723.2515/989
The Chilean Ambassador (Mathieu) to the Secretary of State
My Dear Mr. Secretary: My Government has sent to me instructions which make it necessary for me to take advantage of your [Page 504] 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 3, 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 Delegations of Chile and Peru.
My Government has accepted this Clause with the understanding that when it is stated that “the administrative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed” such statement confirms the provision of Article 3 of the Treaty, which subjects the territory to the “Chilean laws and authorities.”
In order to remove the doubts to which I have referred, 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, 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 Peru or Chile new title or new rights.
Thanking you in advance for your courtesy in considering this matter, and with expression of high regard, I am [etc.]