723.2515/751

The Secretary of State to the Peruvian Ambassador ( Pezet )

Excellency: I have received your letter of August 26, referring to a previous conversation, and to a Memorandum left with me44a relating to a matter in question between Peru and Chile, which you describe as the “Question of the Pacific”, and stating the desire of your Government as to proceedings looking toward the settlement of that question. You call my attention to the inquiry presented in the concluding portion of your Memorandum:

“It is hoped, therefore, in the interest of an American settlement of this American question that some formal steps may be taken soon looking to the formation of an American impartial tribunal where this case may be tried. If, however, the position taken by Secretary Blaine with respect to European powers, singly or in group, participating in the settlement of an American affair of this kind has been changed, may we not be advised thereof?”

With respect to the position of Secretary Blaine, you say in the Memorandum:

“The policy of the Department apparently was defined by Secretary Blaine in August, 1881. Mr. Morton, United States Minister to Paris, wrote to Secretary Blaine regarding the offer of France to take part in the arbitration of this controversy. Mr. Blaine stated, in effect, that by reason of the peculiar relationship of the United States to the Republics of South America, the United States could not look with favor upon European powers taking part with the United States in the settlement of a question so essentially American.”

[Page 242]

In your letter, referring to the Memorandum, you ask whether, as you understood me to say verbally and informally, “the doctrine of Secretary Blaine” is the present policy of the Department.

In reply, permit me to say that while there is not the slightest desire to say anything in derogation of Secretary Blaine’s position, I am unable to perceive the appositeness of your inquiry which seems to reveal a misapprehension of the matter with which Secretary Blaine was dealing.

In Secretary Blaine’s instructions to Mr. Morton, at the time to which you evidently refer, he was dealing with a suggested joint intervention of European Powers with the United States in the affairs of Chile and Peru. It would also seem to be clear, from Mr. Morton’s despatch, that France had particularly in mind an intervention for the purpose of protecting French material interests and desired to effect a joint intervention to which the United States should be a party in order to assure the success of the intervention. After referring to the frequency of interventions in European diplomatic history, Secretary Blaine said that he was “constrained to gravely doubt the expediency of uniting with European Powers to intervene, either by material pressure or by moral or political influence, in the affairs of American states”. He instructed Mr. Morton to inform the French Government that “the United States declines to enter into negotiations with European Powers for a joint intervention in the affairs of Chile and Peru.” The Department finds no occasion to qualify or dissent from Secretary Blaine’s statement. ( Foreign Relations of the United States, 1881, pp. 421, 427.) This, you will observe, had no reference to voluntary submission of controversies to arbitration.

With respect to the desire of your Government, as expressed in the abovementioned Memorandum, that the United States should “request Brazil and Argentina to join with the United States in representations both to Peru and Chile”, and the suggestion, according to your recent statement, of the Peruvian Minister to France, “that the United States be requested to join with France and Brazil in securing a mandate from the League of Nations to hear and determine this controversy”, this Government finds itself unable to approve these proposals.

It should, however, be added that this Government, animated by warm and impartial friendship for the Governments of Peru and Chile, would view with deep gratification a permanent settlement of the longstanding question between the two Governments which would be satisfactory to both.

Accept [etc]

Charles E. Hughes
  1. Memorandum not printed.