of the case. To this the Government of Chile promptly replied that Bolivia was not concerned in the questions at issue between Peru and Chile. Peru, on the other hand, replied on December 24, that if the consent of Chile could be obtained to a tripartite arbitration, Peru would welcome Bolivia as a party to the conference.

To Chile Bolivia sent a reply2 which conceded that only Peru and Chile were parties to the treaty of 1883; nevertheless, Bolivia had been deprived of her fundamental rights by that treaty, and any settlement of the case by arbitration must concern that state. An international conference was proposed where justice might be meted out to the three nations concerned.

Four days later Bolivia replied to Peru urging again the necessity of including consideration of the question of her right to a port on the Pacific in any settlement of the Chilean-Peruvian controversy and expressing gratitude for the cordiality with which the Bolivian overtures had been received.

Up to this point the American Government had made no official move although informed of and watching the progress of the negotiations with the deepest interest. It was not until January 18, 1922, that the United States made the first move. Secretary Hughes then sent a telegram to both Chile and Peru stating that the Government of the United States had noted with great pleasure the elevated spirit of conciliation which had animated the governments addressed and also the fact that representatives of both governments would be nominated to meet in Washington with the object of finding a means of solving the difficulties which separated the two countries. Ten days later Bolivia requested that the United States recognize her right to participate in the conference by extending to her an invitation to send a properly accredited delegate. January 29 President Harding replied that the United States was merely acting as host to the two countries involved in the discussion, and that it was not within his province to admit Bolivia.

2 December 24, 1921.

Acceptances were dispatched from Chile and Peru and the date of the Washington Conference was set by the United States for May 16, 1922.

At the opening of the conference, Secretary Hughes, who acted as chairman pending the election of a presiding officer, opened the conference with these words: "The only relief for a troubled world is to resort to the processes of reason in lieu of those of force. Direct and candid interchanges, a sincere desire to make an amicable adjustment, the promotion of mutual understanding and the determination to avoid unnecessary points of difference in order that attention may be centered upon what is fair and practicablethese are the essence of the processes of reason."

The Honorable Luis Izquierdo, Chilean delegate, replied: "The Government of Chile, Mr. Secretary, lost no time in complying with the generous inspiration of your government, and I may add that it did this, inspired by a high spirit of international conciliation, which I hope and confidently expect will be reflected in our deliberations. Convinced that our distinguished colleagues, the representatives of Peru, are inspired by the same sentiments that animate us, we entertain the hope that the present conference will re-establish cordial relations between the two sister nations." He referred to the purpose of the Washington negotiations as an effort to make effective the unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of Ancon.

Señor Meliton Porras, delegate from Peru, paid a sincere and enthusiastic tribute to the American nation and expressed the hope that the results of its initiative might be proportionate to its high ideal. He defined the Washington Conference as one designed to end "the controversy of the Pacific."

As the conference met it was announced at the State Department to be the definite policy of the United States to act only as an accommodating host to the conference, until the

conference members should formally request direct aid in composing their differences.3

There was some speculation on the part of the interested public as to the outcome of the conference, owing to the fact that a report had been circulated in both Chile and Peru to the effect that a secret advance agreement already had been reached by the two governments whereby the provinces were to be divided, the one going to Chile, the other to Peru. Such a storm of protest arose in both countries that each foreign minister had not only to deny the reports but to pledge that under no circumstances would a foot of the provinces be given up.

Bolivia, as indicated above, having been denied representation in the conference, sent nevertheless an official observer to the meeting, who presented a last formal request for admission to the respective delegates through the Bolivian minister. The delegates, however, replied through the diplomatic representatives of their countries that they were not empowered to admit Bolivia to the discussion and so Bolivia remained unrepresented."

A commission of native Tarapacans also presented a memorial to President Harding declaring that the validity of the Treaty of Ancon had been destroyed by Chilean violations; that the session of Tarapaca to Chile was made without consulting the will of its inhabitants, but against their will; and that Tarapaca, not having been an object of the dispute which caused the war, it could not legally be transferred to Chile by the treaty which concluded the war."

For two weeks the conference debated and the question was still undecided whether the arbitration should be a

3The only open records of the conference from the first plenary session to the final meeting are the newspaper accounts. The official record, a copy of which is at the Pan-American Union, is not accessible for consultation until both Peru and Chile have at least ratified the protocol and supplementary act.

4Christian Science Monitor, May 12, 1922. 5Washington Post, May 16, 1922.

•New York Times, May 19, 1922.

7Ibid.

judicial or a political one, i.e., whether, as Chile maintained, a plebiscite should determine the possession of Tacna and Arica; or, as Peru still asserted, the failure to hold a plebiscite in 1894 had nullified Chile's claim to the provinces. A diplomat remarked that the quarrel over the provinces reminded him of two bald-headed men fighting for the possession of a snaggle-toothed comb.

By June 1 there had emerged from the pourparlers, three proposals for settlement by arbitration: namely, by the United States alone; by the United States and Argentina and Brazil, jointly; and by the United States and either Argentina or Brazil.

By the middle of June negotiations had reached an impasse. Ambassador Mathieu of Chile laid before Secretary Hughes a note saying that the rock on which the negotiations had stranded was the stipulation in the Treaty of Ancon to hold a plebiscite to determine the nationality of the two provinces of Tacna and Arica. Chile was willing to submit to arbitration by the United States only the question of the "fixation of conditions" for the plebiscite. Peru was willing to abide by the arbitral decision of the United States as to whether a plebiscite should be held at all or not. The appeal was made to the United States to come to the aid of the conferees.

Under these circumstances it was the good fortune of Secretary Hughes to suggest a compromise acceptable to both Chile and Peru,10 which later appeared in the protocol. Peru, however, suggested an additional reservation, to the effect that if the arbiter mentioned therein decided that no plebiscite should be held and Chile and Peru could not decide the sovereignty of the provinces by direct negotiations, both countries should request an exercise of the "good offices" of the United States. Secretary Hughes suggested also the wording of that clause in the supplementary act which pro

8New York Times, June 17, 1922.

Ibid., June 24, 1922.

10Ibid., July 7, 1922.

vides that during the negotiations the administrative organization of the provinces shall not be disturbed.

On July 21 in a final plenary session the protocol and supplementary act, as given below, were signed by the delegates from the participating nations.

PROTOCOL OF ARBITRATION

"Assembled at Washington, D. C., pursuant to the invitation of the Government of the United States of America, for the purpose of arriving at a settlement of the long-standing controversy, with respect to the unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of Peace of October 20, 1883, the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Peru have for that purpose named their respective plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

"Don Carlos Aldunate and Don Luis Izquierdo, Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary of Chile on Special Mission; and "Don Meliton F. Porras and Don Hernan Velarde, Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary of Peru on Special Mission; who after exchanging their respective full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon, and concluded the following articles:

"Article 1° It is hereby recorded that the only difficulties arising out of the Treaty of Peace concerning which the two countries have not been able to reach an agreement, are the questions arising out of the unfulfilled provisions of Article 3° of said Treaty.

"Article 2° The difficulties referred to in the preceding article, will be submitted to the arbitration of the President of the United States of America, whose decision shall be final. The arbitrator shall give both parties opportunity to be heard, and shall take into consideration such arguments, evidence, and documents as may be presented. The arbitrator shall determine the periods within which the arguments, evidence and documents shall be presented, and shall determine all questions of procedure.

"Article 3° The present protocol shall be submitted to the approval of the respective governments, and ratifications exchanged at Washington, D. C., through the intermediary of the diplomatic representatives of Chile and Peru, within the maximum period of three months."

Supplementary Act

"In order to determine with precision the scope of the arbitration stipulated in Article 2° of the protocol signed on this date, the undersigned agree to place on record the following points:

"10 The following question, presented by Peru at a session of the conference held May 27 last, shall be included in the arbitration: