Tacna-Arica Question

Meeting of Commission.

The plebiscitary commission met at Arica on Aug. 4, 1925, and drew up its rules of procedure. On Dec. 16, Chile appealed to the arbitrator from a resolution of the commission making the date of the plebiscite, she thought, con ditional upon Chile complying with certain regulations of the commission. Chile took the position that by these regulations the commission exceeded its power and infringed upon her ad ministrative control of the provinces and that the commission's control over the plebiscite began only with the registration of voters. Chile later withdrew the appeal regarding dates, and the arbitrator, in a decision dated Jan. 15, 1926, permitted its with drawal. He pointed out at the same time that the submission agreed that the arbitrator should determine conditions of the plebiscite; that he had established a plebiscitary commission whose requirements had the same binding effect as if prescribed by him ; and that conditions for holding a fair plebiscite became the concern of the commission from its organization.

The

arbitrator held that while the territory remained in Chile's possession and subject to Chilean laws and authority pending the plebiscite, the possession and administrative authority were sub ject to the provision for holding the plebiscite, the award having stated that the exercise by Chile of legislative, executive and judicial power should not go to the extent of frustrating the pro vision for a plebiscite. The execution of the requirements of the plebiscitary commission was, therefore, but the exercise by both parties of their jurisdiction respectively in accordance with their agreement, and was not in derogation of the administrative authority of Chile.

On Feb. 16, 1926, the American Government proffered its good offices to Chile and Peru in an endeavour to adjust the differences, on the understanding that pending such an adjustment the author ity of the plebiscitary commission should be maintained unim paired. The American offer was accepted by Chile on Feb. i g, with the proviso that the arbitral award must be submitted for approval to the respective constitutional bodies. Peru was unable to accept the offer, and on March II, the American ambassador at Santiago submitted a further memorandum to the Chilean Gov ernment explaining his Government's interpretation of the term "good offices." Chile reiterated her acceptance of the offer, and Peru having accepted, the secretary of State, through the Amer ican ambassador, on March 25, suggested that the plebiscitary proceedings should be temporarily suspended.

Chile and Peru appointed plenipotentiaries who met with the secretary of State on April 6. The secretary made proposals for

the division of the territory between Chile and Peru, for the neutralization of the provinces, for the transfer of the provinces to a third party and finally a proposal for a corridor to the sea for Bolivia, the territory to the north thereof to go to Peru, to the south thereof to Chile, equitable compensation being made for improvements, etc. None of these proposals was accepted by both parties. The last proposal was accepted by Peru, but Chile desired something more definite, namely, the defining of the boundaries of the corridor, and made a proposal setting forth the limits of the corridor. This last proposal was rejected by Peru.

In the meantime conditions in the provinces had not been im proved and the plebiscitary commission, being pressed by the Chilean member to fix the date for the elections, voted a resolu tion on June 14 declaring that Chile having failed in its obliga tion to create and maintain conditions proper and necessary for the holding of a free and fair plebiscite, the commission found that this failure had frustrated the efforts of the commission to hold the plebiscite as contemplated by the award and had rendered its task impracticable of accomplishment. The com mission therefore decided that a free and fair plebiscite as required by the award was impracticable of accomplishment and that the plebiscitary proceedings be terminated. The commission there upon closed up its work.

Intimations received during the summer of 1926 from both Chile and Peru led the secretary of State to make a final pro posal of settlement on Nov. 3o, 1926. His suggestion that the territory in dispute be given to Bolivia was not accepted, how ever, and, all types of possible solutions having been proposed and rejected, no further suggestions for a settlement were made. However, relations between the two countries gradually became more satisfactory, especially after the Sixth International Con ference of American States at Havana, in January and February 1928, and the secretary of State on July 9, 1928, suggested to both Governments the re-establishment of diplomatic relations as "a favourable means for facilitating the definite removal of all existing misunderstandings and hence lead to permanent read justment of the relations between the two countries mutually sat isfactory to both." This suggestion was received favourably by both Governments and diplomatic relations were re-established on Oct. 3, when the Chilean ambassador presented his letters of credence to the President of Peru. The Peruvian ambassador pre sented his letters of credence to the President of Chile two days later.