Evening star., 1923-11-25
BY BEN McKELwAY.

their long standing dispute
over the provinces of Tacna
and africa, and the United States,
as arbitrator, now undertakes the
difficult and perhaps thankless task
of settling an issue which contains
as many firebrands and bombshells
as 1t ever did. The naturally uncom-
p, omising attitude of both parties to
the dispute--natural because each
believes its viewpoint the only right
one--leayes the unhappy mediator
facing the traditional alternatives of
the devil and the deep blue sea.
Only by brilliant diplomatic stroke
may this Gordian knot be cut cleanly
10 the satisfaction of both parties
and thus clear away the most stub
corn barrier to lasting peace and
good will in South America once and
Cor all.
The diplomatic representatives of
both countries have placed their ar
-suments before the President. In
each case they consist Of a small
volume Of some 800 pages and a
much longer accompanying volume
IF exhibits. The counter, or final
arguments. are due in about three
months, and then the President will
ietermine-and his decision shall be
inal." according to the agreement
whether Il pIebiscite shall he held to
determine the sovereignty of the
provinces or whether this sovereignty
shall be fixed by some other means.
Where They Disagree.
The large darkly colored object
which may be discerned within the
woodpile, is the fact that Chile con-
ENDS the arbitrator is limited in
MS powers and can determine only
now and when a plebiscite may be
leld, while Peru, just as loudly and
Just as eloquently proclaims that
plebiscite has long since been out
of the question and it remains only
for the arbitrator to decide how the
question may be settled without such
plebiscite.
Arguing for the plebiscite. the
chileanS contend that the ultimate
disposition of Tacna and africa should
ne left to vote of the inhabitants.
70 be taken at a time and under such
conditions as may be fixed by the
President. Such a settlement. Chile
contends, not only fulfills the pro-
visions of article III OF the treaty OF
-hncon, which stipulated for pleb
scite, but conforms to the doctrine
of the consent of the governed"
which is in harmony. the brief sets
forth. with the democratic principles
Of controlling popular government
today.
Peru. on the other hand, points out
hat the lapse of thirty years since
1894, during which Chile has frus-
rated the holding of an honest ple-
ptscite, has so materially and vitally
changed the conditions contemplated
IN the treaty Of Ancon that it would
seem that a plebiscite in the present
circumstances would be impractical.
unfair and unsound." Peru contends
hat only the same conditions which
Effected the population of the prov
noes in 1894 would make a plebiscite
air and just and preserve the legal
and moral interests of both Chile and
Peru under the Ancon treaty.
Says Other Questions Eliminated.
Chile states, however. that the
present proceedings have eliminated
-wo of the provisions of the treaty
Of Ancon. namely, those which re-
ferred to the occupation Of Tacna
IoI a pei iou VI ttii ySoiS
by Chile and the negotiation by both
parties of protocol as the method
of holding plebiscite and the time
and method of payment OF 100000
only two of the four conditions Of
The treaty remain, therefore-the
lctual holding of the plebiscite and
he payment of the s1O.O00,0G0. The
Conference between Chile and Peru
lob h.I nctn Ia Of
year. was called for the express pur-
pose of deciding the "unfultilled pro-
visions of the Ancon treaty" it is
argued, and those two mentioned
above are the only "unfulfilled pro-
visions of the treaty of Ancon."
Then Chile goes further to argue
ernment, as arbitrator in the dispute.
IS limited in it's powers and is not
given the authority to examine into
the validity of the treaty of Ancon
any more that the United States in
an arbitration of the treaty of peace
terminating the Mexican war of the
war with Spain, would allow the ar
Ditration OF the justice of the vast
concessions by Mexico or the Philip
pine Islands or Porto Rico by Spain.
tween Chile and Peru in the thirty
years since the termination of the
war Of the Pacific shows, the brief
adds, that the idea of plebiscite
mas never been abandoned by the
parties to the treaty, and that the
present arbitrator Is not given au-
thority to decide upon the inability
of the two parties to reach an agree
ment- on the question of the pleb-
iscite.
Negative Answer No Solution.
A negative answer by the United
States regarding the plebiscite, Chile
states very frankly, would In no
means end the undesirable and un-
wholesome state of controversy be-
tween Chile and Peru, to end which.
It is pointed out, was the primary
purpose of the Washington confer
ence and, presumably, of the present
arbitration. Further, Chile adds that
If the United States adversely de-
E cides on the plebiscite, the whole
subject of settling the controversy
will be left hanging high and dry,
with the possibility of future nego-
tiations ended.
Chile then skilful. 6a>.Cles an in
viting prize before The President by
stating that if the decision is reached
for q plebiscite, it will end the old
and continuous controversy and will
restore cordial relations between
Chile and PERI. The re-establish-
ment of friendiiness between the two