, the Chilean Delegation would hasten to acquaint its Gov- ernment with the proposal as an act of deference to the Government of Peru, in the hope that some means might be found to prevent the breakdown of the Con- ference. Sehor Aldunate has no wish to prolong the polemic that has become evident to a certain point in these de- bates on the antecedents of the conflict; but he found himself obliged to make a few remarks so as not to appear to assent to the conclusions with which Sehor Porras wished to close the discussion. He was of the opinion also that for the moment it would be inopportune to dwell upon the true origin of the war; but he believed that its origin was known, and that without recalling it, it would be difficult to grasp the spirit of the unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of Ancon. There is no error, as Sefior Porras thought, in sta- ting that the demands of Chile as to Tacna and Arica were greater after the Lima campaign than in the 628 " Lackawanna " Conferences. In a circular of May 26, 1901, the Peruvian Government it was that declared: "The victories which Chile subsequently won aroused greater ambition, and a year later, in 1891, the cession of Tacna and Arica was de- manded as a condition sine qua non to peace, in the negotiations begun in the following two years. ' ' The very Protocol of Vina del Mar cited by Sehor Porras involved the idea of a sale or concealed cession. Senor Porras had repeated the statement that Tacna and Arica were ceded for ten and not for forty years. The truth was that they were not ceded for ten or forty years. They were placed in the possession and* under the sovereignty of Chile for ten years, and until a plebiscite subsequent to this period should determine their definitive ownership. No provision of the Jreaty placed an obligation upon Chile to submit to arbitration the conditions of the plebiscite, and it represented a genuine concession on her part to accept this procedure, which Peru was now rejecting. It could be maintained, Senor Aldunate added, that the plebiscite was a means and not an end ; but it was a means or condition essential to attain the end. He regretted the confusion Senor Porras made be- tween Tarapaca and Tacna and Arica, at a time when discussion was taking place only on the condition of the two latter provinces, and he was confident that the Chilean Government would not shrink from the clearing up of any of the charges levelled at the exer- cise of her sovereignty in the disputed territory, when it would be appropriate to consider them. This would be a thing indispensable to the good name of the nation, 629 even though the charges could be ignored as irrelevant. Senor Aldunate later declared that, the Government of Chile having been consulted regarding the draft sub- mitted by the Delegates of Peru, the Chilean Delega- tion could not accept it, but proposed in its stead, in obedience to their instructions, the following: ' ' Sharing the aim of the Peruvian Delegation to find a method of giving effect to Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, and having in view the fact that the first proposition of the Peruvian scheme makes subject to the possibility of eventual elimi- nation, the juridical principle of consulting the in- habitants of Tacna and Arica to determine the definitive sovereignty of those territories, in cir- cumstances in which such consultation is required by universal law and contained in a Treaty, the integral effectiveness of which, and entire respect for which, constituted the ground for the invita- tion of the United States, the Government of Chile accepts the third proposition of the Peruvian for- mula, and proposes that the Government of the United States fix the form in which the electoral decision is to be ascertained. ' ' Senor Porras made clear that the draft which he had had the honor to submit under date of May 27 consisted of three inseparable parts, and that, inas- much as the first of them was the essential one, he con- sidered the Chilean counter proposition so inacceptable that it would not be in point even to communicate it to his Government. All that he found in it that he could accept — and this he hastened to accept in the name of Peru — was the designation of the United States Government as arbitrator of the question. Senor Velarde declared that the divergent opinions of the two Governments as to the manner of weighing and clearing up the situation created by the non-ful- 630 fillment of some clauses of the Treaty of 1884 had given ground for the invitation of the President of the United States to the effect that representatives of Peru and Chile gathered in Washington should try to elimi- nate, by means of a direct agreement and if necessary an appeal to arbitration, the difficulties opposing the agreement of interpretations and aim between the two Republics. The Delegates of Chile, basing themselves on the ground chosen by their Government, had expressed the opinion that the only possible solution of these difficul- ties was to be found in the exact and loyal fulfillment of these provisions, without taking into account the fact that it was a question of fulfilling international agreement subject to the carrying out of conditions placed beside them, — a circumstance that made impos- sible any solution along the line supported by them. The debate had centered about the third Clause, and Chile sustained that the clearing up of the difficulties now offered in the way of carrying out that clause, merely consisted in the negotiation of the protocol re- garding the details of the plebiscite; in other words, the literal fulfillment of the Treaty. The Chilean Delegates had not taken into considera- tion that the clause in question fixes the term of occu- pation, and determines the period when the plebiscite was to have been held ; that the term has expired, and the period has passed by both merged in the lapse of twenty-eight years of unwarranted occupation; and joined with them, inseparable from them must have gone the relevant stipulation, regarding the plebiscite. The Delegation of Peru, continued Doctor Velarde, with the motive and sincere object of having the re- sults of this Conference measured up to the expecta- tion had of it, had proposed in the preceding session 631 that there be submitted to arbitration the two points of view that have clashed in the discussion ; they now saw with real emotion that their proposal was rejected, and another substituted for it — another wherein only the formalities of the plebiscite were taken into account, thus holding to the idea that the aim of the Conference was the literal fulfillment of the Treaty, and not that overcoming the difficulties arising from its non-fulfill- ment. Doctor Porras had just said that the Chilean pro- posal was unacceptable to such a degree that he could not consent to submit it to the study of the Government of Peru, and Senor Velarde adhered, in identical terms, to the declaration of his colleague. Senor Velarde then remarked that he thought it proper to submit an observation of an informative character, and furnish a record of fact. The information concerned the divergence of view between Senores Porras and Aldunate regarding the view of Chile as to the provinces of Tacna and Arica after the campaign of Lima. Senor Velarde thought that the immediate solution of this disagreement of view could be found in the report submitted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Don Luis Aldu- nate, in 1883. The fact of which Senor Velarde desired to leave due record in opposition to the declaration of the Chilean Delegates, without entering into details nor abstract discussions that were really not relevant, was that Peru did not cede her sovereignty to Chile over the provinces of Tacna and Arica, but yielded to her the faculty of occupying and adminstering them for a spe- cified time. Senor Aldunate did not wish, he stated, to draw out those discussions; he would, therefore, in answer to 632 Senor Velarde, content himself with reminding him that the third Clause of the Treaty of Ancon delivered to Chile the possession, that is, the tenancy in the sense of lord, of the provinces, as subjected them to Chilean law and the Chilean authorities (or, in other words, the constituents of sovereignty), providing, moreover, that a plebiscite would decide whether the provinces would remain definitively under the domain and sover- eignty of Chile, which would imply possession and sovereignty prior to the plebiscite. So far as the opinions of Don Luis Aldunate were concerned, Senor Aldunate made reference to the mon- ograph that this scholar in international jurisprudence had published respecting the background of the Treaty of Ancon. In view of the declaration previously made by Senor Porras the Delegations agreed to suspend their meet- ings, and to acquaint the respective Embassies with the state of progress they had made, in order that the Embassies might, if they deemed it proper, communi- cate information concerning the matter to the Govern- ment of the United States which had extended the in- vitation. Signed in quadruplicate in Washington, June 30, 1922. Caelos Aldunate, L. Izquierdo, Delegates Plenipotentiary of Chile, M. F. Porras, Hernan Velarde, Delegates Plenipotentiary of Peru, Alejandro Alvarez, Counselor of the Chilean Delegation, 633 Solon Polo, Counselor of the Peruvian Delegation, Jobje Silva, Luis E. Feliu H., Secretaries of the Chilean Delegation, G. N. Abambubu, J. A. de Buenavista, Secretaries of the Peruvian Delegation. Memorandum Presented by Embassador of Chile in United States to Secretary of State of the United States, on June 15, 1922. [Translation.] I. The Embassy of Chile believes the time has come to inform the Department of State of the present situa- tion of the Chilean-Peruvian negotiations, after the Chilean Delegation has been forced to consider its efforts to reach a direct understanding with the Peru- vian Delegation exhausted. II. The Delegation of Chile has proposed, in the course of the meetings, five formulas for solution within the range of which, according to the opinion of its Government, has always lain the only material for discussion between the two countries, namely: the con- ditions under which ought to be effected the plebiscite stipulated in Article III — still unfulfilled — of the Treaty of Ancon. The five Chilean formulas were wholly rejected by the Delegation of Peru. These formulas were: a. To hold the plebiscite according to the agreements of the Huneeus-Valera negotiation of 1912; 634 b. To hold it according to the counter proposal pre- sented by Senor Porras as Minister of Foreign Rela- tions of Peru to the Legation of Chile in Lima on Nov- ember 5, 1909, together with* the modifications that may be proposed by the Delegation of Chile; c. To submit, at once, to arbitration all the plebi- scitary conditions as to which a previous agreement may not have been reached between the two Govern- ments or as to which there may have been contradic- tory proposals; d. To proceed to discuss the plebiscitary bases , without regard to any of the previous negotiations, submitting the differences to arbitration; e. Coinciding with the purpose manifested by the Preuvian Delegation in respect of seeking a way to carry into effect Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, and considering that the first proposal of its formula subjects to the contingency of an elimination the jurid- ical principles of a referendum to the inhabitants of Tacna and Arica to decide as to the definitive sover- eignty of those territories, under circumstances im- posed on this referendum by universal law and con- tained in a treaty the unimpaired force of and respect for which constituted the basis of the American in- vitation, the Government of Chile accepts the third proposal of the Peruvian formula, and it proposes to the Government of the United States that it shall de- termine the manner in which the plebiscitary referen- dum shall be held. Proposals a, b, c and d were offered as optional to the Peruvian Delegation. Proposal c was made as a counter proposal to formula b of the Delegation of Peru. III. The Delegation of Peru has proposed, on its part, the following formulas: 635 a. That Article III of the Treaty be applied in such a way as to establish presumptively the will of the in- habitants of Tacna and Arica in 1894; and, inasmuch as that will is known, the plebiscite shall be assumed to have been effected, and the provinces of Tacna and Arica shall be returned to Peru. b. For the purpose of determining the manner in which the^ stipulations of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon shall be fulfilled there shall be submitted to ar- bitration the question whether, in the present circum- stances, the plebiscite shall or shall not be held. If it is not to be held, to which country shall belong the definitive dominion over Tacna and Arica and under what conditions. It it is to be held, under what con- ditions shall the plebiscite take place. IV. The Chilean Delegation deplores its inability to accept either of the two formulas of the Peruvian Delegation, because it has judged that they are not addressed to the fulfillment of the Treaty of Ancon, they, besides, ' departing from the terms of the invi- tation of President Harding, accepted by the Govern- ments, which, in the judgment of the Chilean Dele- gation, establish a tacit agreement as to the material discussable in this conference and as to the eventual arbitration contemplated in that invitation. V. The Embassy of Chile, in testifying to the fu- tility of the efforts of the Delegation of its country to arrive at the agreement sought, renews, in the name of its Government, the purpose of accepting any form- ula for a settlement that shall be in conformity with the fulfillment of the Treaty and with the terms of President Harding's invitation. Washington, June 15, 1923. To His Excellency, The Secretary of State of the United States. 636 Ambassador of Chile in United States to Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile. [Translation.] (Telegram.) (Taken from an address delivered by the Minister of Foreign Eelations of Chile, in the Session of the Senate, August 4, 1922.) Washington July 6 y 1922. Ministry of Foreign Relations — Santiago. No. 113. The Secretary of State sent for me to- day, Thursday, to tell me that, as a result of the con- sultation of the Peruvian Delegation with Lima, Porras had been to see him, signifying that Peru was re- solved to abandon her demand for arbitration in the future and problematical negotiations with Chile, in the case of the arbitrator declaring that the plebiscite would not take place, it should be established now, in some form, that the two countries would accept the good offices of the United States in said negotiations. Hughes explained to me that he was submitting the point for our consideration, deeming that it would not alter the essential nature of our situation in the case in question, since we would remain at liberty to ac- cept or reject whatever formula or solution might be proposed, should the contingency arise; that the good offices in question would be such as he is exercising at this time, without compromising anyone. Hughes endeavored to persuade me that the concession was more apparent than real, that it had no significance for the situation in which we would remain in the event contemplated and he concluded by asking me to consult yon. Mathieu. 637 Ambassador of Chile in United States to Secretary of State of United States. [Translation.] Embassy of Chile, Washington, July 19, 1922. My Dear Mr. Secretary: My Government has sent to me instructions which make it necessary for me to take advantage of your kindness in requesting you to assist me in clearing up a mistaken interpretation which has been given in Chile, to the clause relative to the situation of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, in case the arbitrator decides that the plebiscite stipulated in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon shall not be held. The clause in question was incorporated into the agreement in conformity with the suggestion made by you to the Delegates of Chile and Peru. My Government has accepted this clause with the understanding that when it is stated that "the ad- ministrative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed" such statement confirms the provision of Article III of the Treaty, which subjects the ter- ritory to the l ' Chilean laws and authorities. ' ' In order to remove the doubts to which I have re- ferred, and, at the same time avoid any possible future misunderstanding with reference to the meaning to be given to the clause suggested by you, I take the liberty to request Your Excellency to inform me whether my thought is correct that in suggesting the words, "It is understood, in the interest of peace and good order, that in this event and pending an agreement as to the disposition of the territory, 638 the administrative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed," Your Excellency did not have in view changing the actual status of territory as determined by the Treaty of Ancon, nor did you thereby have in view conferring either upon Chile or Peru new title or new rights. Thanking you in advance for your courtesy in con- sidering this matter, and with expression of high re- gard, I am, Most sincerely yours, B. Mathieu. Hon. Charles E. Hughes, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Secretary of State of United States to Ambassador of Chile in United States. Department of State, Washington, July 19, 1922. My Dear Mr. Ambassador : I have received your note of this date with respect to a point in the interpretation of the clause that I suggested, relating to the contingency of a decision •by the arbitrator that a plebiscite should not be held. This clause was as follows : "It is understood in the interest of peace and good order, that in this event and pending an agreement as to the disposition of the territory, the administrative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed.' ' 639 I should hesitate to make any further suggestion for reasons which I am sure you will appreciate, save in a further conference with the Delegates. It seems to me, however, that it may serve the purpose you have in view if I send to you a summary prepared by Dr. Rowe of the interview held with Seiior Aldunate and Dr. Porras, in the course of which the clause in question was suggested. It seems to me that what was then said is entirely sufficient by way of commentary upon the purpose and intent of the clause. With high regard, I am, Very sincerely yours, Charles E. Hughes. His Excellency, Senor Don Beltran Mathieu, Ambassador of Chile. Conference Held on July 17, 1922, Between Chairmen of the Chilean and Peruvian Delegations to the Washington Conference and Secretary of State of United States. Conference held in the Office of the Secretary of State on Monday, July 17, 1922, at 12 o'clock. In attendance were : The Secretary of State, Hon. Charles E. Hughes. The Chairman of the Chilean Delegation, Hon. Carlos Aldunate. The Chairman of the Peruvian Delegation, Hon. Meliton Porras. At the request of the Chairman of the two Delega- tions, and by invitation of the Secretary of State, Dr. Rowe was present and served as interpreter. 640 At the opening of the Conference Senor Aldunate informed the Secretary that the Conference had de- cided to request the President of the United States to serve as arbitrator and expressed the hope that the President would be willing to do this very great ser- vice. Dr. Porras then expressed a similar request. The Secretary then stated that he was certain that the President of the United States would be deeply appreciative of the honor done him by such selection. Although Secretary Hughes had entertained the hope that the Conference might decide either upon a board of jurists or a single jurist; yet, in view of the de- cision that had been made he desired to express his appreciation of the confidence thus expressed by both Delegations, and would be glad to advise the Pre- sident of the United States to accept the designation. Sr. Aldunate then set forth the views of the Chilean Delegation with reference to the desirability of in- serting, either in the Protocol, or the Supplementary Act, or in a definite way in the minutes *of the Con- ference, a statement to the effect that, if the arbitrator should decide against the holding of a plebiscite, the status of possession of the provinces by Chile should not be disturbed, and that her right to legislate for the provinces and to appoint administrative author- ities should not be questioned. He pointed out that this was the interpretation which both the Chilean Delega- tion and the Chilean Government had placed upon the formula proposed by Mr. Hughes and which they had so gladly -accepted. Without some such declaratory statement he felt that there was real danger that Peru might interpret Clause "C" of the Supplementary Act to mean that, in case the arbitrator decide against the holding of a plebiscite, the provinces should be turned over immediately to Peru. He felt certain 641 that neither Dr. Porras nor Dr. Velarde would give such an interpretation, as they were fully acquainted, not only with the letter but also with the spirit of the Clause, but he stated that men come and go and it was impossible to foresee who would give interpretation to the Clause when the time comes for its application. He felt, furthermore, that where in Clause "C" of the Supplementary Act the two Governments agree to " enter into a discussion of the situation created by the decision of the arbitrator, ' ' it might be assumed that the situation thus "created" is an entirely new one and that the declaratory words are intended to overcome such a presumption. He deemed it neces- sary therefore, in order to avoid subsequent contro- versies to include a declaratory statement that would remove all doubt from the situation and that his Government regarded such a declaratory statement as indispensable. Dr. Porras then stated that, in his opinion, the in- troduction of the declaratory words proposed by the Chilean Delegation would mean a transformation of the formula proposed by Secretary Hughes into some- thing that was not intended at the time that it was proposed and when it was accepted by the Peruvian Government. Dr. Porras emphasized the fact that he regarded the declaration proposed by the Chilean Delegation as unnecessary, because such declarations are superfluous where there is no change in the person or entity in occupation or possession. Furthermore, he regarded such declaration as derogatory to Peru and likely to wound national sensibilities. To this observation Sr. Aldunate made a brief re- ply, stating that there was no thought in proposing these additional words to change the formula proposed by Secretary Hughes, but simply to clarify the situ- ation so as to avoid subsequent controversies. 642 Secretary Hughes began by stating that he wished to congratulate both Delegations on the splendid prog- ress that had been made, and that it was exceed- ingly gratifying to find that they had reached agree- ment on all important points and that the point as to which there was disagreement at the present time was one of rather secondary importance. He deemed it a matter of very great moment that the final agree- ment when reached should not only express the actual understanding of the two Governments, but, also should be so worded as to avoid future differences and controversies ; that he had thought over the matter very carefully and felt that it should be clear that in case the arbitrator should decide against the holding of a plebiscite that Chile thereby acquired no new or additional rights. On the other hand, he deemed it important that, pending the settlement as to the final disposition of the territory, the administrative organ- ization of the provinces should not be disrupted and that, in the interest of peace and good order, it should be made clear that there would be no such disruption. It is evident, the Secretary said, that if the decision of the arbitrator should be against the holding of a plebiscite, then the procedure provided for in the Treaty for the final transferase of title can no longer be made operative. This fact, therefore, involves the necessity of negotiations in order to determine the final disposition of the territory. The Secretary then went on to say that he fully appreciated that both parties were somewhat appre- hensive as to the future. He could see that Chile was somewhat apprehensive lest Peru might say that Chile should relinquish all control of the provinces prior to the negotiations stipulated in the agreement, and, on the other hand, he could see that Peru was apprehen- 643 sive lest Chile should remain in possession for an in- definite, and possibly prolonged, period. He deemed it important, therefore, to avoid language which might give rise to embarrassing and irritating claims on either side, and to find a formula which would avoid contention. He was endeavoring to look at the question from the standpoint of both countries, with a view to suggesting something that might allay the apprehensions of both. He stated, furthermore, that he deemed it beyond his province to discuss where the statement which he was about to suggest was to appear, as that was a matter for the two Delegations to determine. In explaining the suggestion that he was about to make, the Secretary stated that he had placed at the beginning of the statement the reason for the sug- gestion in the form as submitted, namely, the in- troductory words: "In the interest of peace and good order.' ' Having done this, it is made clear that the adminis- trative organization of the provinces should not be disturbed pending an agreement as to the disposition of the territory. The complete suggestion, therefore, which he de- sired to submit for the consideration of the Delegates is as follows: "It is understood, in the interest of peace and good order, that in this event and pending an agreement as to the disposition of the territory, the administrative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed.' ' 644 Proceedings of the Chilean-Peruvian Conference Held in Washington, D. C. Dated on July 20, 1922. [Translation.] The Plenipotentiaries of Chile and Peru having again come together, to take into consideration the conciliatory principle suggested by the Secretary of State of the United States and already accepted by their respective Governments, agreed to formulate in the following terms the draft of arbitration protocol: PROTOCOL OF ARBITRATION. Assembled in Washington, D. C, pursuant to the in- vitation of the Government of the United States of America for the purpose of reaching a solution of the long standing controversy with respect to the unful- filled provisions of the Treaty of Peace of October ,20, 1883, the undersigned representatives of Peru and Chile, to wit : Don Carlos Aldunate and Don Luis Izquierdo, En- voys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary of Chile on Special Mission ; and Don Meliton F: Porras and Don Hernan Velarde, Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary of Peru on Special Mission; After exchanging their respective full powers, have agreed upon the following : Article 1. It is hereby recorded that the only diffi- culties arising out of the Treaty of Peace, regarding which the two countries have not been able to reach an agreement, are the questions arising out of the unful- filled stipulations of Article III of said Treaty. Article 2. The difficulties referred to in the pre- ceding article will be submitted to the arbitration of the President of the United States of America who 645 shall decide them without appeal after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the arguments and evidence which they may present. The times and the procedure shall be determined by the arbitrator. Article 3. The present Protocol shall be submitted for approval to the respective Governments and the ratifications shall be exchanged in Washington through the diplomatic representatives of Chile and Peru within the maximum period of three months. Signed and sealed in duplicate in Washington, D. C, the twentieth of July, One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-two. With regard to the notes which were to determine the scope of the stipulated arbitration, it was agreed that they should be substituted by a Supplementary Agreement which shall be regarded as an integral part of the Protocol. The Supplementary Agreement was formulated in the following terms : SUPPLEMENTARY ACT. . In order to determine with precision the scope of the arbitration provided for in Article 2 of the Pro- tocol signed on this date, the undersigned agree to place on record hereby the following points: First. The following question, raised by Peru at the session of the Conference held on May 27th last, is included in the arbitration: "For the purpose of determining the manner in which the stipulations of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon shall be fulfilled there shall be submitted to arbitration the question whether, in the present circumstances, the plebiscite shall or shall not be held. ' ' 646 The Government of Chile, on its part, may present to the arbitrator all the arguments that it may deem necessary to its case. Second, In case that it is decided that the plebi- scite shall be held, the arbitrator is empowered to de- termine the conditions under which it shall be held. Third. If the arbitrator should decide that the plebiscite shall not be held, both parties, at the re- quest of either of them, shall discuss the situation created by this decision. It is understood, in the interest of peace and of good order, that, in this event, and pending an agree- ment as to the disposition of the territory, the ad- ministrative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed. Fourth. The two Governments shall solicit, in case that they should not reach an agreement, the good offices of the Government of the United States of America, in order that an agreement may be reached. Fifth. The pending claims regarding Tarata and Chilcaya likewise are included in the arbitration, sub- ject to the determination of the final fate of the ter- ritory to which Article III of the said Treaty refers. This Act is an integral part of the Protocol to which it refers. Signed and sealed in duplicate in Washington, D. C, the Twentieth of July, One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-two. The Delegates of Chile declared that, in accordance with their instructions and because it was a question of matters having to do with the Treaty of Ancon — and such matters ought to be considered in the Con- ference in course, in order that no point concerning the Treaty might remain pending, — they felt obliged to call attention to the fact that the debt contracted 647 by the Peruvian Government in 1883 was not yet can- celled ; and that it was necessary to ratify and put into effect the Convention signed at Lima on April 5, 1897, for the purpose of organizing an arbitral tribunal charged with the settlement of the claims to which Article XII of the Treaty refers. The Delegates of Peru stated that their Govern- ment was disposed to ratify the Convention to which reference had been made, and to cancel the debt. They called attention, however, to the liquidation of the guano account of Lobos, ceded to Peru by Article X of the same Treaty, by reason whereof they felt that both debts should be simultaneously liquidated. The Chilean Delegates declared, for their part, that their Government would not have the slightest reason to refrain from liquidation of the guano business of which mention had been made. Senor Porras submitted the following proposition which could be incorporated in a special protocol: "The Contracting Parties agree to constitute a Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, to be presided over by an arbitrator nominated by the President of the United States of America, who shall be charged with the settlement by law of the pe- cuniary claims submitted to such tribunal by citi- zens of either country, for damages suffered to their persons or property, because of popular agi- tation occurring in Peru and in Chile since Jan- uary 1, 1910, in which agitation there has been discernible the responsibility of the respective authorities, as well as much damage attributable to the direct and unwarranted acts of these same authorities. ' 1 The Chilean Delegation declined to accept this prop- osition at once, declaring that this point lay outside the functions of the Conference, but agreeing, in ac- 648 cordance with instructions received from their Govern- ment, that the idea was acceptable, and would be given due consideration as soon as there were persons em- powered by both Governments to deal with the mat- ter. The negotiations with which the Conference was charged having thus happily terminated, the Dele- gates of Peru and Chile proceeded to sign the cor- responding documents and proceedings. Signed in duplicate in Washington, D. C, July 20, 1922. Caklos Aldunate, l. izquiekdo, Delegates Plenipotentiary of Chile, M. F. PoRRAS, Hern an Velarde, Delegates Plenipotentiary of Peru, Alejandro Alvarez, Counselor of the Chilean Delegation, Solon Polo, Counselor of the Peruvian Delegation, Jorje Silva, Luis E. Feliu H., Secretaries of the Chilean Delegation, G. N. Aramburu, J. A. DE BlTENAVISTA, Secretaries of the Peruvian Delegation. 649 Speech of the Minister of Foreign Relations of Chile, Delivered in the Session of the Senate, July 20, 1922. [Translation.] Se. Barros Jarpa (Minister of Foreign Rela- tions) — I propose, Mr. President, to perform the very pleasant duty — and this time I am greatly honored — of informing the Honorable Senate of the course which the Chilean-Peruvian Conferences at Washington have taken, and of the results, satisfactory for the interest and spirit of harmony, of the cooperation and cordial- ity which the policies of the present Government in- duced, which have been reached after diligent and slow deliberation. If I wanted to characterize, in one phrase, the foreign policy which it has been my duty to carry out for the Government, I would have to say that it has been the result of a profound love for the peace and harmony of the American Continent, and of a con- scious and firm trust in the legitimacy of our rights and in the justice of our cause in the old controversy which we are carrying on with the Republic of Peru. Aside from the elemental considerations which ob- ligated the Government of Chile to some day clear its international horizon, in order to give ample devel- opment to its moral and material progress during a time of peace; aside from the necessity of eliminating a factor which was being earned out cleverly by our adversaries and was undermining our international reputation, — causes of political significance, and in satisfaction of the national desire which has been clearly shown to favor the termination of the old liti- gation with Peru, influenced the Government of Chile to take the initiative with that countrv in direct ne- 650 gotiations which they could carry on with us, as rapid- ly as possible, until adjustment by an agreement which would be ample to insure peace in this part of South America. There has never been counted as being among the policies of this Government, that of letting the time pass quietly by without solving the difficulty which the third Clause of the Treaty of Ancon left pending. Passive action as opposed to the necessity of deciding* a question, which has been characteristic of some peri- ods of our administration, was not, in my judgment, the advisable attitude at these particular times in which, with the passing of the years, there was ap- parently growing up a real accumulation of problems which are rightly concentrated on this region of Tacna and Arica which remains without definite sovereignty. That which previously was the simple desire on the part of the different Governments of Peru to fulfill Clause III of the Treaty of Ancon, was being changed, without any other prior events than the mere passing of the time, into the desire to make ineffective this third Clause, — to make ineffective the entire Treaty; to revise the same, and to wholly recover Tarapaca and Tacna and Arica, without a plebiscite and without indemnity. That which previously was the simple desire of Bolivia to be able to freely carry on her commerce on the Pacific, which was amply provided for in the Treaty of 1904, without any other cause than the mere passing of time, was being changed, little by little, into an aspiration of Bolivia to a port of her own on our coast, and soon proclaiming the rights of the Ee- public of the Altiplano, to incorporate in her geo- graphical make-up the port of Arica. 651 Who can foretell how many more problems will later complicate the fulfillment of the Treaty of Ancon, if time is allowed to pass by, thereby constantly weaken- ing the distinctness of our rights ? When we began that which has been called the dip- lomatic offensive of December 12, 1921, we had little hope of securing reasonable terms for a direct solution of the dispute with the Government of Peru. A few days before we had received the last official publica- tion of the Chancellery of Peru, whose fundamental finding of the cardinal points appeared drawn up to- gether in these terms: "For the reasons contained in this explanation there is clearly and definitively shown: "First — That the Treaty of Peace signed by Peru and Chile on October 20, 1883, ought to be revised, and the province of Tarapaca uncondi- tionally returned to Peru. "Second — That the provinces of Tacna and Arica ought as well to be returned to Peru, with- out any plebiscite and without any kind of in- demnification or reward on her part. ' ' The question being looked upon in these terms in Lima, it is evident that there was little hope of coming to an understanding. During the diplomatic controversy of December of last year, the Peruvian proposition, although it was reduced to more reasonable conditions, was kept up in terms which still rendered any plan for an agree- ment difficult. In fact, the Minister of Foreign Relations, in his note of December 17th„ maintained that the plebiscite was now impossible and that it was necessary "to 652 jointly submit the entire question of the South-Pacific to arbitration. ' ' In his note of December 24th he held that we had violated almost all the provisions of the Treaty of Ancon, and he maintained that, in his opinion, the arbitration should take into account all of those violations. "As far as Peru is concerned,' ' says the note of the Minister of Foreign Relation, Sr. Salomon, of December 31, 1921, "It is not only the plebi- scite provided for in the Treaty of Peace of 1883 which Chile has failed to fulfill; and if the Gov- ernment of Your Excellency does not believe this to be true, the way to obtain an honorable and satisfactory solution is open by resorting to an arbitrator who may decide whether the Treaty has been violated or not and the manner in which such violations are to be remedied, as stated, in my communication of the 23d of this month." The negotiation having thus been deviated from our fundamental purpose, we found ourselves forced to discontinue our telegraphic discourse with the Govern- ment of Peru. Happily, the noble desire for peace which we had shown by this initiative was duly ap- preciated by the Government of the United States, which, exercising its good offices, invited Chile and Peru to begin negotiations for the purpose of solving their differences arising out of the unfulfilled pro- visions of the Treaty of Ancon. I must make it as clear as I am authorized to do that in the sessions of the Washington Conferences their acts cannot depart from a respect for the pro- visions of the Treaty of 1883. We accepted the invitation of the United States, and gave there, in the course of the months of deliberation 653 of the Conferences, all our best efforts for arriving at a solution. What is the first result of this agreement? It is that which is set forth in the first Article of the Protocol agreed to in Washington. As to the entire recovery of Tarapaca, Tacna and Arica, without a plebiscite or indemnity; as to the violation of almost all of the provisions of the Treaty; as to the submitting of the South-Pacific question to arbitration, we have arrived at a very simple formula which is contained in these terms: It is hereby recorded that the only difficulties arising out of the Treaty of Peace regarding which the two countries have not been able to reach an agreement, are the questions arising out of the unfulfilled stipulations of Article III of said Treaty. This fact alone should be sufficient to show that this negotiation has been very fortunate, in that it has been able to remove from the problem the complications which were brought in by political passion, the ir- ritation of hatred among the people, and the danger- ous attempts of some men to better their personal po- sitions, sounding the alarm, while boasting of patriot- ism, and proclaiming the humiliation of the opponent of war to be a necessity, without whose damage, in this last instance, it might be possible to restore all without this assistance. The negotiations in Washington continued, until the time when Peru made her proposal of the 27th of May, which reads as follows : " There would be submitted to the arbitrator as the essential point that is the subject of our 654 discussions the following: for the purpose of de- termining the manner in which the stipulations of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon shall be ful- filled there shall be submitted to arbitration the question whether, in the present circumstances, the plebiscite shall or shall not be held." If it is not to be held, to which country will be- long the final dominion of Tacna and Arica and under what conditions? If it is to be held, under what conditions shall the plebiscite take place? I This proposition was objected to immediately by our Delegation, because it expressly and clearly departed from the fulfillment of the Convention of 1883, which was the basis of the negotiations. In effect, the lack of legal foundation of the plebi- scite having been declared, an arbitrator would have to say to whom these territories belong and under what conditions, or that is, he, the arbitrator, who would be created as an authority superior to the Treaty having the right to declare one of its stipula- tions unenforceable, and also w T ould be authorized to apply it as he pleased. For our part, we consider that the third Article of the Treaty of Ancon contains three legal elements of fundamental order, which can exist separately. The first is that which gives Tacna and Arica to Chilean sovereignty — to Chilean legislation and authority as is stated in the Treaty. The second limits this sov- ereignty with a condition that a plebiscite shall decide whether those territories remain under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile, or go back to form a part of the Peruvian territory. And the third is that which fixes an indemnity of ten million silver soles in favor of that country which definitively loses her rights in those territories. 655 The plebiscite is a condition — it is the nature of con- ditions that they may or may not happen — but the fact that the condition fails, where it is a limitation to the dominion, does not have the force of wiping out the dominion; but rather, as in the case of a trust (as the French treaty writers called the plebiscites stipulated in the Treaty of Versailles), the fact that the condition fails completes the dominion in which it was contained. In this understanding, then, the Peruvian proposal of May 27th went outside the scope of action of the Conferences, in that it authorized an arbitrator to make disposition of the territories on terms which were different from those by which the Treaty had disposed of the same. This dead-lock having arisen in the negotiations, our Ambassador communicated the situation to the Secretary of State, and closed his communication by saying that : "the Embassy of Chile, in testifying to the fu- tility of the efforts of the Delegation of its coun- try to arrive at this agreement sought, renews in the name of its Government the purpose of accept- ing any formula for a settlement that will be in conformity with the fulfillment of the Treaty and with the terms of President Harding's invita- tion.' ' Forty-eight hours had not passed before the Secre- tary of State understood the Chilean point of view in these negotiations, when he called Sr. Mathieu in order to give him a proposal which, in his judgment, was drawn up in terms which would be acceptable to Chile. That proposition was the following: 656 "For the purpose of bringing about a solution of the long standing controversy between the two countries having to do' with the unfulfilled pro- visions of the Treaty of Ancon, they agree to sub- mit to arbitration the questions arising out of the unfulfilled stipulations of Article III." Mr. Hughes, besides, suggested an exchange of notes setting forth that the parties do not agree that the decision of the arbitrator, if it should hold the failure of a foundation for the plebiscite, would change the actual status of the territory under discussion, which would be independently determined by the parties in negotiations which they may later see fit to open. This proposition was presented to us after having been studied by our Ambassador and our Delegates in Washington, and accompanying its transmittal was their enthusiastic recommendation that it be uncon- ditionally accepted without delay. We looked upon the question in the same way as Messrs. Mathieu, Aldunate and Izquierdo, and im- mediately authorized them to give to the Secretary of State their approval with regard to the conditions of his proposal. Here we considered that, there having been elimi- nated the only point which placed the fate of Tacna and Arica in the hands of a foreign arbitrator, sub- mitting the popular referendum for the decision of a third party, and expressly recognizing the fact that the declaration of the lack of foundation for the plebi- scite did not alter the rights which, up to the present time, we have exercised in these territories, and which are given us by the Treaty, the proposition was ac- ceptable and thus it was accepted. The Government of Peru, as the Honorable Senate knows, after nineteen days of deliberation, and after 657 having attempted to change the Hughes proposal, with a view to later agreeing upon an obligatory authority which would decide questions that might remain un- settled if the failure of the plebiscite be declared, finally consented to accept the Hughes proposition, without reservation. In order to bring about this acceptance the Secretary of State, who had expressly declined to transmit the Peruvian hints which altered the terms of his pro- posal, sent to our Ambassador the hint that Chile might declare that it would accept the good offices of the United States, if there should be need for them in the later negotiations already referred to. When consulted by our representatives in Washing- ton in regard to this point, we made an immediate re- ply, saying that, by virtue of the third and sixth Ar- ticles of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, for the pacific settlement of international disputes, good offices were an institution of mere friendly advice, without any binding force, which proceeded with, yet did not settle them, and which might be exercised by the country that deemed it proper to offer them, and, consequently, that we could not defeat a proposition which satisfied us so well, by declining to accept a peaceful appeal of such unquestionable origin, for future negotiations of remote possibility. The Government knew that a situation of extraordi- nary importance to the country had been presented, and, even when it was confident that it had interpreted the national sentiment at all times, it deliberated with the most eminent and learned public men which the country has to rely on in regard to the report of the negotiations. There are many Senators who are listen- ing to me who, through the President of the Republic, with documents which they have seen, or through me, 658 are acquainted with, and approve, with patriotic satis- faction, of the state to which those negotiations have reached up to the present time. The agreement having been decided upon in princi- ple, with regard to the Hughes proposal, by the Peru- vian approval, and having in mind the fact that this proposal was not drafted in exact or definite terms, our Delegates asked authority to renew friendly confer- ences with the Peruvian Delegates and to agree to the definitive drawing up of the results agreed upon. A few days ago they sent me that compilation, which in their judgment was satisfactory to our interests and rights; but when embodying in the record of the session the principle which in our judgment, is funda- mental in the Hughes proposal, namely, that the plebi- scite having been declared by the arbitrator to be un- enforcible, the condition of our Government in those territories shall not be altered in any way, Mr. Porras said that it was not now necessary to include such a declaration because the silence of the Protocol took that as understood. We thought that it was absolutely essential that in the documents constituting the agree- ment, the express declaration of limiting the powers of the arbitrator should appear in case the plebiscite should be declared to be unenf orcible, instead of a mere declaration of principle on this point, so that he would not be empowered to assume the authority to supple- ment the Treaty and altering, in any way, the condi- tions under which we exercise dominion there, by vir- tue of the terms of the Pact of Ancon. The Government of Chile had reason to believe that this point had been and is the fundamental character- istic of the Hughes proposal ; so that it had no difficulty in giving authority to its Delegates, with the under- standing that the two parties appealed to the Depart- 659 ment of State for the purpose of asking the opinion of Mr. Hughes as to whether or not it was indispensible to record the idea to which the difficulty in question referred. Messrs. Porras and Aldunate having been called one day by the Secretary of State, in the presence of the Director of the Pan American Union, Mr. Leo S. Rowe, Mr. Hughes, who already was aware of the difference, through the memorandums submitted to him by both Delegations gave to them a verbal explanation of his point of view and concluded by submitting to them a proposal, which I take, together with the reasons, from the first telegram which was received from the Delegation on this point: ' * Second — In a meeting today in the office of the Secretary of State, at which Aldunate, Porras and Rowe were present, Hughes made a verbal expla- nation in which he indicated that his purpose was to propose a drawing up of terms which would avoid the two difficulties : (a) That the declaration of the unenforcibleness of the plebiscite might change the status of the territory, thereby damag- ing the interests of Chile ; and (b) That this decla- ration might be interpreted as a new title vested in Chile, damaging the interests of Peru. ' ' Third — The English text of the draft of terms proposed by Hughes literally reads as follows : 'It is understood, in the interest of peace and good order, that in this event and pending an agreement as to the disposition of the territory, the adminis- trative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed. ' "Fourth — The literal translation is this: 'Es entendido, en el interes de la paz y buen orden, que en este caso y pendiente un acuerdo acerca de la disposicion del territorio, la organizacion ad- ministrativa de las provincias no sera pertur- bada.' " 660 In a few moments the Honorable Senate, in secret session, will know the instructions which our Delegates had on these fundamental points. I had no doubt, knowing our Delegates as I do, and having appreciated the brilliant and diligent work which they have performed during the course of these negotiations, that the understanding as to the un- changeability of our rights in Tacna and Arica, in the event of the unenforcibleness of the plebiscite, al- though it appeared to be clearly included in the pro- posal, was to be guaranteed in satisfactory terms for the defense of our rights. Nevertheless, proceeding with the highest aims which I have had in this entire negotiation, I noticed the anxiety that had arisen in congressional circles where the last terms suggested by Mr. Hughes were deemed to detract from and lessen the rights which grew out of the Treaty of 1883 in favor of Chile. The Delegates' instructions in regard to this, I re- peat, were very explicit, and perhaps it was because of this that they did not especially refer to the point which has been the basis of all the negotiations, and which they could consider closed, in the telegram giv- ing me an account of this suggestion. Nevertheless, to satisfy the desires expressed by my honored friend, Senator Rivera, I immediately sent a telegram to the Delegates informing them of the anxiety which existed in the Chilean Congress in regard to this last proposal, and telling them that if the principal idea of the nego- tiations had not been well established, they should re- frain from signing it. Under date of yesterday, in view of the anxiety which had arisen here because of the defect in the re- port of the Delegates, they supplied the deficiency and stated the reasons, which are perfectly conformable 661 with our policies, which Sr. Aldunate had had for ex- pressly and immediately accepting the proposal sug- gested by the Secretary of State. It is because of this that, day before yesterday hav- ing sent the Delegates a telegram to the effect that they should refrain from signing if the point as to the un- changeability of our rights in Tacna and Arica, in the event that the plebiscite should be declared to be un- founded by law, was not perfectly clear, and then yes- terday, after receiving the report from the Delegates which left me entirely satisfied on this point, I imme- diately sent them instructions to sign the Protocol and the Record of Proceedings. Last night and today I have been receiving reports from the Delegates which authorize me to confirm, be- fore the Honorable Senate, and before the country, that the acceptance of the last suggestion of Mr. Hughes has been on the basis that our rights in Tacna and Arica shall be the same as they are today by virtue of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, after the plebi- scite is declared to be unfounded by law, if such event should happen, all of which is duly set forth in several documents, fully asserting it. It is essential for me to state, in order that the range of the last proposal may be fully appreciated, that the word "administration" in English has a much broader meaning than the word " administracion " in frequent use in our public law. "Administration" says the Standard Dictionary of 1901, "is the Government which exists at a certain time ; it is the power or party which conducts the Government of the country." Unfortunately the people who oppose this idea in the proposal with energy and patriotism, which would be more suited to other occasions, seem to think that the administration which is referred to is nothing more or less than the manager of a farm. 662 In order to preserve in its full meaning the intention of Mr. Hughes in making his proposal, it has been es- tablished that it shall be set forth in the Record in English and Spanish. Another very scattered idea that has misrepresented the scope of the pact is the belief that the proposal sug- gested by Mr. Hughes limits our sovereignty over Tacna and Arica, forgetting and ignoring that said proposal has been drawn up to meet the needs of our country and to exclusively limit the powers of the arbitrator in order to prevent him from being able to deem himself authorized at any time to touch this right which the Treaty of Ancon gives us, and which we have not, at any time, intended to subject to foreign decisions. So the principal aim of the attacks on the Protocol and the Complementary Eecord of Proceedings were directed toward condemning a proposal whose range has been clearly fixed in official documents, and were united against the efforts of the Peruvian Delegation, which has strenuously opposed them, to limit the scope of action open to the arbitrator in case he is inclined to declare that the plebiscite can not now take place, which in our opinion is unlikely. The position reached in these negotiations having thus been explained, it seems clear to me that the un- just and strenuous attacks which are detrimental to our patriotic plan for bringing about peace in the coun- try should be stopped. In order to condense in two phrases the possibilities of the Hughes proposal, I should say that it has only two aspects: either the arbitrator will declare that the plebiscite will be carried out and fix the condi- tions to which the referendum shall be subject, in which event our thesis will have succeeded to a great degree ; 663 or else the arbitrator will declare that the plebiscite is no longer the solution and, at that time, resting on the full rights emanating from the Treaty in our favor, we shall discuss with the Government of Peru, in the best spirit, another solution to end the dispute. Today we are the sovereigns in Tacna and Arica and our sovereignty is limited by one condition: — the plebiscite. If it is declared that it shall not be carried out we will continue sovereign as we are today in Tacna and Arica with no duty other than to discuss with Peru the means of putting an end to the conflict of interests and, when the two parties deem it proper, to seek the good offices of the United States, good offices which have a mere advisory character, the ad- vice of which there is no obligation to accept, and we may be sure that this advice, because it comes from the United States, will always be considerate of our rights. This is, Mr. President, the most complete informa- tion that I can give to the Congress and to the country on the status of the negotiations and on the scope of the agreement reached. The Government believes that it has performed a patriotic service by lending all its efforts toward a so- lution of the old problem which has dragged along for forty years, disturbing the entire political situation on the American Continent. It believes that it has ren- dered a special patriotic service to the country in that it has been able to arrange an agreement which opens up the possibility of establishing peace and mutual co- operation between the two countries whose needs are ordered to be supplied. And as for me, being confident that a solution of the problem to which I have devoted a great deal of study, has been reached, which is more suitable and less burdensome than almost all the other agreements at- 664: tempted heretofore, I only congratulate myself heartily for having had the honor of participating and co- operating in this very fortunate period of the Govern- ment of the Republic. I fully respect the patriotic motives which doubtless inspire the men who at this time oppose the policy of the Government. I know that the present time is a test, and I feel that there is profound bitterness and hostil- ity toward me, but I must state that when I undertook this task I knew very well that in the end I could not hope for the roses and laurels of a conqueror, because history has taught me that those who labor silently for peace in time of peace never receive the kind regard of the people who praise those who proclaim the declara- tion of war, and revive quarrelsome characteristics of the primitive races. If I had longed for cheap popularity, and if I had wished to betray my country, spoiling, at the eleventh hour the opportunity for making a suitable settlement, it would have been sufficient for me to assume a con- temptuous attitude and to angrily break up the confer- ences. But, Mr. President, I have demanded of my youth the renouncement of cheap and easy popularity, and the results which are loudly proclaimed but trans- ient, and I only trust that God w^ll give me in the future the appreciation for having served my country loyally and unselfishly, which is today denied me. In order to go deeper into some phases of this ques- tion and to show the Honorable Senate some preceding events which explain and affirm the ideas I have had the honor to set forth, I wish to resort to the power which the Constitution gives me in asking that the Senate resolve itself into a secret session. Sr. Claro Solar (President) — Conformable with the Minister's request, the Senate will proceed in secret session at two o'clock. TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, ETC. 667 Treaty Between Chile and Bolivia, August 10, 1866. [Translation.] The Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bolivia, desirous of bringing to a friendly and mutually satis- factory termination, the old question pending between them as to the settlement of their respective territorial limits in the desert of Atacama, and as to the working of the guano deposits on the coast of that desert, and resolved by this means to consolidate the good under- standing, brotherly friendship, and the bonds of inti- mate alliance by which they are mutually united, have determined to renounce a part of the territorial rights which each, with good reason, believed themselves to possess, and they have agreed to conclude a treaty, which shall finally and irrevocably settle the aforesaid question. For that purpose they have appointed their respec- tive Plenipotentiaries, viz : His Excellency the President of Chile, Sehor Don Alvaro Covarrubias, Minister of State of the Republic for Foreign Affairs. His Excellency the President of the Republic of Bolivia, Senor Don Juan Ramon Muiioz Cabrera, En- voy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile. Which Plenipotentiaries, after having mutually ex- changed their full powers and found them in due and proper form, have agreed upon and stipulated the fol- lowing articles: Article I. The line of demarcation of the limits be- tween Chile and Bolivia, in the desert of Atacama, shall henceforth be the parallel of 24° south latitude, from the coast of the Pacific to the eastern limits of Chile, so that Chile to the south and Bolivia to the north shall 668 have possession and dominion of the territories which extend to the before-mentioned parallel of 24°, exer- cising in them all the acts of jurisdiction and sover- eignty which belong to the lord of the soil. The exact settlement of the line of demarcation be- tween two countries shall be effected by a commission of apt and skillful persons, one-half of the members to be appointed by each of the high contracting parties. When the divisional line is fixed the ground shall be marked by visible and permanent signs, which shall be paid for jointly by the Governments of Chile and Bolivia. Article II. Notwithstanding the territorial division stipulated in the foregoing article, the Republic of Chile and the Eepublic of Bolivia shall divide equally the produce of the guano deposits discovered in Meji- llones, and any other deposits of the same kind which may be discovered in the territory comprehended with- in the 23rd and 25th degrees of south latitude, as also the export duties upon minerals exported from the space of territory now designated. Article III. The Republic of Bolivia undertakes to qualify the bay and port of Mejillones, and to establish a custom-house with the number of officials which the development of industry and commerce may require. This custom-house shall be the only fiscal office which can collect the produce of the guano and the duties of exportation upon the metals of which the foregoing article treats. The Government of Chile may appoint one or more fiscal officers, who being invested with a perfect right of supervision, may intervene in the accounts of the revenue of the aforesaid custom-house at Mejillones, and receive from that office, directly, and quarterly, or in the manner which both Governments may stipulate, 669 the part of the profit belonging to Chile, to which Ar- ticle II refers. The Government of Bolivia shall enjoy the same right, should Chile, for the purpose of collect- ing the produce set forth in the foregoing Article, establish a fiscal office in the territory comprehended between the 24th and 25th degrees. Aeticle IV. All produce of the territory compre- hended between the 24th and 25th degrees of south lati- tude, which may be shipped at the port of Mejillones, shall be free of every export duty. The natural produce of Chile which may be imported through the port of Mejillones shall be free of every import duty. Aeticle V. *The system of working or sale of the guano and the duties upon raising the minerals men- tioned in Article II of this Treaty shall be mutually fixed by the high contracting parties, either by means of special conventions, or in the form which they may deem most convenient and fitting. Aeticle VI. The contracting Kepublics bind them- selves not to sell or transfer their rights to the posses- sion or dominion of the territory which is divided be- tween them, in virtue of this Treaty, to any other state, or to any company or private individual. In case either of them should desire to make such a sale the purchaser can only be the other contracting party. Aeticle VII. Taking into consideration the losses which the question of limits has entailed, as is notori- ous, upon the individuals who, in company, were the first to work seriously the guano fields of Mejillones, and whose works were suspended by order of the Chilean authorities, of February 17, 1863, the high contracting parties undertake to give in equity to the said individuals an indemnity of 80,000 dollars, pay- 670 able by 10 per cent upon the net proceeds of the Mejil- lones custom-hpuse. Article VIII. The present treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications exchanged in the city of La Paz or in that of Santiago, within the period of 40 days, or sooner if possible. In witness whereof the undersigned Plenipotenti- aries of the Eepublic of Chile and of the Republic of Bolivia, have signed and sealed the present Treaty, in Santiago the 10th of August, in the year of our Lord 1866. Alvako Covarrubias J. Ramon Munoz Cabrera. Secret Treaty Between Bolivia and Peru, February 6, 1873. [Translation.] The Republics of Bolivia and Peru, desirous of drawing together in a solemn manner the bonds which unite them, thus augmenting their strength and mutu- ally guaranteeing certain rights, formulate the present Treaty of defensive alliance; for which object the President of Bolivia has conferred power adequate for such a negotiation to Juan de la Cruz Benavente, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Peru, and the President of Peru has conferred like powers to Jose de la Riva-Agiiero; who have agreed on the following stipulations : Article I. The high contracting parties unite and league together mutually to guarantee their indepen- dence, their sovereignty and the integrity of their terri- tories respectively, obligating themselves by the terms of the present treaty to defend themselves against all foreign aggression, whether emanating from one or 671 several independent states or from a force without flag and obeying no recognized power. Article II. The alliance will be made effective to preserve the rights expressed in the preceding article and especially in the cases of offense which follow : 1. In acts directed to deprive either of the high con- tracting parties of a portion of its territory with the aim of appropriating its dominion or of ceding it to another power. 2. In acts directed to submit either of the high con- tracting parties to a protectorate, sale or cession of territory, or establishing over it any supremacy, right or preeminence which diminishes or offends the ample and complete exercise of its sovereignty and indepen- dence. 3. In acts directed to annul or to vary the form of government, the political Constitution or the laws which the high contracting parties have given or shall give themselves in exercise of their respective sover- eignties. Article III. Both contracting parties, recognizing that every legitimate act of alliance is based on jus- tice, establish for each one of them, respectively, the right to decide whether the offense received by the other is comprehended in the definition "of the fore- going article. Article IV. A "casus foederis" having been de- clared, the high contracting parties promise immedi- ately to sever their relations with the offending state, to hand passports to her diplomatic ministers, to can- cel the patents of the consular agents, to prohibit the importation of her natural or industrial products and to close their ports to her ships. Article V. The same parties will likewise name plenipotentiaries to adjust, by protocol, the precise ar-^ rangements determining the subsidies, the contingents 672 of land and sea forces, or assistance of whatever class which should accrue to the attacked or offended Re- public : to the manner in which these forces shall oper- ate and the aid to be lent and all measures which tend to the success of the defense. The meeting of the plenipotentiaries will be effected in a place decided upon by the offended party. Article VI. The high contracting parties bind them- selves to give to the offended or attacked party the means of defense which each one of them considers disposable, in any case considered urgent, even though the arrangements prescribed in the preceding article have not been already effected. Article VII. The "casus foederis" having been de- clared, the party offended shall not celebrate any peace agreement, truce or armistice without the concurrence of the ally which has, in such instance, taken part in the war. Article VIII. The high contracting parties further bind themselves : 1. To employ, preferably, whenever possible, all means of conciliation to avoid a rupture or to termi- nate the war, even if the rupture has taken place, con- sidering between these means, as most effective, the arbitration of a third power. 2. To neither concede to, nor accept from, any na- tion or government, protectorate or supremacy which diminishes their independence or sovereignty, nor to cede nor lease in favor of any nation or government any part of their territory save in the cases of better definition of boundaries. 3. Not to conclude boundary treaties or other terri- torial agreements without previous knowledge of the other contracting party. 673 Article IX. The stipulations of the present treaty do not extend to acts committed by political parties or resulting from internal commotions independent of the intervention of foreign governments, since the present Treaty of Alliance, having for its principal ob- ject the reciprocal guarantee of the sovereign rights of both nations, none of its clauses should be interpreted in opposition to its primary intention. Article X. The high contracting parties shall so- licit together or separately, when they so declare by a later protocol, the adhesion of another or other American States to the present Treaty of defensive al- liance. Article XI. The present Treaty will be exchanged in Lima or in La Paz, as soon as it is rendered constitu- tionally effective and will be in full effectiveness twenty days after the exchange. Its duration will be indefinite, each of the parties reserving the right of terminating it when considered desirable. In such case the party will notify its resolution to the other party and the Treaty will be annulled in four months counting from the date of notification. In faith of which the respective Plenipotentiaries sign it in duplicate and seal it with their private seals. Effected in Lima, the sixth day of February of One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy-three. Juan de la Cruz Benavente. — J. de la Eiva-Aguero. Additional Article. The present Treaty of de- fensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru shall be secret until the two high contracting parties by com- mon accord consider its publication necessary. Juan de la Cruz Benavente. — J. de la Rtva-Aguero. 674 Treaty Between Chile and Bolivia, August 6, 1874. [Translation.] The Republics of Bolivia and of Chile, being equally desirous of consolidating their mutual and good re- lations and of putting aside, by means of solemn and friendly pacts, all the causes that might tend to lessen or obstruct them, have determined to celebrate a new boundary treaty that, modifying the one celebrated in the year 1866, will assure, in the future, to the citizens and Governments of both Republics the peace and harmony necessary to their freedom and progress. To that effect they have appointed and constituted as their Plenipotentiaries, the Government of Bolivia, Sr. Mariano Baptista, and the Republic of Chile, Don Carlos Walker Martinez, who, after having shown their full powers and authority, and having found them in due and correct form, have agreed on the fol- lowing articles: Article I. The parallel of the 24th degree from the ocean to the Cordillera of the Andes, in the divortiu aquarum, is the boundary between the Republics of Bolivia and Chile. Article II. For the effects of this Treaty the lines of the parallels 23 and 24, established by Commissioner Pissis and Mujia, and to which the acts of the proceed- ings of February 10th, 1870, bear testimony, shall be considered as holding and subsisting. Should there arise any doubts as to the true and exact location of the Caracoles mining district, or of any other mineral-bearing land, and it is thought that they are outside of the zone enclosed between both parallels, their exact ubication shall be determined by a commission of two experts, each contracting party appointing one, with power to appoint a third to act 675 as umpire, and in the event that they should not be able to agree upon the umpire, this appointment shall be left to the decision of H. M. the Emperor of Brazil. Until it shall be proved to be otherwise, it shall ]be understood, as it is at present, that this mineral dis- trict lies within the aforesaid parallels. Article III. The deposits of guano which now exist, or which may be discovered in the future, within the limits mentioned in the preceding article, shall be divided in moiety between Bolivia and Chile; the Governments of the two Republics shall agree by mutual consent on the method of working, adminis- trating and selling the guano, adopting the manner and form hitherto employed. Article IV. The export duties to be levied on the minerals mined within the zone mentioned in the pre- ceding articles shall not exceed those which are in force at the present time; and the Chilean capital, their persons and their industries, shall not be subject to any other taxes of whatsoever kind than at present exist. The conditions expressed in this article shall be binding for a term of twenty-five years. Article. V. The Chilean natural products which may be imported through the Bolivia littoral, com- prised within parallels 23 and 24, shall be free and exempt from the payment of any duty; and as reciprocity the natural products of Bolivia shall en- joy the same privilege on entering the Chilean lit- toral comprised within the parallels of 24 and 25. Article VI. The Republic of Bolivia binds herself to open and establish Mejillones and Antofagasta as permanent ports of the Bolivian littoral. Article VII. From this date the Treaty of August 10th, 1866, is abrogated in all its parts. 676 Aeticle VIII. The present Treaty shall be ratified by each of the contracting Republics, and the ratifi- cation exchanged at the city of Sucre within a term of three months. In proof of which the undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Republics of Bolivia and Chile, have signed the present protocol and sealed it with their respective seals, at Sucre, the sixth day of the month of August, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand, Eight Hun- dred and Seventy-Four. Maeiano Baptista. Carlos Walkee Martinez. Supplementary Protocol of the Chilecm-Bolivian Treaty of 1874, July 21, 1875. [Translation.] The Plenipotentiaries of the Republics of Bolivia and of Chile, Don Mariano Baptista and Don Carlos Wal- ker Martinez, duly authorized by their respective Governments, agree to the following articles, which will be considered as an integral part of the Treaty of Sucre of the 6th of August, 1874. Article 1. It is declared that the meaning that should be given to the common exploitation of guano already discovered and that may be discovered, mentioned in Article III of the Treaty of the 6th of August, refers to the territory comprised between parallels 23 and 25 of latitude south. Aeticle 2. All the questions arising from the inter- pretation and application of the Treaty of the 6th of August, 1874, must be submitted to arbitration. 677 Article 3. The present Treaty shall be ratified with- in the shortest period possible and the ratifications to be exchanged in any city of Bolivia. In proof of which the undersigned, Plenipotenti- aries of the Eepublics of Bolivia and Chile, have signed the present protocol and affixed their seals in La Paz, on the twenty-first day of the month of July, the year of our Lord, One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy-five. (Seal) Mariano Baptista, (Seal) C. Walker Martinez. Treaty Between Chile and Peru, October 20, 1883. [Translation.] The Republic of Chile on the one part and the Re- public of Peru on the other being desirous of rein- stating relations of friendship between the two coun- tries, have resolved upon celebrating a treaty of peace and friendship and for the purpose have named and deputed as their plenipotentiaries the following: His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chile appoints Don Jovino Novoa, and His Excellency the President of the Republic of Peru, Don Jose An- tonio Lavalle, Minister of Foreign Relations and Don Mariano Castro Zaldivar, who, after communicating their credentials and having found them to be in proper and due form, have agreed to the following articles : Article I. The relations of peace and friendship be- tween the Republics of Chile and Peru to be reestab- lished. Article 2. The Republic of Peru cedes to the Re- public of Chili in perpetuity and unconditionally the 678 territory of the littoral province of Tarapaca, the boundaries of which are, on the north the ravine and River Loa, on the east the Republic of Bolivia and on the west the Pacific Ocean. Article 3. The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arioa, bounded on the north by the River Sama from its source in the Cordilleras on the frontier of Bolivia to its mouth at the sea, on the south by the ravine and River Camarones, on the east by the Re- public of Bolivia, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean, shall continue in the possession of Chile subject to Chilean laws and authority during a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date of the ratification of the present treaty of peace. After the expiration of that term a plebiscitum will decide by popular vote whether the territories of the above mentioned provinces will remain definitely un- der the dominion and sovereignty of Chile or continue to form part of Peru. Either of the two countries to which the provinces of Tacna and Arica may remain annexed, will pay to the other ten millions of Chile silver dollars or Peruvian soles of the same weight and fineness. A special protocol, which will be considered as an integral portion of the present treaty will prescribe the manner in which the plebiscitum is to be carried out, and the terms and time for the payment of the ten millions by the nation which may remain in pos- session of the provinces of Tacna and Arica. Article 4. In compliance with the stipulations of the supreme decree of February 9, 1882, by which the G-overnment of Chile ordered the sale of one million tons of guano, the net proceeds of which, after deduc- ting the expenses and other disbursements, as referred to in article 13 of said decree, to be divided in 679 equal parts between the Government of Chile and those creditors of Peru whose claims appear to be guar- anteed by lien on the guano. After the sale of the million tons of guano has been effected, referred to in the previous paragraph, the Government of Chile will continue paying over to the Peruvian creditors 50 per cent of the net proceeds of guano, as stipulated in the above mentioned Article 13, until the extinc- tion of the debt or the exhaustion of the deposits now being worked. The proceeds of deposits or beds that may be here- after discovered in the territories that have been ceded will belong exclusively to Chile. Article 5. If, in the territories that remain in pos- session of Peru, there should be discovered beds or de- posits of guano, in order to avoid competition in the sale of the article by the Governments of Chile and Peru, the two Governments, by mutual agreement, will first determine the proportion and conditions to which each of them binds itself in the disposal of the said fertilizer. The stipulations in the preceding paragraph will also be binding in regard to the existing guano now known and which may remain over in the Lobos Islands when the time comes for delivering up these islands to the Government of Peru, in conformity with the terms of the ninth article of the present treaty. Article 6. The Peruvian creditors, to whom may be awarded the proceeds stipulated in Article 4, must sub- mit themselves, in proving their titles and in other procedures, to the regulations stated in the supreme decree of February 9, 1882. Article 7. The obligation which the Government of Chile accepts, in accordance with the fourth article, 680 to deliver over 50 per cent of the net proceeds of guano from the deposits now actually being worked, will be carried out whether the work be done by virtue of the existing contract for the sale of one million tons or through any other contract, or on account of the Government of Chile. Article 8. Beyond the stipulations contained in the preceding articles, and the obligations that the Chilean Government has voluntarily accepted in the supreme decree of March 28, 1882, which relates to the saltpeter works in Tarapaca, the said Government of Chile will recognize no debts, whatever their nature or source, that may affect the new territories acquired by virtue of this treaty. Article 9. The Lobos Islands will remain under the administration of the Government of Chile until the completion of the excavation from existing deposits of the million tons of guano, in conformity with articles 4 and 7. After this they will be returned to Peru. Article 10. The Government of Chile declares that it will cede to Peru, to commence from the date of the constitutional ratification and exchange of the present Treaty, the fifty per centum pertaining to Chile from the proceeds of the guano of the Lobos Islands. Article 11. Pending a special treaty to be entered upon mercantile relations shall be maintained on the same footing as before the 5th of April, 1879. Article 12. Indemnities due by Peru to Chileans, who may have suffered damages on account of the war, will be adjudged by a tribunal of arbitration or mixed international commission, to be appointed immediately after the ratification of the present treaty in the man- ner established by conventions recently adjusted be- tween Chile and the Governments of England, France, and Italy. 681 Article 13. The contracting Governments recognize and accept the validity of all administrative and ju- dicial acts during the occupation of Peru arising from the martial jurisdiction exercised by the Government of Chile. Article 14. The present treaty to be ratified and the ratifications exchanged in the city of Lima, so soon as possible during a period not exceeding one hundred and sixty days, to be reckoned from this date. In testimony whereof the several plenipotentiaries have signed this in duplicate and affixed their private seals. Done in Lima the 20th day of October, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty- three. Jovino Novoa J. A. De Lavalle Mariano Castro Zaldivar Chile-Bolivia Truce Agreement, April 4, 1884. [Translation.] Until an opportunity occurs for celebrating a definite Treaty of Peace between the Republics of Chile and Bolivia, the two countries, duly represented, the first by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, don Aniceto Ver- gara Albano, and the second by Sefiores don Belisario Salinas and don Belisario Beoto, have agreed to enter into a covenant for a truce on the following bases : Article I. The Republics of Chile and Bolivia hereby celebrate an indefinite truce, and, in consequence, the state of war is declared terminated, and cannot be re- 682 newed without one year's notice, at least, of a wish to resume hostilities being given by either of the con- tracting parties. Notice in that case shall either be given directly or through the diplomatic representative of a friendly nation. Article II. Whilst the truce remains in force the Re- public of Chile shall continue to govern politically and administratively, according to Chilean law, the terri- tories situated between the 23rd parallel of latitude and the mouth of the River Loa, on the Pacific; the eastern boundary of this territory is a straight line leaving Solapegui from its intersection with the bound- ary of the Argentine Republic to the volcano Lican- caur ; from thence to the summit of the extinct volcano Cobana ; from this point by a straight line to the most southerly whirlpool in the Lake Ascotan ; from thence a straight line drawn across the said lake to the volcano Ollagua. From this point another straight line to the volcano Tua, and falling into the present boundary line between the department of Tarapaca and Bolivia. In case of difficulties arising, the two parties shall name a commission of engineers to fix the limits in accordance with the points here laid down. Article III. Chilean property sequestrated by de- crees of the Bolivian Government, or by acts emanat- ing from the civil or military authorities, shall be at once restored to its owners or to representatives duly empowered by them. Such proceeds of the said prop- erty as may have been received by the Bolivian Gov- ernment, and of which sufficient documentary evidence is given, shall also be repaid. Indemnity for injuries received by Chilean subjects in the above manner, or by the destruction of their property, shall be subject for negotiation between the Bolivian Government and the parties interested. 683 Article IV. In the event of disagreement between the Government of Bolivia and the parties interested as to the amount of indemnity or the mode of payment, the disputed points shall be submitted to the arbitra- tion of a commission composed of one member named by Chile, another by Bolivia, and a third chosen by mutual agreement in Chile from among the neutral representatives accredited to that country. This ap- pointment shall be made with the least possible delay. Article V. Commercial relations are reestablished between Chile and Bolivia. From henceforth Chilean produce and articles manufactured from the same shall be admitted into Bolivia duty free; and Bolivian pro- duce of the same class, or manufactured in the same way, shall enjoy the same privileges as regards import and export duties through Chilean ports. The commercial privileges accorded to Chilean and Bolivian manufactured goods, as also the enumeration of the said articles, shall form the subject of a special protocol. Foreign merchandise on which duty has been paid will be admitted at Arica on the same conditions as foreign merchandise for Bolivia arriving direct at that port. Foreign merchandise for Bolivia will be permitted free transit through Antofagasta without prejudice to whatever steps Chile may consider necessary to take to prevent contraband trade. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, Chile and Bolivia shall enjoy all advantages and commercial privileges that either may accord to the most favored nation. Article VI. Foreign merchandise landed at the port of Arica and destined for consumption in Bolivia shall pay duty according to Chilean tariff, without further duty being charged thereon in the interior. The re- 684 ceipts of the custom-house at that port will be appor- tioned as follows : 25 per cent shall be apportioned to the service of the Chilean custom-house for clearance of merchandise for consumption in Tacna and Arica, and 75 per cent to Bolivia. This 75 per cent shall then be divided as follows : The Chilean administration will retain 40 per cent to provide for the payments which may be due by Bolivia on account of the pro- visions of Article III of this Agreement, and of the bal- ance of the loan raised by Bolivia in Chile in 1867, and the rest shall be handed over to the Government of Bolivia in current money or bills to their order. The loan shall be dealt with, as regards its liquidation and payment, in the same manner as the war indemnities. The Bolivian Government may, at their pleasure, in- spect the accounts of the custom-house at Arica through its custom-house agents. The indemnities referred to in Article III having been paid, and the motive having ceased for the reten- tion of the 40 per cent aforesaid, Bolivia may reestab- lish custom-houses at her convenience on her own ter- ritory. In this case, merchandise will be permitted free transit through Arica. Article VII. Any action of the subordinate authori- ties of one or other country calculated to alter the situation established by the present Agreement of Truce, especially as regards the limits of the territory in occupation of Chile, shall be reprimanded and pun- ished by the respective Governments either on .their own account or at the request of those concerned. Article VIII. As the object of the contracting par- ties in celebrating this Agreement of Truce is to pre- pare and facilitate the settlement of a solid and lasting peace between the two Republics, they reciprocally engage to prosecute such measures as shall conduce to that end. 685 This Agreement shall be ratified by the Government of Bolivia within forty days, and the ratifications ex- changed at Santiago during the month of June next. In faith of which the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile and the Plenipotentiaries of Bolivia, who ex- hibited their respective full powers, signed in duplicate the present Treaty of Truce in Valparaiso, the 4th day of April, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty-Four. Vergaka Alb an o, Belisario Salinas, Belisarjo Boeto. Treaty Between Bolivia a/nd Peru, September 23 , 1902. [Translation.] The Government of the Republic of Peru and of the Republic of Bolivia, having in view the solution by peaceful and friendly means of the controversy as to limits now pending between both countries, have agreed to define and fix the divisionary line, and have appointed for this purpose the Plenipotentiaries, viz: His Excellency the President of Peru has appointed Dr. Felipe de Osma its Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Government of Bo- livia. His Excellency the President of the Republic of Bolivia has appointed Dr. Eliodoro Villazon, the Min- ister of Foreign Affairs. These parties, after exhibiting their full powers and finding them to be in due form, have agreed to the fol- lowing articles : 686 Article 1. The two high contracting parties agree to proceed to the demarcation of the frontier, from the point of intersection between this and the boundary of the territories occupied by Chile, in accordance with the third Clause of the Treaty of Peace of 1883, on the west, and as far as the snow fields of Palomani on the east, it being understood that in this region the termi- nating point of the divisionary line is to be fixed in accordance with the surveys and indications of the commission of limits. The settlement of the question as to the remainder of the frontier is reserved for another special convention. Article 2. The high contracting parties likewise agree to proceed, in accordance with the conditions of the present treaty, to the demarcation of the line which separates the Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica from the Bolivian province of Carangas, im- mediately after the said provinces are once more under the sovereignty of Peru. Article 3. The frontier pointed out in the first Ar- ticle shall be surveyed by a mixed demarcation com- mission, composed, on each side, of a national commis- sion capable of examining and appreciating the titles relating to the limits, a chief geographical engineer, an assistant engineer, a secretary, and the necessary auxiliary staff. These commissions shall be duly con- stituted and shall commence their labors as soon as the interchange of ratifications has taken place. Article 4. The surveys shall comprise at least a league in extent on each side of the limit now recog- nized, and as regards the points about which there ex- ists dispute they shall include the whole of the dis- puted territory, with its irregularities and topographi- cal details. 687 Article 5. The mixed commission shall make plans, dividing them into numbered sections, and shall set down in them the irregularities of the grounds, the limits more or less recognized at the present time, and the advances or limits claimed by the commissioners of each nation. Having come to an agreement, it shall proceed to the demarcation and placing of landmarks on the divisionary line, and while ordering them to be placed in their proper position, shall draw up a document setting forth the facts and also the number of landmarks. Should there be any disagreement, each commission will mark on a plan the limit which ought to be fixed, according to its judgment, and will accompany the same with a concise memorandum, stating what are the titles and which are the reasons. Article 6. The plans or maps shall be submitted to the examination and approval of the respective Gov- ernments, and by means of a general protocol, or other partial ones, the definite divisionary line of both na- tions shall be fixed, and on the said line shall be set up the landmarks, their respective localities being duly set forth in as many minutes of the proceedings as may be necessary. Article 7. If the high contracting parties should be unable to resolve between themselves the cases which may arise of disagreement between the respective com- missions, they shall submit the same to arbitration. Article 8. The detailed instructions for the commis- sions to commence their labors shall be agreed upon in due time, by means of a special protocol, and they shall be handed to the respective commissions, which, for this purpose, shall have assembled in the city of La Paz or in that of Puno. In witness whereof the undersigned have set their hand and seal to the present treaty, drawn up in dupli- 688 cate, in the city of La Paz, on the 23d day of Septem- ber, 1902. Felipe De Osma. Eliodoro Villazojn. Treaty Between Chile and Bolivia, and Convention for the Construction and Operation of a Railroad from Arica to La Paz, October 20, 1904. Jerman Riesco, President of the Republic of Chile, inasmuch as a Treaty of Peace and Friendship, with a Supplementary Protocol thereto, was negotiated, con- cluded, and signed on October 20, 1904, between the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bolivia, through their duly authorized Plenipotentiaries, the Treaty reading as follows : In pursuance of the purpose expressed in Article 8 of the truce agreement of April 4, 1884, the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bolivia have agreed to celebrate a Treaty of Peace and Friendship, and to that end have named and constituted as their Plenipoten- tiaries, respectively; His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chile, Don Emilio Bello Codecido, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and His Excellency the President of the Republic of Bolivia, Don Alberto Gutierrez, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- potentiary of Bolivia in Chile, who, having exchanged their full powers and having found them in good and due form, have agreed on the following: Article 1. The relations of peace and friendship be- tween the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bo- livia are reestablished, the status established by the truce agreement being thereby terminated. 689 Article 2. By the present treaty the territory oc- cupied by Chile by virtue of Article 2 of the truce agreement of April 4, 1884, is recognized as belonging absolutely and in perpetuity to Chile. The north and south boundary between Chile and Bolivia shall be that here indicated: From the highest point of Zalpaleri Hill (1) in a straight line to the highest point of the ridge jutting out toward the south from Guayaques Hill, in latitude (approximate) 22° 54'; hence a straight line to the pass of the Cajon (3) ; next, the watershed of the ridge which runs north, including the summits of Juriques Hill (4), Licancabur. Volcano (5), Sairecabur Hill (6), Curiqu- inca Hill (7), and Putana or Jorjencel Volcano (8). From this point it will follow one of the ridges to Pajonal Hill (9), and in a straight line to the south peak of the Tocorpuri Hills (10), whence it will follow the watershed of the Panizo Ridge (11) and the Tatio Range (12). It will keep on toward the north by the watershed of the Linzor Ridge (13) and the Saliguala Hill (14) ; from their northern peak (Volcano Apaga- do) (15) it shall go by a ridge to the little hill called Silala (16) and thence in a straight line to Inacaliri or Cajon Hill (17). From this point it shall go in a straight line to the peak which appears in the middle of the group of the Inca or Barrancane Hills (18), and, again taking the watershed, shall keep on northward by the ridge of Ascotan or Jardin Hill (19) ; from the summit of this hill it shall go in a straight line to the sum- mit of Araral Hill (20) and by straight line again to the summit of Ollague Volcano (21). Hence in a straight line to the highest peak of Chi- papa Hill (22), descending toward the west by a line of small hills until it reaches the summit of Cosca Hill (23). 690 Fom this point it shall be the watershed of the ridge which joins it to Alconcha Hill (24), and thence it shall go to Olca Volcano (25) by the divide. From this volcano it shall continue by the range of the Mal- lunn Hill (26), the Laguna Hill (27), Irruputuncu Vol- cano (28), Bofedal Hill (29), Chela Hill (30), and, after a high knot of hills, shall reach the Milliri (31), and then the Hnalicani (32). Hence it shall go to Caiti Hill (33) and shall fol- low the divide to Napa Hill (34)'. From the summit of this hill it shall go in a straight line to a point (35) situated ten kilometers to the south of the eastern peak of Huailla Hill (36), whence it shall go in a straight line to the hill named; doubling immediately toward the east, it shall keep on by the range of Laguna (37), Correjidor (38), and Huai- llaputuncu (39), hills to the easternmost peak of Si- llillica (40), and thence by the ridge that runs north- west to the summit of Piga Hill (41). From this hill it shall go in a straight line to the highest point of the Three Little Hills (42), and thence in a straight line to Challacollo Hill (43) and the nar- row part of Sacaya Valley (44), fronting Villacollo. From Sacaya the boundary shall run in straight lines to the summit of Cueva Color ada (45) and San- taile 46), and thence it mil keep on to the northwest by Irruputuncu Hill (47) and Patalini Hill (48) . From this summit the boundary shall go in a straight line to Chiarcollo Hill (49), cutting the Can- cosa Eiver (50), and thence also in a straight line to the summit of Pintapintani Hill (51), and from this hill by the range of the Quiuri (52), Pumiri (53), and Panatalla (54) hills. From the summit of Panatalla it shall go in a straight line to Tolapacheta (55), midway between 691 Chapi and Binconada, and from this point in a straight line to the pass of Huialla (56) ; thence it shall pass on by the summits of Lacataya (57) and Salitral (58) hills. It shall turn toward the north, going in a straight line to Tapacollo Hill (59), in the Salar of Coipasa, and in another straight line to the landmark of Quel- laga (60), whence it shall continue by straight line to Prieto Hill (61) to the north of Pisiga plain, Toldo Hill (62), the Sicaya landmarks (63), and those of Chapillicsa (64), Cabarray (65), Tres Cruces (Three Crosses) (66), Jamachuma (67), Quimsa- chata (68), and Chinchillani (69), and, cutting the Eiver Todos Santos (70), shall go to the Payacollo (71) and Carahuano (72) hills, to Canasa Hill (73) and Captain Hill (74). It shall then continue toward the north by the di- vide of the range of Lliscaya (75) and Quilhuiri (76) hills, and from the summit of the latter in a straight line to Puquintica Hill (77). To the north of this last point Chile and Bolivia agree to establish between them the following frontier : From Puquintica Hill (77) it shall go northward by the range that runs to Macaya; shall cut the Eiver Lauca (78) at this point and then run in a straight line to Chiliri Hill (79). It shall keep on to the north by the divide of the Japu Pass (80), the Quimsachata Hills (81), the Tambo Quemado Pass (82), the Qui- sini Hills (83), the Huacollo Pass (84), the sum- mits of the Payachata Hills (85,86), and Larancahua Hill (87) to the Casiri Pass (88). From this point it shall go to the Condoriri Hills (89), which divide the waters of the Sajama and Ac- huta Eivers from those of the Caquena Eiver, and shall continue by the ridge which, branching off from 692 those hills, goes to Carbiri Hill (91), passing by the Achuta Pass (90) ; from Carbiri Hill it shall run down its slope to the narrows of the River Cauquena or Cos- apilla (92), above the inn of that name (Cosapilla). Then it shall follow the bed of the Eiver Cauquena or Cosapilla to - the point (93) where it is joined by the apparent outlet of the meadows of the Cosapilla estancia (farm), and from this point it shall go in a straight line to Visviri landmark (94); From this hill it shall go in a straight line to the sanctuary (95) on the north side of the Maure, north- west of the junction of this river with another which comes into it from the north, two kilometers north- west of the Maure Inn. It shall keep on toward the northwest by the range which runs to the landmark of Chipe or Tolacollo Hill (96), the last point of the boundary. Within the six months following the ratification of this treaty the high contracting parties shall name a commission of engineers to proceed to imark out the boundary line, the points of which, enumerated in this article, are indicated in the appended plan, which shall form an integral part of the present treaty in conformity with the procedure and in the periods .which shall be agreed upon by a special arrangement between the two Foreign Offices. If there should arise among the engineers engaged in marking the boundary any disagreement which could not be arranged by the direct action of the two Governments, it shall be submitted to the decision of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, in conform- ity with the provisions of Article 12 of this Treaty. The high contracting parties shall recognize the private rights of natives and foreigners, if legally acquired, in the territory which by virtue of this treaty 693 may remain under the sovereignty of either of the countries. Akticle 3. With the object of strengthening the po- litical and commercial relations between the two Ee- publics the high contracting parties agree to unite the port of Arica with the plateau of La Paz by a railroad for the construction of which the Government of Chile shall contract at its own expense within the term of one year from the ratification of this Treaty. The ownership of the Bolivian section of this rail- road shall revert to Bolivia at the expiration of the term of fifteen years from the day on which it is entirely completed. With the same object Chile undertakes to pay the obligations which Bolivia may incur by guarantees up to 5 per cent on the capital which may be invested in the following railroads, the construction of which shall begin within the term of thirty years : Uyuni to Po- tosi ; Oruro to La Paz ; Oruro, via Cochabamba, to San- ta Cruz; from La Paz to the Beni region, and from Potosi, via Sucre and Lagunillas, to Santa Cruz. This obligation shall not occasion for Chile an ex- pense greater than £100,000 sterling annually nor in excess of £1,700,000 sterling, which is fixed as a max- imum of what Chile will devote to the construction of the Bolivian section of the railway from Arica to the La Paz plateau and for the guarantees referred to, and it shall be null and void at the conclusion of the thirty years above indicated. The construction of the Bolivian section from Arica to the Bolivian plateau, as well as that of the other railroads which may be constructed with the Chilean Government's guaranty, shall be a matter of special arrangements between the two Governments, and pro- vision shall be made in them for affording facilities 694 for commercial interchange between the two countries. The value of the section mentioned shall be deter- mined by the amount of the bid which shall be accepted for the contract for its construction. Article 4. The Government of Chile binds itself to deliver to the Government of Bolivia the sum of i300,- 000 sterling in cash, in two payments of il50,000, the first payment to be made six months after the ex- change of ratifications of this treaty and the second one year after the first. Article 5. The Republic of Chile devotes to the final cancellation of the credits recognized by Bolivia, for indemnities in favor of the mining companies of Huan- chaca, Oruro and Corocoro, and for the balance of the loan raised in Chile in the year 1867 the sum of 4,500,- 000 pesos gold of 18 pence, payable, at the option of her Government, in cash or in bonds of its foreign debt valued at their price in London on the day on which the payment is made, and the sum of 2,000,000 pesos in gold of 18 pence, in the same form as the preceding, for the cancellation of the credits arising from the following obligations of Bolivia: the bonds issued, i. e., the loan raised for the construction of the rail- road between Mejillones and Caracoles according to the contract of Jury 10, 1872; the debt recognized to Don Pedro Lopez Gama, represented by Messrs. Alsop & Co., surrogates of the former's rights; the credits recognized to Don John G. Meiggs, represented by Mr. Edward Squire, arising from the contract entered into March 20, 1876, for renting nitrate fields in Toco, and, lastly, the sum recognized to Don Juan Garday. Article 6. The Republic of Chile grants to that of Bolivia in perpetuity the amplest and freest right of commercial transit in its territory and its Pacific ports. 695 Both Governments will agree in special acts upon the method suitable for securing without prejudice to their respective fiscal interests, the object above in- dicated. Article 7. The Kepublic of Bolivia shall have the right to establish customs agencies in the ports which it may designate for its commerce. For the present it indicates as such ports for its commerce those of Antofagasta and Arica. The agencies shall take care that the goods in trans- sit shall go directly from the pier to the railroad sta- tion and shall be loaded and transported to the Bo- livian custom-houses in wagons closed and sealed and with freight schedules which shall indicate the num- ber of packages, their weight and marks, numbers and contents, which shall be exchanged by receipts. Article 8. Until the high contracting parties shall agree to celebrate a special commercial treaty the com- mercial interchange between the two Republics shall be regulated by rules of the strictest equality with those applied to other nations, and in no case shall any product of either of the two parties be placed under conditions inferior to those of a third party. All the natural and manufactured products of Chile, therefore, as well as those of Bolivia, shall be subject, on their entry into and their consumption in the other country, to the payment of the imposts in force for those of other nations, and the favors, exemptions, and privileges which either of the two parties shall grant to a third may be demanded on equal conditions by the other. The high contracting parties agree to accord re- ciprocally on all railroad lines which cross their re- spective territories the same rates to the native prod- ucts of the other country that they accord to the most favored nation. 696 Article 9. The natural and manufactured products of Chile and the nationalized goods, in order to be taken into Bolivia, shall be dispatched with the proper consular invoice and with the freight schedules spoken of in Article 7. Cattle of all kinds and natural prod- ucts of little value may be introduced without any formality and dispatched with the simple manifest written in the custom-houses. Article 10. The natural and manufactured products of Bolivia in transit to foreign countries shall be ex- ported with schedules issued by the Bolivian custom- houses or by the officers charged with this duty: these schedules shall be delivered to the custom agents in the respective ports and the products embarked with- out other formality for foreign markets. In the port of Arica importation shall be made with the same formalities as in that of Antofagasta, and the transit schedules in this port shall be passed with the same requirements as those indicated in the pre- vious article. Article 11. Bolivia being unable to put this system into practice immediately, the present system estab- lished in Antofagasta shall continue to be followed for the term of one year. This system shall be extended to the port of Arica, a proper term being fixed for putting into effect the schedule of Bolivian appraise- ments until it shall be possible to regulate the trade in the manner before indicated. Article 12. All questions which may arise with re- ference to the interpretation or execution of the pre- sent treaty shall be submitted to the arbitration of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany. The ratifications of this treaty shall be exchanged within the term of six months, and the exchange shall take place in the city of La Paz. 697 In witness whereof the Minister of Foreign Eela- tions of Chile and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia have signed and sealed with their respective seals in duplicate the pre- sent treaty of peace and amity, in the city of Santiago, on the 20th of October of the year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Four. Emilio Bello A. Gutierrez In Santiago, on the 20th of October, 1904, met in the office of the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Chile, the Minister of the Department, Don Emilo Bello Codecido, and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia, Don Alberto Gutierrez, duly authorized to that end by their respective Gov- ernments and having in view the fact that the Govern- ments of Chile and Bolivia, in agreeing upon the stipu- lations contained in the Treaty of Peace and Amity concluded and signed on this same date, agreed to sub- stitute the customs exemptions solicited by Chile on behalf of Chilean natural products and products manu- factured therefrom by other privileges which should not stand in the way of Bolivia's desire to preserve her absolute commercial liberty and having in view the fact that an accord exists between the two Govern- ments for stipulating in a separate act the meaning and scope of paragraph 5 of Article III of the said Treaty, in which reference is made to the facilities which shall be granted in the agreements concerning railroads to the commercial intercourse between the two countries, have agreed: The natural and manufactured products of Chile taken into Bolivia shall enjoy on the railroads which may be constructed in Bolivian territory under the 698 Chilean Government's guarantee a rebate of not less than 10 per cent on the freight tariffs in operation on those railroads. Bolivia shall take the steps necessary for according the same or a similar favor to Chilean products on the the Bolivian section of the railroad from Antofagasta to Oruro. Therefore, both in the conventions which the Gov- ernments of Chile and Bolivia may draw up for the con- struction of railroads in conformity with the provi- sions of Article III of the Treaty of Peace and Amity and in the contract for the construction and exploita- tion of the various lines there provided for there shall be stipulated the obligation of granting to Chilean products the rebate referred to. In witness whereof the Minister of Foreign Bela- tions of Chile and the Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia signed this protocol in duplicate and sealed it with their respective seals. Emilio Bello a. gutiekrez. And whereas the Treaty and the Protocol herein- above written have been ratified by me, with the ap- proval of the National Congress and the respective ratifications have been exchanged in the city of La Paz the 10th day of the month of March ; Therefore, in the exercise of the power vested in me by section 19 of Article 73 of the Political Constitution I will and decree that they be fulfilled and put into effect in all particulars as law of the Republic. Given in my office in the citv of Santiago, March 31, 1905. Jebmaet Riesco Luis A. Vergara 699 Protocol of Arbitration, signed in Washington, D. C, Between Delegates of Chile and Peru on July 20, 1922. Assembled in Washington, D. C, pursuant to the in- vitation of the Government of the United States of America for the purpose of reaching a solution of the long standing controversy with respect to the unful- filled provisions of the Treaty of Peace of October 20, 1883, the undersigned representatives of Peru and Chile, to wit: Don Carlos Aldunate and Don Luis Izquiredo, En- voys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary of Chile on Special Mission ; and Don Meliton F. Porras and Don Hernan Velarde, Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary of Peru on Special Mission; After exchanging their respective full powers, have agreed upon the following : Article 1. It is hereby recorded that the only diffi- culties arising out of the Treaty of Peace, regarding which the two countries have not been able to reach an agreement, are questions arising out of the unfulfilled stipulations of Article III of said Treaty. Article 2. The difficulties referred to in the pre- ceding article will be submitted to the arbitration of the President of the United States of America who shall decide them without appeal after hearing the parties and taking into consideration 'the arguments and evidence which they may present. The times and the procedure shall be determined by the arbitrator. Article 3. The present Protocol shall be submitted for approval to the respective Governments and the ratifications shall be exchanged in Washington through the diplomatic representatives of Chile and Peru within the maximum period of three months. 700 Signed and sealed in duplicate in Washington, D. C, the Twentieth of July, One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty- two. Carlos Aldunate Luis Izquierdo M. F. Porras Hernan Velarde Supplementary Act of the Protocol of Arbitration, Signed in Washington, D. C, Between Delegates of Chile and Peru on July 20, 1922. In order to determine with precision the scope of the arbitration provided for in Article 2 of the Pro- tocol signed on this date, the undersigned agree to place on record hereby the following points : First. The following question, raised by Peru at the session of the Conference held on May 27th last, is in- cluded in the arbitration : "For the purpose of determining the manner in which the stipulations of Article III of the Treaty of Ancon shall be fulfilled there shall be submitted to arbitration the question whether, in the present circumstances, the plebiscite shall or shall not be held." The Government of Chile, on its part, may present to the arbitrator all the arguments that it may deem necessary to its case. Second. In case that it is decided that the plebiscite shall be held, the arbitrator is empowered to determine the conditions under which it shall be held. Third. If the arbitrator should decide that the plebi- scite shall not be held, both parties, at the request of 701 either of them, shall discuss the situation created by this decision. It is understood, in the interest of peace and of good order, that, in this event, and pending an agreement as to the disposition of the territory, the administra- tive organization of the provinces shall not be dis- turbed. Fourth. The two Governments shall solicit, in case that they should not reach an agreement, the good offices of the Government of the United States of America, in order that an agreement may be reached. Fifth. The pending claims regarding Tarata and Chilcaya likewise are included in the arbitration, sub- ject to the determination of the final fate of the terri- tory to which Article III- of the said Treaty refers. This Act is an integral part of the Protocol to which it refers. Signed and sealed in duplicate in Washington, D. C, the Twentieth of July, One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-two. Carlos Aldtjtstate Luis Izquierdo M. F. Porras Hernan Velarde MISCELLANEOUS. 705 Electoral Law Fixing the Value of Real Estate, In- come, etc., Required for the Exercise of Right of Suffrage. [Translation.] Santiago, November 3, 1874. Whereas the National Congress has approved the following bill : Sole Article. The value of the real estate, the cap- ital invested in any enterprise or industry, the exer- cise of an industry or profession, the holding of a post and the enjoyment of an income or usufruct, referred to in Sections 1 and 2 of Article VIII of the Constitu- tion shall be: In the provinces of Atacama, Coquimbo, Aconcagua, Santiago and Valparaiso: real estate valued at not less than one thousand pesos or an invested capital of two thousand pesos, or the exercise of a trade, an industry or profession, the income of which will be at least two hundred pesos annually. In the provinces of Colchagua, Curico, Talca, Lima- res, Maule, Nuble, Concepcion and Arauco, indiscrimi- nately, the value of the property shall be five hundred pesos, the invested capital one thousand, and the in- come from a trade, an industry or profession, one hun- dred and fifty pesos annually. In the provinces of Valdivia, Llanquihue and Chil- hoe, the invested capital five hundred, the income, pro- fession, trade, or industry one hundred, and real estate four hundred pesos. It is a presumption of law {Presumptio juris et de jure) that he who knows how to read and write has the income required by this law. 706 Whereas, heard by the Council of State,.I have given my approval and sanction, wherefore I order its pro- mulgation and its carrying out in all its parts as a law of the Eepublic. Federico Errazuriz. Eulojio Altamirano. Electoral Law of Chile Promulgated in 1874. [Translation.] Santiago, November 12, 1874. Whereas, the National Congress- has discussed and approved the following bill : Chapter I. Relative to the Registration of the Voters. Article I. In the register of voters that shall be kept in conformity with the stipulations of this law, there shall be inscribed all Chileans, born and natural- ized, who desire to exercise the right of suffrage and who are possessed of the following qualifications : 1. Twenty-five years of age, if single, and twenty- one if married. 2. To be able to read and write. 3. To own real estate or an invested capital of the value required by the law, or to exercise a trade, an industry or profession, or to hold a post, or to enjoy an income, or usufruct, the value of each of these being in proportion to the value of the real estate or the invested capital just referred to above. The value of the real estate or the invested capital shall be determined for each province by the law which is to be passed in conformity with the prescriptions 707 of Article VIII of the Constitution (Law of November 3, 1874). Article II. The following shall not be registered, even if they possess the qualifications enumerated in the preceding article: 1. Those who, physically or morally, are incapable of enjoying the full use of their reason. 2. Those who are in domestic service. 3. Those who at the time of registration might be on trial for misdemeanor or crime, subject to a cor- poral or degrading penalty, and those who have been sentenced for a similar crime or misdemeanor, unless they have been rehabilitated. 4. Those who have been guilty of fraudulent bank- ruptcy and have not been rehabilitated. 5. Those who have accepted posts or distinctions from foreign Governments without special permit from Congress, unless they have been rehabilitated by the Senate. 6. The conscripts and soldiers of the standing army, the navy and the police corps. Article III. The register of voters shall be sepa- rately kept for sub-departments (sub-delegaciones) the population of which would not be under 2,000 inhabi- tants, the register being subdivided into sections of not less than one hundred and fifty and not more than two hundred qualified voters. These sub-departments, the population of which shall be less than that number shall be added to the following one or ones, or in ab- sence of this to the preceding one, according to their numerical order. The register shall be kept in a bound book, the sheets of which shall be stamped with the seal of the municipality. 708 In every sheet there should be a margin at the left, and the number of the registered, his Christian name, family name and mother's family name, the place of his birth, his domicile or present residence, his state and his profession or trade, shall appear in tabulated vertical columns. The register shall conform in every way to the model inclosed herewith as number * * * Article IV. The register of voters shall be renewed every three years, at the time set forth by this law Chapter II. Relative to the Keeping of the Register. Article XV. The Qualifying Boards shall inscribe in the register every Chilean, born or naturalized, who shall come to them for that purpose, provided he pos- sesses the qualifications mentioned in Article I, that he is not included in any of the inabilities mentioned in Article II, and provided that he resides in the re- spective subdelegation. Electoral Law of Chile, Promulgated February 21, 1914. [Translation.] Chapter III. # # « # * # # * * Article 23. The registration committee shall in- scribe in the voters register, of the respective sub- 709 department, the male Chilean citizens who request it and who possesses the following qualifications. 1. Twenty-one years of age. 2. Able to read and write ; and 3. Residing in the respective sub-department. Article 24. There shall not be registered, even though possessing the requisites enumerated in Ar- ticle 23, those who have lost their citizenship because of 1. Corporal or degrading penalty. 2. Fraudulent bankruptcy. 3. Accepted posts, performed services or pensions received from a foreign government without special permit from Congress; and 4. Naturalization by a foreign country. Those who have lost their citizenship and have been rehabilitated by the Senate may, nevertheless, be reg- istered. Nor shall there be registered those whose citizen- ship has been suspended by reason of 1. Physical or moral incapacity, hindering their free and conscious behavior . 2. Domestic service. 3. Trial for crime and misdemeanor, subject to corporal or degrading penalty. There shall not be registered, furthermore, 1. The individuals serving on the city and rural police forces, or performing any duties therefor. 2. The conscripts and soldiers of the standing army and the navy ; and 3. The regular clergy. 710 Political Constitution of Peru Promulgated November 13, 1860. [Translation.] Chapter VI. Citizenship. Article XXXVII. All Peruvians over twenty-one years of age, and those under that age who are mar- ried, are citizens. Article XXXVIII. All citizens who can read and write, or who are heads of shops, or who own some real property, or who are taxpayers, have the right to vote. The exercise of this right shall be regulated by law. Election Law of Peru Promulgated April 4, 1861. [Translation.] Chapter I. The Right to Vote. Article I. Married citizens, or those over twenty- one years of age, who can read and write, or who are heads of shops, or who own some real property, or who are taxpayers, and whose names are found upon the civic register, shall have the right to vote. Article II. The following cannot vote : 1. Those who have lost the right of citizenship or whose exercise of such right is suspended, in accord- ance with Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution. 711 2. Ministers of State, Prefects, Sub-Prefects, Gov- ernors, and Police Agents. 3. Officers of the National Army or Navy and of the Constabulary. 4. The enlisted men of the Constabulary or of the army and the members of the crews of the ships of the national navy. 5. Beggars and domestic servants. Article III. Officers of the Army and of the Navy, who are not exercising any command, may vote in the parish in which they are residing. Census and Civic Registry Law of Peru, Promulgated May 22, 1861. [Translation.] Article I. The general population register is the book upon which are inscribed the names of all the in- habitants of each one of the provinces into which the Republic is divided, with the respective place of birth, sex, age, condition, profession or trade, and the quali- fications specified in Article 38 of the Constitution. Decree Issued by President of Peru, Regarding Elections, Bated July 14, 1919. [Translation.] Considering that a plebiscite and a call to general elections has been decided upon, it is necessary to that effect to find, in the present circumstances, a simple and rapid means of procedure that will, at the same time, guarantee the true expression of the 712 popular wall. Therefore, and with the unanimous approval of the Council of Ministers, I decree: Article I. All Peruvians over twenty-one years of age, or married, who can read and write, shall vote in the elections and in the plebiscite. Army and navy officers also shall vote in the plebiscite. All other pro- hibitions of the electoral law shall remain in effect- Article II. Only those who are inscribed in the military registers shall vote in the elections and in the plebiscite. The military registers used in the last elections will serve to verify such inscription. Article III. The vote shall be direct, public, and in double ballot. The receiving commission shall accept the vote without demanding further verification than the certificate of miliary inscription. After the vote is received, the chairman of the receiving commission shall sign the said certificate to prevent its being used again. Article IV. The voters shall deposit their votes for constitutional amendments, for senators and deputies to Congress, and for deputies to the departmental leg- islatures, in four separate ballots. The ballots to be deposited in the ballot-boxes shall be signed by the voters, while the duplicate ballots shall be signed or sealed by the chairman of the receiving commission and returned to the voter to attest for his vote. Article V. The voters shall scratch out those ar- ticles referring to constitutional amendments that they do not accept. 713 Chapter Entitled "Expulsion of Peruvians/' Taken From "Hacia la Solution" by Senor Ernesto Barros, Minister of Foreign Relations, Santiago, Chile, 1922. [Translation.] One of the points on which the Minister of Foreign Eelations of Pern saw fit to dwell with the greatest earnestness during the telegraphic parley opened by Chile on December 12, ] 921, was that which referred to the supposed campaign for the expulsion of Peruvian citizens from the territory of Tacna and Arica. To show that this campaign is but an artifice of the Peruvian international policy, it will be sufficient to re- call what we have already said in an annotation, that is, that not even an apparent uniformity has been main- tained in formulating the denouncement" of the expul- sions; but, on the contrary, appeal has been made to different and arbitrary numbers, which would natu- rally lead to the opinion that the denouncement had not been made with sincerity. In truth, on December 16th, President Leguia affirmed to a correspondent of La Nation of Santiago that ten thousand Peruvians had been expelled; in the official communication in reply to the Chilean invitation, Min- ister Salomon said that the number was eighteen thou- sand ; in an interview granted by this same politician to The New York Times and published in the number of January 9th of that daily, he affirmed that as many as a thousand had been expelled ; and, finally, in a later interview, the same Senor Salomon asserted that the number expelled was five hundred. It must be agreed, at the very least, that there is no seriousness in accusations that are subject to so ex- traordinary a fluctuation from day to day. 714 Besides, this discussion as to the expulsion of Peru- vians is not new. Already in 1919 the Ministers of For- eign Relations of Chile and Peru expressed their views on this subject to the public opinion of the entire world through the medium of diplomatic circulars of im- portance. From this controversy it is proper, however, to ex- tract a declaration formulated by the Minister of For- eign Relations of Peru, Seiior Tudela, to the effect that complaints as to the persons expelled did not refer to the territory of Tacna and Arica, in reference to which our Minister of Foreign Relations had been able to exhibit a declaration authorized by the Consuls resi- dent in the region, according to which its tranquillity appeared perfect. Senor Tudela said, in the circular of December 3, 1919: " First of all, it ought to be established that the new outrages against the Peruvian population have occured in Pisagua, and especially in Iquique, which are the principal ports of the former Peru- vian department, to-day the Chilean province of Tarapaca, in order to prevent the confusion that might be produced in the universal opinion by the certificates of the Consular Agents resident in Tacna and Arica, who testified that in the latter Peruvian provinces, also occupied by Chile, there has been no attack whatsoever on Peruvians.' ' Hence there exists an official Peruvian document, of a relatively recent date, in which it is established that the expulsions of which complaint is made do not refer to the territory of Tacna and Arica, which is the only one in which they might be designed to produce an effect favorable to our country by inclining the bal- ance of the plebiscite in her favor. 715 It would be an absurdity to say that the Chilean au- thorities of Tacna and Arica have never expelled any Peruvian citizens from these territories. It would be an affirmation as extraordinary as are the Peruvian affirmations on which we have just commented. There have been expulsions of Peruvians in Tacna and Arica. The Government has held, from the moment in which that territory became subject, accord- ing to an express provision of the Treaty of 1883, to the Chilean laws, that it could and ought to apply them in it as in the rest of the country. Our laws are generous and liberal toward all for- eigners ; they assure them amply in the exercise of all their rights; but they are at the same time severe in respect of those that attempt, by availing themselves of that liberty, to hatch up conspiracies against the State, of whatsoever nationality the authors of this crime may be. In the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Relations there exists a small bundle of papers that constitute a minute process of each case of expulsion that has oc- curred. From the date of the incorporation of those territories within the sovereignty of Chile there have been fifty-two cases, all perfectly justified, as a gener- ous measure of the authorities against individuals that might have received a punishment in conformity with the Chilean laws for their criminal acts and whom it was preferred to remove from the territory in order that they might make their living honestly elsewhere. Once there were six or seven agitators and leaders that preached disobedience and rebellion against the constituted authority and that published in the cities of the north, in Lima and in Santiago, false and mali- cious reports that sowed distrust everywhere and pre- vented the possibility of a good understanding between the two countries. 716 On another occasion they were/ pettifoggers /that ex- ploited the indigenous population, pettifoggers whose compulsory retirement from those regions has been hailed as a veritable salvation by their victims. On another occasion they were deserters from the Peruvian army, who, surprised with their equipment and mounts and interned in Chilean territory, were de- livered over to the nearest Peruvian police post by our forces of carbineers, in order that they might suffer the punishment that attached to their unpatriotic con- duct. . At other times, finally, they were pimps, exploiters of white slavery, for whom the Chilean law of residence designates expulsion from the territory as a punish- ment. Outside of these cases, there have existed none. There has existed, however, an old campaign, crude in its methods, nugatory in its results, designed to im- pute to our authorities a policy of violent persecution and of violent expulsion of Peruvian citizens of Tacna and Arica. In order to silence it, once and for all, in replying to the Peruvian Chancellery during the course of the controversy of December, it was said on Chile's part that for the purpose of the plebiscite we would grant all kinds of facilities for the return of the Peruvian population that might prove itself to have been ex- pelled by violence from Tacna and Arica. The whole Peruvian campaign ought to have termi- nated there. The expulsions could have no other effect than to improve our plebiscitary position. Well then : it may now be seen how we have sought to annul that factor of which we had no need, in other respects, to take advantage in order to obtain the consolidation of our sovereignty in those territories. / 717 CONCRETE CASES. It is not difficult to prove with a few concrete cases the method that has been followed in Peru by this policy of propaganda against Chile, which has imputed to us persecutions and expulsions in respect of her citizens. It has been the practice of the Government of Peru to offer return passage to the country to all the resi- dents of Tacna and Arica that might wish to declare that they had left under expulsion by the Chilean au- thorities of the territory. This assertion Is substantiated by the following document, the original of which is preserved in the Ministry of Foreign Eelations of Chile, subscribed to by the Peruvian citizens Pedro A. Quea Sologuren and Antero Berrios Gil: "On June 3, 1919, appeared the Peruvian citi- zens Pedro Aristides Quea Sologuren and Antero Berrios Gil, residents of this city, and they set forth that in the month of April last they decided to make a trip to Lima, the first in order to be treated for a disease of the eye, and the second to accompany him ; that Don Hector Velez, sub-pre- fect of Locumba, who was occasionally in Tacna, indicated to them that they might go by land as far as his department, where he would give them the necessary facilities for their passages for the account of the Peruvian Government ; and with this promise they left the city on the twelfth, ar- riving the next day at Locumba, where Senor Velez had already explained to them that the order for free passages had been suspended; but that, by signing a minute of protest in which they would state that they had been expelled from Tacna by the authorities, he would take the neces- sary steps in the case, in order that they might continue their journey; that they refused, causing 718 him to note that they did not deem it prudent or reasonable to sign such a minute, inasmuch as they had not been subject to any such expulsion; and that such was the case that, in view of the difficulties they had encountered, they were dis- posed to come back to this city. Senor Velez re- plied to them that they were the ones who must decide ; whereupon they set out to return, arriving here on the seventeenth of the same month. In testimony whereof the present signed, with the witnesses that subscribe. Pedro Aristides Quea Sologuren. Antero Berrios Gil." The Government of Chile is informed, on the other hand, of a series of valueless certifications granted by the Peruvian authorities, far removed from the places of the occurrences, which take for granted as estab- lished certain facts on which they can not rely, and which, as a general rule, have been false. These certificates are wont to assume almost inno- cent forms, as occurs in the case of the following : "Legation of Peru in Bolivia. The undersigned certifies that Antonio Mollo, a Peruvian citizen, native of Putre (Arica), has been expelled from this place by the Chilean au- thorities. Jose Maria Barreto, First Secretary of the Legation of Peru. La Paz, January 29, 1919. ( There is a seal that says : ' Legation of Peru in Bolivia')." How can the execution of an act that is said to have been effected by the Chilean authorities in Putre be certified to in La Paz? Undoubtedly these certificates have no value what- soever. They were granted on the simple declaration 719 of those that said they had been expelled, to whom was offered, on the other hand, facilities of travel and labor. During the years 1919 and 1920, the Government of Peru supplied passages, for which it paid, to all the Peruvians that desired to leave, contracting for them directly with the Pacific Steam Navigation Company. Many persons solicited these passages in order to make the journey gratis, of course, without having been ex- pelled, and often many of them returned afterward to Tacna on their own account. These passages were ar- ranged in Lima mainly by Don Manuel Belaunde and Doctor Parodi, former inhabitants of the latter city; and all those that had some influential friend or rela- tive in the former city secured passage, and even at times without soliciting them. Thus is made up the great number of Peruvian ex- pulsions of which Peruvian propaganda makes so much. Two certificates that show the truthfulness of what we have just affirmed are copied here : * l Sefiora Clotilde Carbonell de Bacigalupe, resi- dent in the Avenida Baquedano, corner of Amuna- tegui, declares that in the month of May, 1919, her son Juan Cores, who is in Lima, announced to her that he had obtained from the Peruvian Govern- ment two cabin passages that he was authorized to claim at the agency of the English steamship com- pany in Arica, in order that, if she desired, she might go to that capital, and that she, in order not to lose the passages mentioned, resolved to make the journey as a recreation, accompanied by her daughter Carmen, returning two months after- ward to this city on her own account. Clotilde Carbonell de Bacigalupe. Tacna, March, 1920. " 720 "In Tacna, on February 24, 1922, appeared Don Jose Antonio Albarracin, a Peruvian, forty-one years of age, who resided at 80 Colon Street, and, interrogated, he deposed: ' About two years ago my brother, Victorio Gonzalez, who resides in Lima, wrote me to suggest that I come to live there, and to that end he had obtained from the Peruvian Government six deck passages that I might claim at the agency of the English steam- ship company in Arica, in order to move, with my family. A few days afterwards, the agency of the company mentioned, notified me by telephone, through the medium of the manager of the Hotel Eaiteri, in this city, Sehor Landa, that the pas- sages were at my disposal; but I replied that I should not use them, because neither T nor my family desired to leave Tacna at the moment. Jose Antonio Albarracin. ' M The Government of Chile has succeeded in estab- lishing tranquillity in such a manner in Tacna and Arica that at present and for several years there have not even existed patriotic leagues, institutions that at other times might have been deemed probably guilty of transgression, which our courts proceeded to punish as the common misdemeanors that they were. A concrete case comes to mind to show the character of the regime of the Government of those provinces at the present hour. About the middle of January, 1922, a Peruvian citi- zen, Manuel Anze, of this city complained that he had received an anonymous letter signed "The Secretary of the Committee, ' ' in which he was told that he must abandon the territory within the period of forty-eight hours, as being a Peruvian. Sefior Anze was offered guaranties of all kinds, and this gentleman is living tranquilly in Tacna. In respect of this case, the au^ 721 thorities caused an investigation to be made for the purpose of ascertaining whether there existed associa- tions organized for the purpose of persecuting the Peruvian element, and the result was negative. Seeking an explanation of this case, it was possible to establish with every appearance of likelihood that the notification received by Seiior Anze was the re- sult of a disloyal procedure on the part of his fellow- countrymen; for in those days this gentleman an- nounced that he proposed to open an apothecary's business and to sell at a price lower than that of the shops already established, which belonged to two of his fellow-countrymen. To mention another concrete case of false denounce- ments of expulsions, recourse may be had to one de- nounced by El Tiempo of Lima on February 21, 1922, when it gave an account of the arrival of a Spanish subject, Basilio Iriarte, in the capacity of a person expelled from Tacna, with grave prejudice to his in- terests, for having expressed his sympathy with Peru. An investigation was made into the case, and it is possible to establish what is recorded in the documents copied, as follows: "Vice-Consulate of Spain in Tacna and Arica, "(Number 7.) Tacna, February 24, 1922. "Sir: "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor number 243, under the date -of yesterday, in which you inquire of me as to whether I have any knowledge of or any data as to the person of the Spanish citizen, Basilio Iri- arte, who, as it is said, lived until a month ago in this province, and regarding whom you have been unable to obtain any information. "In reply to your letter mentioned, I regret to have to inform you that in the registers of this Vice-Consulate there is no record of any such Iriarte, and he has never presented him- 722 self at this office to solicit a passport or any other document. With courteous salutations, M. Casanovas. "Vice-Consul of Spain in Tacna and Arica, to Senor Don Luis Barcelo Lira, Intendant of the Province, Tacna. Tacna. "Vice-Consulate of Spain in Tacna and Akica, "(Number 10.) "Sir: Tacna, March 7, 1922. * i Eef erring to my note number 7 of the twenty- fourth of last month, in which I informed you that I had no data as to the person of the Spanish subject, Basilio Iriarte, I am pleased to inclose with the present a copy of an official communica- tion received from our Vice-Consulate of the na- tion at Iquique, which I deem to be of some inter- est. "On my part I can now report that the person mentioned, under pretext of being a Spaniard, requested of the 'Sociedad Espanola de Benefi- cencia' aid to the extent of two hundred pesos in order to return to the south, as he said that an unfortunate transaction in sheep that he had un- dertaken in Bolivia and the bad state of his health in that Republic had placed him in the difficult situation in which he was. I ought to make it clear to you that this aid was denied him, as he was caught in several contradictions in his assertions made for the purpose of obtaining this assistance, which he promised to return on his arrival at his destination. "It is hardly necessary to mention that after his evil conduct had been discovered, he immedi- ately disappeared from that city. "I take this new opportunity to repeat to you the sentiments of my consideration. M. Casanovas. "Vice-Consul of Spain in Tacna and Arica, to Senor Don Luis Barcelo Lira, Intendant of the Province, Tacna. 723 ' ' Vice-Consulate of Spain, Iquique. "(Number 38.) "Mr. Consul: "I beg you to have the goodness to give me what information you can as to the Spanish sub- ject, Basilio Iriarte, a native of Bermeo, who, on the way from Punta Arenas, passed through this city some months ago, and is registered at the Consulate of the nation in Valparaiso. "Our compatriot, Sehor Manuel Montes, has informed me that he has seen him at Tacna, and the press of today alludes to a presentation that Iriarte has made to our Minister in Lima. "When he passed through this city, I was able to prove that Iriarte is not a reliable person. He passed himself off here as a * buyer of ranches ' for a respectable firm of Punta Arenas, and he said that he was studying the place with a view to the introduction of frozen meat. In my judg- ment, he either had an unbalanced mind or he was a common scoundrel. ' ' Thanking you for your information, I beseech God to keep you many years. Martin Pinedo. "Inquique, February 23, 1922, "The Vice-Consul of the Nation, Tacna. ' ' The recrudescence of the campaign against Chile for the supposed expulsion of Peruvians from Tacna and Arica, besides the political interest in seeking means conducive to bringing about the failure of the Chilean tentatives addressed to effecting the plebiscite, may admit of another origin. In order to prevent the smuggling that was being carried on actively in the province and to assure more effectively the police vigilance of the countryside, it was decreed to move to those regions a squadron of carbineers. 724 Distributed along the frontier, these carbineers have succeeded in almost suppressing contraband. It is natural that the numerous enemies that this measure has made, inasmuch as it did not permit them to continue in the illicit trade in which they were engaged, should have been used as a means of raising a cry of alarm against our country and should have become the best means of propaganda of the Peru- vian Government in its design of undermining the prestige of Chile and of maintaining and exacerbat- ing hatred of her. Addressed to this same purpose is the denounce- ment formulated in one of the dailies of Lima, in the month of February, to the effect that the admini- strative authorities of Tacna had decreed the suspen- sion of licenses to Peruvian merchants and industrials. This assertion is absolutely incorrect. The list of industrial and professional licenses of Tacna shows that many Peruvian citizens possessed them, and no one has ever been denied his legitimate inscription in it. The following table indicates the nationality of the owners of industrial and commercial licenses in the rural and urban part of the department of Tacna and Arica and it shows the great number of Peruvians that possess them: Other Total Peruvians nationalities Tacna 330 146 184 Arica 412 67 345 742 213 529 Peru has emphasized the marked decline in the Peruvian population in the saltpeter regions. Al- 725 though it is true that these allegations can have no influence whatsoever on the solution of the problem of Tacna and Arica, since the nitrate region is not subject to the plebiscite provided for in Article III of the Treaty of Ancon, nevertheless, and for the purpose of demonstrating the partial manner in which the propaganda of Peru is made in this matter, I again have recourse to the report presented to the Intendant of the Province of Tarapaca by the com- mittee on the feeding and lodging of the unemployed laborers, on the occasion of the saltpeter crisis of 1914, to demonstrate that the depopulation of that region of Peruvians has been brought about, natu- rally, without violence — the same as the depopula- tion of Chileans — by the suspension of the saltpeter enterprises, which threw out of work some 69,000 persons, according to the same report. Placing it on record, in passing, that the Govern- ment of Chile, during a rather long period of time, took on itself the feeding of the unemployed workers and that afterward it bore the expense of the em- barkation of those same laborers for the points that they indicated, I can reproduce the table contained in that report, in which appear, with a distinction of nationality, the number of workmen embarked and the transports used, for that purpose: Persons Embarked by the Intendancy of Iquique. Chileans : In the naval transports Casma and Rancagua 2,388 With passages contracted for with steamship companies 6,064 Total number of Chileans 8,452 726 Peruvians : In the Peruvian transport I quit 08 2,653 With passages contracted for with steamship companies 5,580 Total number of Peruvians 8,233 Bolivians : With passages contracted for with steamship companies 5,361 Total number of Bolivians 5,361 Total number in Government transports 5,041 Total number with paid passages in steamship companies 17,005 Total number embarked by the Intendancy of Iquique 22,046 Persons Embarked by the Authorities of Pisagua. Bolivians : 630 Peruvians : 46 Grand total 22,722 After the resumption of the saltpeter industry, but not with the intensity that had formerly characterized it in the same region, the Government of Chile and the companies themselves were inclined to give pre- ference to the national workers over the foreign workers, and thus it is explained why there did not exist in the population engaged in extracting salt- peter a number of Peruvians as great as that which had existed before' that crisis. Besides, this depopulation of Peruvians not only affects the nitrate region, but also all the provinces of Chile in which persons of that nationality live. 727 The Director-General of Statistics, don Alberto Ed- wards, in an interview published in a Santiago news- paper, referring to the supposed expulsion of the Peruvians from the cities of Tacna and Arica, said : "Nothing could be more unfounded than these supposed expulsions, as it will be easy for me to prove. Here you can see," he said to us, showing us the book of the census of 1907, "that of the 37,140 Peruvians listed at the time, not one of them appeared to be residing in Tacna, for the simple reason that the census committee held that, inasmuch as the nationality of these persons had not been definitively decided, both Peruvians and Chileans resident there ought to be con- sidered as nationals. "So that, since the Peruvians of the province of Tacna did not figure in the census, the decline to which reference has been made can hardly be due to a movement of population that has occur- red there. "On the other hand, this decrease in the num- ber of Peruvians, is to be explained by the state of strained relations between the two countries, which is not designed to foster the emigration of Peruvians to Chile or of Chileans to Peru; for only continuous immigration could have filled the gaps caused by death among the old residents, whose children, born in Chile, are Chileans. "However, there is a more important cause that explains by itself, the decrease in the number of Peruvians resident in Chile, and it is the crisis in nitrate. It has expelled, without artificial means from Tarapaca and Antofagasta, not only Peruvians, but also Chileans. ' ? The number of unemployed lodged by the Gov- ernment, and residing in Santiago, is greater than the total diminution of Peruvians in those prov- inces. "It is natural, therefore, that, since there was no work there for Chileans, there would be none there 728 for Peruvians either. The same thing took place in the saltpeter crisis of 1895, although it did not occur to any one to speak then of expulsions. Of the 34,901 Peruvians that were there at the time, the number decreased to 15,999, that is, to less than half. I am going to supply you a table in which you will be able to see, by provinces, the number of Peruvians resident in Chile when the censuses of 1907 and 1920 were taken : Provinces. 1907 1920 Tacna ...... 7,157 Tarapaca 33,574 4,010 Antofagasta 1,749 273 Atacama 46 15 Coquimbo 91 27 Aconcagua 20 14 Valaparaiso 813 146 Santiago 594 288 'Higgins 22 7 Colchagua 10 5 Curico 13 3 Talca 10 5 Linares 6 1 Maule 3 3 Nuble 10 4 Concepcion 100 38 Arauco 3 1 Biobio 17 4 Malleco 11 10 Cautin 7 10 Valdivia 14 12 Llanquihue 1 9 Chiloe 1 1 Magallanes 25 13 37,140 12,056 These data and many others possessed by the Govern- ment make it possible to establish in the most reliable 729 manner the incorrectness, the most absolute incorrect- ness, of the assertion that is made to the effect that in Chile the Peruvian element is persecuted, and that its departure from the country has been violently pro- voked. Precisely the contrary is true. In order not to formulate personal assertions, which may be lacking in authority, I desire to appeal to the testimony of a distinguished public man of Chile who, during my recent trip through the provinces of the north, had the courtesy to pronounce a brilliant dis- course, from which I desire to reproduce certain para- graphs that refer to these topics, and which demon- strates by means of indisputable historical events that the generosity of the Government of Chile toward Peru- vian persons and properties is a traditional fact in the policy of the country. The Congressman from Tarapaca, Don Horacio Mujica, said on that occasion: "As to Tarapaca, it is proper to recall that at the moment of the occupation of its territory by Chilean troops it was in the full process of what was called 'the operation of purchase' of the salt- peter property by the Government of Peru, which was, in truth, one of expropriation in exchange for the so-called nitrate certificates or credit claims against a Government semi-insolvent before the war, and altogether insolvent after its defeats. The Government of Chile, after the occupation of the territory, returned the properties belonging to Peruvians, its enemy proprietors, in the great majority of cases, to free industry, receiving as valid and at par those depreciated nitrate cer- tificates. The Peruvians thus recovered their property of which the Government had taken pos- session in exchange for those credit claims. Their properties being thus returned to those that de- sired to recover them, without any distinction 730 whatsoever between Chileans, neutrals and ene- mies, the saltpeter industry developed on the basis of laws that have never made any distinction on account of the nationality of owners, and without even so much as granting to the national capital the exceptional favors that are considered legiti- mate everywhere. In short, the Government and sovereignty of Chile, without even waiting for the conclusion of the war, proceeded to return to the enemies of that time, under conditions of extraordinary gene- rosity, their saltpeter properties. Chile returned the properties to all those that desired to redeem them in exchange for claims against the insolvent enemy Government, and she continued the same policy after the peace; and she has considered hitherto on a footing of the most absolute equality the proprietors of every nationality, including Peruvians, who, thanks to it, recovered, preserved and increased their fortunes. As to the territories of Tacna and Arica, which had their period of prosperity while they were the obligatory highway for the transit of the commerce of Bolivia until the construction of the railways from Antofagasta and Mollendo to that Republic, the Government of Chile has confined itself to in- vesting large capital in returning to them that lost prosperity, without ever having issued any law, regulation or decree that might tend to place the Peruvians or Peruvian property under an excep- tional or unfavorable regime in comparison with Chilean persons or properties, as is proven by the index of properties that remain in the possession of their former Peruvian owners. Chile has not sought to acquire preponderance by belittling the property of her enemies in order to compel its abandonment or to acquire it at a low price ; she has sought her predominance solely by stimulating the progress and prosperity of the ter- ritory of Tacna and Arica, always considering it not as territory for Chileanization, but as Chilean 731 territory in which its inhabitants and properties were subject to the same system of freedom and guaranties as the rest of the territory. The occurrences to which I have alluded took place in the presence of many of the distinguished foreigners that are listening to me, who will cer- tainly confirm to the Minister the profound truth of my affirmations. Special mention ought to be made of Sr. Humberstone, the distinguished British industrial and dean of the saltpeter ac- tivities of the province. ' ' It is very strange, besides, that, although these facts are so well known, Peruvian propaganda should insist on affirming that citizens of Peru are persecuted in Chile. To disprove this statement it would be suffi- cient, finally, to invoke the circumstance that Tacna and Arica have been the constant shelter of Peruvian political refugees and the place in which, under the pro- tection of Chilean laws and liberty, safety has been found by such eminent men as Don Au gusto Durand, the head of the liberal party of Peru, Don Juan Carlos Bernales, former Vice-President of the Republic, Don Juan Durand, Peruvian Senator, Don Guillermo Bil- linghurst, a former President of Peru, and many others whose names it would be superfluous to mention. The magnanimity of the Government of Chile toward the Peruvian elements of the north reached such an extreme that cases occurred — very frequent, indeed — in which even in the distribution of public offices and in the enterprises of Chileans developed in Tacna and Arica, Peruvian citizens and Peruvian laborers were employed. Chile, proceeding in conformity with all established precedents and with the most elementary principles of law, afterwards organized her public service in the province of Tacna with national elements. Agricul- 732 tural, electric lighting, mining and irrigation enter- prises established there by Chilean capital have also seen fit to employ Chilean workers only, and in like manner proceed the foreigners who, grateful for the country under whose sovereignty they live and pros- per, wish to contribute to the nationalization of those territories. In Tacna and in Arica live to-day, in spite of every- thing, with the same guaranties as always and engage in a tranquil manner in their work many Peruvian citizens who, unquestionably, could not enjoy in their country the benefits of the freedom and order that they find in these Chilean provinces. While this occurs in Chile in respect to Peruvians, what is occurring in Peru in respect to Chileans ! No Chilean goes to Peru without being treated as an enemy, not even excepting certain political personages of our country, as occurred with a Senator of the Re- public, who, in transit via the port of Callao, disem- barked there, and was made the victim of numerous outrages and much bother on the part of the police au- thorities. We, accused of persecuting the Peruvian population resident in Chile, present these facts for the considera- tion of the world, and we demonstrate that many citi- zens of that nationality live tranquilly under the pro- tection of our liberty; and if we should ask Peru to exhibit statistics of the Chilean citizens that reside in that country, we should, without a shadow of a doubt, surely have to change our r6le of the accused and be- come, by the eloquence of facts, the accusers. 733 Description of Tacna and Arica. 1. Geogkaphical, Description The territory of Tacna and Arica, the boundaries of which are fixed by Article III of the Treaty of An- con, extends along the Pacific Coast from 17° 51' south latitude to 19° 11' south latitude, and has an area of nine thousand square miles, more or less (23,306 sq. km.*), of almost totally desert land. Arica, the port of the territory, is 2,151 miles from the Panama Canal and 915 miles from Valparaiso. The territory is geographically divided into two dis- tinct regions. The eastern region is an elevated table- land, closed on the west side by the first ranges of the Andes Mountains. The western region is made up of the several valleys that come down from the said moun- tains, and of the plains that extend to the sea. In the table-land, which has water in abundance, there are three well-defined hydrographic basins. In the northern part flows the River Mauri which rises in Peru, and which, after running for forty miles through Chilean territory, where it receives the waters of the Uchusuma River, passes on into Bolivia. In the cen- ter we find the streams that form the Lluta River, which cuts through the mountains and flows into the Pacific Ocean, somewhat to the north of Arica. In the southern part rises the Lauca River, which passes on into Bolivia after flowing through Chilean territory for forty miles.* The western part of the territory is a desert, ex- cept for the narrow valleys through which streams flow down from the Andes. All the life of the region is centered about these valleys. In the north is found the valley of the River Sama, made up of a series of * Anuario Estadistico.Republica de Chile, 1921 — Vol. I. "Demo- grafia," page 11. 734 streams, of which the Ticalaco, the Tarucache, and the Estique flow through the territory at present under Chilean sovereignty. This mountainous region forms part of the district of Tarata, the principal village of which has the same name. Farther south we find the Caplina stream which dis- appears after passing the city of Tacna. In this val- ley, besides the last-named city, are found also the settlements of Pocollai, Calana, and Pachia. Continuing south, we come to the Lluta River which is the most important river of the province, and which, as we have said, rises in the eastern table-land and flows into the sea north of Arica. In this region are found the villages of Putre and of Socoroma. A short distance to the south, the River San Jose, which, flowing through the valley of Azapa, reaches the sea at the port of Arica. In the ravines that form the valley of this river are found the settlements of Belen, Tignamar, and Livilcar. Some twenty miles farther south is found the River Vitor which in its upper course runs through the fer- tile valley of Codpa. Finally, separating the province of Tacna from that of Tarapaca, we find the ravine of Camarones. In the said valleys of Sama, Caplina, Lluta, Azapa. and Vitor, almost the entire population of the province is accumulated. The rest of the western part consists of sandy desert. 2. MlNEKAL RESOUECES The mineral wealth of Tacna is unimportant. All the mining enterprises that are to be found in the province belong either to Chileans or Europeans, with the exception of the salt deposit of Chacalluta and the sulphur beds of Aguas Calientes.* xu * A In * \ 921 th,e out P ut