New-York tribune., 1900-12-05


The present controversy between the TWO
chief western States Of South America is over
the fulhlment OF the Treaty of Ancon. by which
peace was restored between them after the laSt
war. in 1884 That treaty provided that the
two Peruvian provinces of Tacna ana AREA
should be held and administered by Chill 1or
ton wears. at the end OF which period the IN
habitants of the provinces should decide oy pop
Mar vote whether they should be restored 10
Peru or should remain Gillian, and nnaiiy the
State to which they were thus awarded snouid
pay 20 the other a solatium or Slo'OOO'OOo III
Gillian silver. Now, this treaty was ratlned
on March 2S, 1884. The ten years of Gillian
possession of the provinces therefore terminated
ON March IS, 1894, and a plebiscitum should
then have been taken to determine the subse-
auent status of the provinces. But though
more than six years have elapsed since then TO
plebiscitum has been taken and none is yet
provided for. Hence acrimonious dispute and
menace Of war.
As early as 1892 Peru sought to arrange with
Chill In advance for the prompt holding Of an
election at the end of the ten years. but Chilli
evaded positive action. 1t was not, indeed,
until 1898 that Chilli would enter into practical
negotiations upon the subject. On April Is of
that year. more than four years later than the
date prescribed by the Treaty of Ancon, a
protocol was signed by the diplomatic repro
sentatives of the two countries, providing for
the submission of various questions to arbitra-
ton These questions involved the qualiica-
tions Of those who should take part in the
plebiscitum and the secrecy or publicity of the
voting The protocol likewise stipulated that
the plebiscitun should be taken under the di-
rectiOn of three Commissioners, one OF whom
should be Peruvian, one Chilian and one
Spaniard appointed by the Queen Regent OF
Spain. who was also to be the arbitrator Of the
questions named. Agreement was also made
concerning the time and manner Of payment of
the S1OOo0,OO0.
With the signing Of this protocol a final set
tlement seemed TO be in sight But It was not
so. 1t was necessary for the protocol to be
ratified by the legislatures Of the two nations.
The Peruvian Congress did ratify it promptly.
So did the Chilian Senate. But the Chilian
Chamber OF Deputies rejected IT, and has per
sisted in its rejection Of it down to the present
time. No satisfactory reason appears TO have
been given for Chili's noncompliance with the
terms of the treaty, now more than six years
overdue. Indeed, the sole reason we have
heard advanced is the extraordinary one that
popular sentiment in the two provinces is still
too favorable to Peru. That. being interpreted.
means that Chilli will not consent to a Pile
biscitum until she is assured 1t will be In her
favor. Such a pretext for delay is, of course,
worse than none at ali since ii not only post
pones the fulfilment OF the Treaty Of Ancon. but
aims directly to nullify and to repudiate both
the letter and the essential spirit OF that in
strument-
An ominous sequel to this story is now pro-
yided. At the Ibero- American conference Of
Spanish speaking States at Madrid all the South
American States which were represented, ex-
cept Chill, voted in favor Of a general arbitra-
ton system for the settlement OF boundary and
other disputes. Chill alone opposed the scheme.
and especially opposed it's application to terri
torial or boundary disputes. And now. since
the adoption Of the scheme over her head Chill
proposes to adopt for the first time In the West
ern Hemisphere, the Prussian military system
and to make every man a soldier. These things,
as we have said, are unquestionably ominous.
Yet II would be injudicious to regard them as
making war certain. The fact that the Chilian
Administration and Senate both agreed to the
protocol shows that there is an important ele-
ment in that country In favor of a peaceful and
equitable settlement. It would be pleasant to
believe that the contrary conduct Of the Cham
Der Of Deputies was merely bit of obstreper-
Gus factionalism, not representative OF national
sentiment and not likely to be permanently ef-
fective