Walker Blaine to Henry Trescot, March 28, 1882

Mr. Walker Blaine to Mr. Trescot

Sir: I have the honor to inform you that we arrived in the harbor of Mollendo on Sunday, the 26th instant, between two and three o’clock in the afternoon. Mr. Cochran, the agent of the Mollendo and Puno Railway at that place, visited the ship shortly after our arrival, and most kindly placed the facilities of his road at our disposition. Learning that General Adams was at Arequipa, I telegraphed him to await me at that point, and, in accordance with arrangements made by Mr. Cochran, left Mollendo by special train at eight o’clock Monday morning, Captain Belknap and servant, Lieutenant Hale, and Dr. Whiting, of the United States steamer Alaska, accompanying Mr. Cuthbert Trescot and myself. Half way between Mollendo and Arequipa we were met by General Adams, who accompanied us to Arequipa, where we arrived about four o’clock in the afternoon. On arriving we were met by the adjutant of Señor Carrillo (now the representative in this section of the government of Vice-President Montero), who accompanied us to our hotel. This morning Señor Carrillo called upon us in person, and I have just come from returning his visit. We have been received with great courtesy and cordiality by all the officials of the government, and those connected with the railway have very kindly placed at our disposition all the facilities afforded by their line.

By appointment, I this morning met Señor Juan C. Carrillo and had a Iong conference with him. He was formerly minister of foreign affairs of Bolivia, and represented that country at the Arica conference. He is now accredited by Bolivia as minister near the Governments of Peru and Chili, and is thus far on his way to those countries. Señor Carrillo began by saying that he desired to speak with all frankness and confidence, in which I told him I would heartily concur. He then asked General Adams to read me a letter which he had on the twenty-fifth instant addressed to the general, a copy and translation of which you will find inclosed, marked inclosures 1 and 2. Having listened to the translation of the letter by General Adams, I replied in substance as follows:

“In order, Señor Carrillo, to make a satisfactory and full explanation of and answer to the question contained in your letter, I will begin by recalling to your mind that after the failure of the conference at Arica the United States still persisted in its effort to bring about a peace between Peru, Bolivia, and Chili. As the instructions given to Mr. Trescot have been made public, I Can refer to them without embarrassment. From them you will have learned that the government of Garcia Calderon was recognized in Peru by the United States, as the latter power understood that such recognition was desired by Chili and would tend toward the establishment of peace. After the said government had been so recognized by the United States, Chili, without explanation and without notification to the United States, arrested Garcia Calderon and carried him as prisoner to Chili. You will, I think, agree with me that this act, thus unexplained, and in view of the attendant circumstances stated in Mr. Trescot’s instructions, might well seem like one of intentional insult to the United States. Mr. Trescot’s was, therefore, instructed to frankly state to Chili the view which the United States was forced to hold of this arrest, and to request of the Government of Chili an explanation. This lay at the threshold of Mr. Trescot’s mission, and was the first point discussed in his interview with Señor Balmaceda. After this had been fully discussed, and Chili had made explanation (and I beg you, sir, to remark that this question was one wholly and only concerning Chili and my government), the conversation turned upon what terms Chili was disposed to offer to Peru as a basis of peace. The conclusions thus reached were afterward summarized in the protocol to which you have referred in your letter. And here I beg you to observe that a protocol of this nature does not differ from a written memorandum of conversation, not being in any sense, as you seem to have understood, a contract or binding agreement. It is not with us the custom to seal such memoranda, but Señor Balmaceda stated that it was the diplomatic usage in South America so to do, and Mr, Trescot assented to it, observing that the seal could add nothing to its force.

“It will perhaps, however, be more satisfactory to examine the protocol itself, which states:

• “First. The question of Garcia Calderon, which is of interest only to the United States and Chili, is disposed of.
• “Second. The question of armed intervention (in effect a declaration of war) is not within the province of diplomacy, and is, therefore, not contemplated by the mission of Mr. Trescot. I cannot but think that such a question is never within the purview of any diplomatic mission.
• “Third. The United States will offer mediation (which is almost identical with arbitration) only when conducive to the good of all the belligerents, and when asked by all. Chili states that she does not desire it, and therefore the United States does not offer it.
• “Fourth. Referring to the question of good offices Chili states that if the United States will offer them on the bases proposed by herself (Chili), all facilities at her command in Peru shall be extended to Mr. Trescot.
• “Fifth. The terms on which Chili will make peace with Peru are stated.

“Finally, it is stated that Mr. Trescot thought it best to telegraph to his government as to whether the good offices should be offered on the conditions named, and awaits a reply, which reply forming part of the protocol and published at the same time, is stated in Mr. Trescot’s letter to Señor Balmaceda. The effect of this reply, you will at once see, was to render the whole protocol blank paper, for in any event and on any supposition, but the first three articles can be regarded as in any way binding, and of these the first states simply a question which concerns the United States and Chili alone, and the second and third enunciate principles recognized in all international law. Mr. Trescot was, therefore, entirely correct when he wrote to Mr. Adams what I now state to you, that nothing had been signed which in any way bound the United States as to its action in this matter.

“Further, permit me to say that this will fully explain why Bolivia is not mentioned in the protocol, for it is evident that if the United States could not offer its good offices to bring about peace with Peru on the bases proposed by Chili, there was no need of discussing the Bolivian question. If the offer of Chili with regard to Peru was accepted, then the Bolivian question would naturally come up next in order for discussion.

“One matter further: The United States has replied to Mr. Trescot’s telegram, stating that she cannot offer good offices or take any part in bringing about a peace based upon both money indemnification and a cession of territory, and that the question as to the future action of the United States has been referred to Congress, and while awaiting the decision of that body it has seemed good to Mr. Trescot to himself go to Peru and to send me to Bolivia, in order to ascertain the intentions and desires of those governments with regard to peace.

“I ought perhaps to add that it was not intended that the protocol referred to should be made public, but, the essential portions having been published in the United States by some mistake (as they were communicated in a confidential dispatch), Mr. Trescot did not consider that he could refuse permission to Señor Balmaceda to publish the entire document.”

Señor Carrillo thereupon replied that he was pleased to hear my explanation, and that he would state to me with frankness and in confidence what were the views of his government and people. He said that they had been led to believe from the declarations of Mr. Hurlbut in Peru (for during the time Mr. Adams was absent from Bolivia) that the United States would not, in any event, permit peace upon the basis of annexation of territory, and that Bolivia had patiently awaited the result of the influence of the United States, not expecting a forcible intervention, but led to believe that our government would lend its moral influence, as it had done with so much effect in the case of Mexico; that after his return to Bolivia, in the early part of January last, Mr. Adams had informed the government of the mission of Mr. Trescot, and had requested, to which the government had cheerfully acceded, that pending the result of your negotiations in Santiago things might remain in statu quo; that just about this time Señor Baptista had been sent as delegate from Bolivia to the proposed congress in Central America, and that secret instructions had been given him to converse, while on his journey, with any men of prominence with whom he might meet in Chili or Peru, that he might inform the Government of Bolivia as to the views of these countries with regard to peace; that at Tacna, Señor Baptista had met Señor Lillo, who, on behalf of Chili, had proposed that peace should be made between his government and Bolivia, to which Señor Baptista replied that his government would not make peace, save after consultation with and with the approval of Peru, and had suggested, speaking for himself, that it seemed best to make a truce rather than a peace; that conferences had been held, and that certain conclusions, subject to the approval of his government, had been assented to by Señor Baptista, but that the Government of Bolivia would never have agreed to peace, even with the consent of Peru, and this independent of any suggestion or request on the part of Mr. Adams. He also gave me to understand that Chili had offered to cede Tacna, Arica, and Pisagua to Bolivia (all this territory being Peruvian), in exchange for Atacama. Further continuing, Señor Carrillo said that we could not regard it as strange, in view of the attitude of the United States, if Bolivia felt that the time had arrived when it was wise for her to make the best terms possible for herself and by herself, supposing that the United States had finally withdrawn from the question.

I replied that I did not understand that the United States had as yet definitely decided its future policy, and requested him to state to me the intentions of Bolivia.

In answer, he said that he would state them frankly, but begged that his views might be regarded as personal and confidential. He said that, first, it might be advantageous to consider that the same results could be brought about, without offending either Peru or Bolivia, by a careful use of language. For example, Bolivia could cede territory to Chili, provided it was regarded as in lieu of a money indemnity, and not as a right of conquest; for to affirm the latter proposition to be a recognized principle would, in effect, place the territory of Bolivia at the mercy of any nation stronger than herself, rather than do which she would prefer the immediate termination of a national existence. I replied that I thought that I could safely affirm that my government would never take part in any negotiation for peace which recognized cession of territory, without any other consideration, as the legitimate result of victory in war. He then added that it was absolutely essential to Bolivia to have a free and independent outlet and inlet upon the Pacific, the reasons for which he detailed, but which it is not necessary for me now to repeat. With these considerations as premises, he thought his government would make peace on the following conditions:

• Recognizing indemnification as the right of the victor in war.
• The indemnity due from Bolivia to Chili shall be fixed at a definite sum, and in default of payment, Chili shall be allowed to take Atacama; the fact shall also be recognized that, as a result of the war, a new demarkation of boundaries between the three nations has become necessary, and that the natural affinity of Atacama to Chili, arising from population and proximity, may be regarded in settling the demarkation.
• Bolivia desires, for the purpose of procuring a port upon the Pacific, to make an independent treaty with Peru by which, in exchange for Tacna and Arica, she would give the province of Caupolican, bordering upon Lake Titicaca and contiguous to Peru, and possibly would assume a portion of her debt or pay an additional compensation in money, the details to be hereafter arranged between the two countries.

Reverting to previous conversation, Señor Carrillo then inquired as to what I thought would be the attitude of my government upon the question.

I told him that I could not form an opinion; that it was within the bounds of possibility that Congress, to which body I understood that the question had been referred, might decide to withdraw altogether, or to intervene with effect; that I had no information or intimation on which to predicate an opinion; that, possibly, so indefinite a. reply might be somewhat embarrassing to his government, but that a definite decision would, in all probability, be reached by the United States in a short time, and that it did not seem to me that a maintenance of affairs in statu quo for a limited period could seriously hamper or prove detrimental to Bolivia.

In this he concurred and informed me that he was accredited both to Chili and Peru, and, for the purpose of conferring with you and with the Government of Peru, would gladly at once proceed to Lima, but was prevented from doing so for certain reasons. (See my dispatch numbered 2.) He also said that he was empowered by his government, on the understanding that the United States had entirely withdrawn from the question, to request the aid of the Argentine Republic, Brazil, or any other American power, and failing in this to request the intervention of Europe, and inquired of me what opinion my government would entertain of the latter course.

I replied that the traditional policy of the United States had ever viewed with disfavor European intervention upon this hemisphere, and that unless this policy had been radically overturned (of which I was not informed), it could not but view such a step with disfavor. This was the substance of our conversation.

I inquired of Señor Carrillo as to whether I was at liberty to refer to it in the conference which I hope to have in La Paz with Señor Zilveti, Bolivian minister of foreign affairs, to which he replied that, though he did not doubt that I would find Señor Zil-veti’s opinions to be identical, he preferred that the latter should express them voluntarily and spontaneously. I therefore take advantage of the mail, which I am informed leaves to-morrow for Callao, to send this for your guidance and information, and will report further after my return from La Paz.

I have concluded to go thither, and shall leave for Puno at six o’clock to-morrow morning. I have made arrangements which will, I trust, bring me to Mollendo on Monday or Tuesday next, and shall join you in Lima as quickly as possible. It seems to me to be more respectful to proceed to the Bolivian capital, and I cannot but think it extremely doubtful as to whether you will personally be able to go there.

There are some incidental questions as to the effect of the Balmaceda protocol in Bolivia and other matters touched upon in our conversation, to which I do not now deem it necessary to refer, but which I will hereafter explain to you, either orally or in writing.

I have written hastily, but I trust I have made myself intelligible, and that what I said and its results may meet with your approval.

I am, &c.,