Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-03-03
TACNA.ARICA DISPUTE
HINGES ON PLERISCITE
Chile and Peru Have Been at Swords
Point Since War of the Pacific, With
All Peace Steps Futile.

relei tnem 10 the queen OF span 4l'
arbitration
Although the Peruvian COngr ~.
proved of this agreement. the C'',I"dU
Chamber Of Deputies CarisH is ,ure
By preparing an unfavorab'c rep'r- and
submitting it to the eoye;nm'n; with
the recommendation that rev efforts
b. undertaken in that respect.
In the meantime there arose a series
of disputes over the methods adopted
bv Chile 10 govern the provinces OF
Tacna africa The Peruvian govern
ment's protests against the treatment
accorded its citizens Ill the provinces
in question bacam> so emphatic that
Chile recalled her diplomatic envoy
from Lima.
In 1905 Chile sgain appointed
minister to Peru. but not until 1908
were negotiations renewed in accord
ance with the terms of the Ancon
treaty. In that year the minister of
foreign relations of Chile. Puga Borne.
proposed the signing of several convcn-
tions on commerce. merchant marine,
construction of an international rail-
way. realization of the plebiscite and
the payment of the indemnity stipu-
lated. These five conventions were to
be signed at the same time and incor-
porated into one. The Peruvian min
lister. Mr.. Seoane. declined the proposal
of combining the plebiscite protocol
with other matters.
Memorial Causes Break.
Shortly after a new incident gave rise
to a severance of diplomatic relations
between the two nations. and that was
when the Chilean minister in Lima eX-
pressed the desire of placing a bronze
tablet in the mausOleum OF the Peruvian
soldiers who fell during the War of the
Pacific. and because the Peruvian gov
eminent energetically disapproved OF
such action, which she considered in
opportune so long as Chile remained
in possession OF the provinces tenn
porarily coded. the Chilean diplomatic
representative had to Immediately leave
the Peruvian capital.
In 1909 Chile proposed the recon-
sideration of the plebiscite on the basis
of the NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. protocol.
Peru replied by filing memorandum
modifying to a certain extent the
Chilean plan. An exchange of notes
followed between both governments, the
Chilean chancellor maintaining the
| theory that plebiscites in international
law amounted to no more than dis
guised formulas Of annexation. and that
the promise of plebiscite to decide
the sovereignty of Tacna-Arica was in
jure the Peruvian national pride" in
asmuch as the provinces in question
have, as matter Of fact. become per-
manently part of the Chilean sovereign
ty. Notwithstanding, the Chilean min
lister proposed as a conciliatory means
that the plebiscite be carried out, and
to that end outlined the conditions un-
der which Chile would accept it. Peru.
being entirely in disagreement with
Z III = - a. NlzA
| proposal. Soon after. and as protest
against the treatment accorded by the
| Chilean authorities to the Peruvian
citizens in Tacna-Aric the govern
| ment of Lima recalled its representa-
| tive from Santiago. and thus once more
| their diplomatic relations were severed.
P1ebescite Postponed to 1888.
When. in 1912. Mr.. Billinghurst be-
came President Of Peru kilograms we're
exchanged between Santiago and Lima
whereby an agreement was reached to
postpone the plebiscite until 1888 This
caused such reactionary feeling
among the Peruvian people that very
shortly a political movement against
the President led to the downfall of his
| government. The new established gov
eminent refused to recognize such an
agreement and later requested the de-
portation of Mr.. Billinghurst from the
provinces Of Tacna and africa.
After long period Of diplomatic in
terregnum. in 1921 the Chilean minis
ter Of foreign affairs cabled proposal
to the Peruvian government to renew
| the negotiations on the basis of the last
| projects. 1t was then that Peru coun-
tered by asking the submission of the
whole controversy of the Pacific to the
! President of the United States for ar
| bitration.
| Chile accepted and several months
/ later. in July. 1922. the Chilean and
| Peruvian representatives signed a pro-
/ tocol of arbitration at Washington in
which they submitted to the decision of
! the President Of the United States the
difficulties that had arisen from the
non compliance with the third clause
of the treaty OF Ancon." and at Perus
solicitation the arbiter was asked TO de-
eide first whether or not the plebiscite
could be conducted then under existing
| circumstances
Chile declared that it could be car
Tried out for the reason that the third
clause Of the treaty still remained in
force. and that even though the pres
ence Of certain difficulties had impeded
It's realization. yet 1t was not too late
| for its compliance.
7 u
that the plebiscite should have been car
ried out Immediately upon the expira-
ton OF the 10-year period agreed upon
and accused Chile of having premedi-
tatedly hampered its realization and Of
having followed a partial and violent
policy In the two provinces in question
by deporting the Peruvian residents
and bringing in Chileans who undoubt-
edly would assure Chile the success OF
the plebiscite
Peru Claims Act Unjust.
Under those circumstances. Peru
maintained that a plebiscite after a
period of 80 years from the date fixed
, by mutual agreement and after Chile
| had completely nationaliZed the PROV
! inceS would be unjust. and that there
was no other alternative but to give
i back the territory of Tacna and AFRICA,
without further discussion, to the Pc
! ruvian Republic.
! In March, 1925. President Coolidge
! pronounced the arbitral decision. de-
claring that the plebiScite should be
carried out, in view Of the fact that
| the provisions of the treaty OF Ancon
still were in effect. and further because
Chile could not be held responsible for
, the failure to carry 1t out on the date
| agreed upon. This decision. as pre-
viously stated, was unfavorable to the
Peruvian people. but nevertheless they
accepted 1t and appointed their repre-
sentatives to make all necessary ar
rangements to conduct the plebiscite in
the city of AFRICA in collaboration with
the United States and Chilean dele
gates.
Clashes between Peruvians and
Chileans were unavoidable. specially in
the plebiscite zone. And finally Gen.
Lassiter. delegate Of the United States.
declared that the plebiScite under
existing conditions" was impracticable
and consequently ordered the adjourn
ment Of the Plebiscite Commission in
africa. Thus terminated the attempt at