"Greatest War Indemnity "

" Greatest War Indemnity"

After decades of nugatory wrangling, Chile and Peru brought their dispute over the provinces of Tacna and Arica before the President of the U. S. for arbitration.

Presentation of the Chilean brief was made by Senor Don Beltran Mathieu (Chilean Ambassador to the U. S.) to U. S. Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes, who represented President Coolidge. The case for Peru was presented by the Peruvian Charge d'Affaires at Washington. Copies of both briefs (which consist of printed volumes of about 300 pages setting forth the arguments, and appendices containing copies of correspondence, other documents and maps) were handed over by the representatives of Chile and Peru for President Coolidge. Other copies were exchanged between the two litigants.

The case for Chile is that she favors a plebiscite, as laid down in the Treaty of Ancon which ended the War of 1879-1882, to decide whether Tacna and Arica shall be returned to Peru or remain under the sovereignty of Chile.

The case for Peru is that she claims that "the only just plebiscite, preserving the legal and moral interests of both Chile and Peru under the Treaty of Ancon, would be one which would reflect the conditions as to population prevailing in 1894." Continuing, the brief explains that the seizure of territory constituted " the greatest war indemnity the world has ever known." Peru claims, moreover, that the population of the two provinces was overwhelmingly Peruvian down to 1910, therefore "the plebiscite contemplated by the Treaty may for all practical purposes be regarded as having been held, and to have resulted virtually in favor of Peru." It is also asserted that Chile had subsequently " destroyed the conditions for an honest plebiscite by artificially changing the voting population." To permit a plebiscite to be held would be, in Peruvian eyes, to "transform the Treaty [Treaty of Ancon] providing for temporary administration into a unilateral annexation; it would in time of peace constitute a conquest without precedent; it would be a shameful and dishonest conquest because it would have been done by deception and fraud." The history of the Tacna-Arica dispute starts from the peace settlement of the Chile-Peruvian War.

By the Treaty of Ancon (1883, ratified in 1884) Peru lost forever the province of Tarapaca, but the provinces of Tacna and Arica were to be submitted to a plebiscite after a period of ten years had elapsed, and if the provinces were subsequently returned to Peru, that country was to pay Chile about $5,000,000. But when the time came to hold the plebiscite, Chile and Argentina were at loggerheads and Peru was convulsed with internal disorder over the election of a successor to President Morales Bermudez, who had suddenly died. Nothing could be done at that time by either country with regard to Tacna and Arica. Negotiations were attempted by both nations from time to time but without effect, the chief obstacle being that Peru insisted that only Peruvians should have the right to take part in the plebiscite.