723.2515/2401a: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Consul at Arica (Von Tresckow)
For Lassiter. This morning I held a conference attended by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Stimson, Assistant Secretary Olds, Mr. Dennis, and Mr. White, the Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs. We arrived at the following conclusions and recommendations:
(1) In our opinion, form of resolution you propose in your telegram June 1, 5 p.m., should be modified to read as follows:14
“The Plebiscitary Commission, in the exercise of its duties and functions under the Award, hereby formulates and declares its findings and conclusions as follows:
- 1.
- Pursuant to the terms of the Treaty of Ancon, the plebiscitary territory has remained, and still remains, subject to Chilean laws and authority. In these circumstances, the creation and maintenance of conditions proper and necessary for the holding of a free and fair plebiscite, as required by the Treaty and the Award, constituted an obligation resting upon Chile. This obligation has not been discharged, and the Commission finds as a fact that the failure of Chile in this regard has frustrated the efforts of the Commission to hold the plebiscite as contemplated by the Award, and has rendered its task impracticable of accomplishment.
- 2.
- As the result of its experience and observations throughout the course of the plebiscitary proceedings, the Commission has the settled conviction that the further prosecution of the plebiscitary proceedings, in an effort to hold the plebiscite as contemplated by the Award, would be futile. The Commission can not ignore its paramount duty under the Award to hold only a free and fair plebiscite, as contemplated by the Treaty and the Award, and not to hold a plebiscite which would not be in accord with the intent of the Treaty and the Award.
The Plebiscitary Commission accordingly decides upon the grounds above stated:
- First. That a free and fair plebiscite, as required by the Award is impracticable of accomplishment.
- Second. That the plebiscitary proceedings be, and they are, hereby terminated, subject, however, to the formulation and execution of such measures as may be required for the proper liquidation of the affairs of the Commission and the transmission of its records and final report to the Arbitrator.”
(2) Text quoted above has been seen and approved by General Pershing. When time comes to present it, you should offer it on your own initiative without previously notifying or consulting either Freyre or Edwards.
(3) You must choose precise time for introduction of resolution with utmost care to see that such action, looking as it does to definite termination of the plebiscite, is taken only under circumstances which render it inevitable by reason of Chile’s attitude in forcing the issue. Much depends, in this respect upon what Chile may do within next three or four days. I have been advised that a new note is on way here from Santiago, and text of it may be received later today. There is always bare possibility that Chile may come forward at last minute with proposal entitled to consideration, and that Edwards may receive instructions not to force issue on plebiscite for time being. We do not feel that you can afford to declare plebiscite terminated in face of any new proposals by Chile which hold out any real prospect of settlement. But if nothing develops to alter present status and we continue to confront situation wherein Chile demands decision on plebiscite and at same time maintains intransigent position in the negotiations, there will be no reason for you to delay your action further.
(4) As I understand Commission’s practice and procedure, any resolution that Edwards may offer on Saturday must go over until next meeting if objection is made to its immediate consideration by any member of the Commission, and in your telegram of June 1, 5 p.m., you state that you intend to let the motion lie on table as unfinished business to be considered at next meeting. This procedure will afford me the opportunity to deal with the few contingencies that remain and to telegraph you finally that way is clear to introduce resolution quoted above under (1). I assume that a second brief adjournment could be taken if required by circumstances, but I doubt that it will be necessary to take one. Whatever happens, I must rely upon you to await this final word from me before you introduce this resolution, making no communication meanwhile on the subject to either party.
(5) If on Saturday Edwards should attempt to spread on record a statement of his position on plebiscite, either by speech or otherwise, it may be advisable for you to make brief rejoinder. I do not think it would be wise for you to enter upon elaborately detailed discussion for this purpose. It should be sufficient were you to challenge his statements [Page 461] wherever you feel you could do it appropriately, declaring that position he is taking is not supported by record before Commission. If he should deny Commission’s power to do anything but fix date for election and proceed with plebiscite, you should dissent.
(6) I assume you are taking and will take all proper precautions in every eventuality for complete protection of personnel, including those in outlying districts, calling them in, if necessary. No measures should be overlooked to eliminate risk of unfortunate and embarrassing incidents.
- Quoted passage not paraphrased.↩