Volume 2

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE ACCESS TO THE
PACIFIC OCEAN
(BOLIVIA v. CHILE)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
Volume 2 of 6
(Annexes 78 – 153)
13 JULY 2016

i
Index to Volume 2 of 6
Annexes 78 - 153
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 78
Memoria of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, 1863 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Memoria of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia presented to the Extraordinary Assembly held in Oruro in May 1863 on the Mejillones issue (1863), pp 1-10
1
Annex 79
Bolivian Law of 5 June 1863
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
<http://www.lexivox.org/norms/BO-L-18630605.xhtml&gt;,
pp 1-2
13
Annex 80
Treaty of Limits between Chile and Bolivia, signed at Santiago on 10 August 1866
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 95 to its Memorial
17
Annex 81
Secret Defensive Alliance Treaty between Bolivia and Peru, signed at Lima on 6 February 1873
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific,
Vol. I (1884),
pp 151-152
23
Annex 82
Bolivian Decree approving the bases for the concession in favour of the Chilean Nitrate Company, 27 November 1873
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Official documents of Bolivia regarding the issue of the Pacific (1879), pp 69-72
29
Annex 83
Treaty of Limits between Chile and Bolivia, signed at La Paz on 6 August 1874
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 48-49
39
ii
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 84
Supplementary Protocol to the 1874 Treaty of Limits between Chile and Bolivia, signed at La Paz on 21 July 1875
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 50-51
45
Annex 85
Bolivian Law of 14 February 1878
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 8 to its Memorial
51
Annex 86
Note from the Legation of Chile in Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, 2 July 1878
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 29 to its Memorial
55
Annex 87
Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to the Chargé d’Affaires of Chile in Bolivia, 26 December 1878
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 30 to its Memorial
67
Annex 88
Letter from the Minister of Finance of Bolivia to the Governor of Caldera in Bolivia, 31 December 1878
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific,
Vol. I (1884), p 28
73
Annex 89
Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Government of Bolivia, 3 January 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific,
Vol. I (1884), p 29
77
Annex 90
Letter from Severino Zapata, Colonel of the Bolivian Army, to the Customs Administrator in Antofagasta, 11 January 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific,
Vol. I (1884), p 28
81
iii
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 91
Note from the Legation of Chile in Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 42, 20 January 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 31 to its Memorial
85
Annex 92
Bolivian Resolution of 1 February 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 14 to its Memorial
101
Annex 93
Letter from the Consul General of Chile in Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 7 February 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific,
Vol. I (1884), pp 30-31
107
Annex 94
Note from the Chargé d’Affaires of Chile in Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, 8 February 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
113
Annex 95
Note from the Chargé d’Affaires of Chile in Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, 12 February 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
119
Annex 96
Telegram from a correspondent of the newspaper La Patria (Peru), 15 February 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific,
Vol. I (1884), p 55
125
Annex 97
Bolivian Presidential Decree declaring the rupture of communications with Chile and the seizure of properties belonging to Chilean nationals, 1 March 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific,
Vol. I (1884),
pp 101-102
129
iv
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 98
Order of the Ministry of War of Bolivia, 1 March 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific,
Vol. I (1884),
pp 106-107
135
Annex 99
Letter from the Legation of Chile in Peru to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 22 March 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific,
Vol. I (1884),
pp 162-163
141
Annex 100
Letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, 31 March 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru, Memoria of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 1879,
pp 173-179
147
Annex 101
Peruvian Presidential Decree declaring Peru to be in a state of war with Chile, 4 April 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific,
Vol. I (1884), p 206
163
Annex 102
Communiqué from Guillermo Matta, Mayor and Commandant-General of the Armed Forces in the Province of Atacama, 5 April 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
EducarChile, Writings on our history, <http://ww2.educarchile.cl/UserFiles/P0001/File/escritos_19.pdf&gt;
167
Annex 103
Treaty of Peace and Amity between Chile and Bolivia, signed at Santiago on 18 May 1895
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Memoria of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 1896,
pp 167-170
175
v
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 104
Report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to the Bolivian Congress, 20 August 1900 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Ordinary Congress (1900), pp 22-25
185
Annex 105
Boundary Treaty between Brazil and Bolivia, signed at Petrópolis on
17 November 1903
(Original in Portuguese, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil <http://dai-mre.serpro.gov.br/atos-internacionais/bilaterais/1903/b_60/a…;
195
Annex 106
Treaty of Peace and Amity between Bolivia and Chile, signed at Santiago on 20 October 1904
(Spanish transcription, English translation, original in Spanish)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 100 to its Memorial
207
Annex 107
Bolivian Supreme Resolution approving the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Amity between Bolivia and Chile,
11 November 1904
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Collection of Treaties in Force in the Republic of Bolivia, Vol. IV, p 403
241
Annex 108
Bolivian Law approving the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Amity between Bolivia and Chile, 4 February 1905
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Collection of Treaties in Force in the Republic of Bolivia, Vol. IV,
pp 403-404
245
vi
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 109
Bolivian Supreme Decree ratifying the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Amity between Bolivia and Chile, 10 March 1905
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Collection of Treaties in Force in the Republic of Bolivia, Vol. IV,
pp 404-405
251
Annex 110
Official Gazette of the Republic of Chile recording the promulgation and ratification of the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Amity between Bolivia and Chile, 27 March 1905 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Official Gazette of the Republic of Chile,
No 1455, 1905, pp 1265-1268
257
Annex 111
Minutes of 23 March 1906 signed by the Bolivian and Chilean Directors of the Commission of Engineers, attached to the Letter from the Chilean Director of the Commission of Engineers to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile,
26 July 1906
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Office of Land Measurement of Chile, The Boundary Line with the Republic of Bolivia (1910), pp 340-344
263
Annex 112
Protocol on Exchange of Territories between Bolivia and Chile, signed at Santiago on 1 May 1907
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 135-136
275
Annex 113
Protocol on Railway Guarantees between Chile and Bolivia, signed at Santiago on 26 May 1908
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 137-138
279
vii
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 114
A. Decombe, Ministry of Industry and Public Works of Chile, General Inspectorate of Railways Under Study and Construction, History of the Arica-La Paz Railway (1913), pp 63-65 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
285
Annex 115
E.B. Codesido, Annotations for the history of diplomatic negotiations with Peru and Bolivia 1900-1904 (1919),
pp 201-206 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
293
Annex 116
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to the Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile, No 126, 24 May 1919
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 42 to its Memorial
307
Annex 117
Chilean Memorandum of
9 September 1919
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 19 to its Memorial
315
Annex 118
Minutes of 10 January 1920
(Spanish transcription, English translation, original in Spanish)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 101 to its Memorial
321
Annex 119
Statement by the Delegate of Chile, Augustín Edwards, during the Fifth Plenary Meeting of the League of Nations Assembly, 7 September 1921
(Original in French and English)
League of Nations, The Records of the Second Assembly, Plenary Meetings (1921),
pp 44-54
357
Annex 120
Records of the Twenty-Second Plenary Meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations, 28 September 1921 (extract)
(Original in French and English)
League of Nations, The Records of the Second Assembly, Plenary Meetings (1921),
pp 465-471
369
viii
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 121
A. Arguedas, General History of Bolivia (1922), pp 259-261 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
377
Annex 122
Letter from A. Gutierrez, Bolivian Delegate to the General Assembly of the League of Nations, to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, 8 September 1922
(Original in French and English)
Archives of the United Nations
385
Annex 123
Letter from Manuel Rivas-Vicuña, Chilean Delegate to the General Assembly of the League of Nations, to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, 19 September 1922
(Original in French and English)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
389
Annex 124
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 27 January 1923
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 47 to its Memorial
393
Annex 125
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Special Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile, 6 February 1923
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 48 to its Memorial
401
Annex 126
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Special Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile, 22 February 1923
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 50 to its Memorial
409
ix
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 127
“President Alessandri explains the guidelines of Chile’s foreign policy”,
El Mercurio (Chile), 4 April 1923 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 125 to its Memorial
419
Annex 128
Memorandum on Tacna-Arica delivered by the Secretary of State of the United States to the Governments of Chile and Peru, 30 November 1926
(Original in English)
(1927) 21 American Journal of International Law Supplement,
pp 11-15
427
Annex 129
Memorandum of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile Delivered to the Secretary of State of the United States regarding Tacna-Arica,
4 December 1926
(Original in English)
(1927) 21 American Journal of International Law Supplement, pp 38-42
433
Annex 130
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to the Special Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile in Bolivia, 7 December 1926
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 53 to its Memorial
439
Annex 131
Memorandum of the Government of Peru Delivered to the Secretary of State of the United States regarding Tacna-Arica, 12 January 1927
(Original in English)
(1927) 21 American Journal of International Law Supplement, pp 43-52
447
Annex 132
Protocol on the Management of the Chilean and Bolivian Sections of the Railway from Arica to La Paz, signed at La Paz on 29 August 1928
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 158-159
459
x
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 133
Convention on Passports between Bolivia and Chile, signed at La Paz on 18 September 1937
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 182-183
463
Annex 134
Explanatory Notes to the Convention on Passports between Bolivia and Chile, agreed by exchange of notes on 20 March 1940
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 185-186
469
Annex 135
Note from the Embassy of Bolivia in Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 242/44,
29 December 1944
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 55 to its Memorial
475
Annex 136
Republic of Bolivia, Political Constitution of 1947, 26 November 1947 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
<http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/constitucion-politica-de-la-…;, Article 58(13)
487
Annex 137
Note from the Embassy of Bolivia in Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 211 MRE/47,
4 April 1947
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 57 to its Memorial
491
xi
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 138
Note from the Embassy of Bolivia in Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 725/526, 18 July 1947
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 58 to its Memorial
495
Annex 139
Note from the Embassy of Bolivia in Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 22/13, 6 January 1948
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 59 to its Memorial
501
Annex 140
Minutes of Meeting between the Chilean President and the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile, 1 June 1948
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
505
Annex 141
Cable from the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 116, 1 June 1948
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 60 to its Memorial
511
Annex 142
Note from the Embassy of Bolivia in Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 455/325, 2 June 1948
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 61 to its Memorial
515
Annex 143
Note from the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 529/21, 1 June 1950
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 109A to its Memorial
527
Annex 144
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile, No 9, 20 June 1950
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 109B to its Memorial
535
xii
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 145
Note from the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 645/432, 11 July 1950
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 66 to its Memorial
541
Annex 146
Note from the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 668/444, 19 July 1950
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 67 to its Memorial
551
Annex 147
Note from the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 737/472, 3 August 1950
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 68 to its Memorial
565
Annex 148
Letter from Víctor Paz Estenssoro to Siles Suazo dated 25 September 1950, published in El Diario (Bolivia),
19 June 1964
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
El Diario (Bolivia)
577
Annex 149
“Bolivia does not wish to raise the problem of the port, but to ensure the free transit of goods to La Paz”,
El Mercurio (Chile), 25 January 1953
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
El Mercurio (Chile)
583
Annex 150
Declaration of Arica by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and Chile, signed at Arica on 25 January 1953
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), p 222
591
xiii
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 151
Chile-Bolivia Treaty of Economic Complementation, signed at Arica on
31 January 1955
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 223-225
595
Annex 152
“There is no case on the topic of the port to Bolivia, opines Koch”, La Tercera de la Hora (Chile), 19 August 1955
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
La Tercera de la Hora (Chile)
603
Annex 153
Supplementary Protocol to the Treaty of Economic Complementation on Facilities for the Construction of the Oil Pipeline, signed at La Paz on 14 October 1955
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 226-227
607

Annex 78
Memoria of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, 1863 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Memoria of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia presented to the Extraordinary Assembly held in Oruro in May 1863 on the Mejillones issue (1863), pp 1-10
1
2
Annex 78
Annex 78
3
4
Annex 78
Annex 78
5
[…]
In the official report of 1787 to the Viceroy of Buenos Aires, Mr. Juan del Pino Manrique, Governor of Potosí said: “Antofagasta is one of the towns that is a part of the Province of Atacama.”
The same is shown as well in several old maps and letters; it results that such town and its territory are Bolivia’s border to the south.
6
Annex 78
Annex 78
7
However, the town of Antofagasta is situated at 26° latitude South towards the eastern portion of the Province of Atacama; it follows from this that, in this direction, the Province of Atacama covered the entire unpopulated area that is supposed to end at the same degree of latitude.
On the western side or on the coastal side, said province’s perimeter is equally clear and, to establish this, it suffices to quote the words of the Governor of Potosí, Mr. Juan del Pino Manrique, in the abovementioned official report.
The municipality of Atacama, located at the end of the province (Potosí) is bounded to the North by the ends of Lípez and Tarapacá, in the Viceroyalty of Lima; to the South by the Kingdom of Chile; to the East by the Province of Tucumán; and to the West by the coast of the South Sea. He then adds:
“In the district of this parish (Atacama), there is the port of Santa María Magdalena de Cobija ... and further down south, there is the aforementioned municipality, extending 100 leagues North to South, 65 leagues East to West; and 360 in circumference; it is the most unpopulated municipality.”
The 100 leagues that Atacama measured North to South from the Loa, whose shore was bounded by Tarapacá, extend precisely to 26° degrees on said shore to its south end, with each degree counted per every 20 sea leagues.
With the main points that mark the perimeter of the Province of Atacama thus identified, there only remains to be precisely determined the boundary line of this province connecting the point of Antofagasta with the sea coast, as the coast must obviously mark the end of the Province on that side, and, for the same reason, serve as the border between Chile and Bolivia.
That determination was made with utmost care by Messrs. Ondarza and Mujia, the engineers of the Republic, who visited and examined the towns they were commissioned with by the Government; as a result of the useful work and painful investigations they carried out, they were able to publish the new and authorized map of Bolivia we are fortunate enough to have today.
8
Annex 78
Annex 78
9
10
Annex 78
Annex 78
11
12
Annex 78
Annex 79
Bolivian Law of 5 June 1863
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
<http://www.lexivox.org/norms/BO-L-18630605.xhtml&gt;, pp 1-2
13
14
Annex 79
Bolivia: Ley de 5 de junio de 1863JOSÉ MARÍA DE ACHÁ, PRESIDENTE CONSTITUCIONAL DE BOLIVIA Hacemos saber á todos, que el Congreso ha decretado y nos publicarnos la siguienteley:LA ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA EXTRAORDINARIA. DECRETAArtículo Único.- Se autoriza al Poder Ejecutivo para declarar la guerra al Gobiernode la República de Chile, siempre que agotados los medios conciliatorios de ladiplomacia, no obtuviere la reivindicación del territorio usurpado ó una soluciónpacífica, compatible con la dignidad nacional. Una ley especial determinará lasfacultades dé que deba investirse al ejecutivo, para la salvación de la integridad del Estado.Comuníquese al Poder Ejecutivo para su sanción y cumplimiento.- Dada en la Sala deSesiones en Oruro, á 27 de Mayo de 1863.- Lucas Mendoza de la Tapia.- Presidente.- Ricardo Mujia.- Diputado por la CapitalSucre.- Secretario.- Félix Reyes Ortiz Diputado por el Departamento de la Paz,Secretario. Palacio del Supremo Gobierno en Oruro; á 5 de Junio de 1863.--Ejecútese.-José María de Achá. El Ministro de Gobierno, Culto y Relaciones Exteriores.- RafaelBustillos --El Ministro de Hacienda--Melchor Urgnidi. .El Ministro de Instrucción yJusticia--Juan de la Cruz Renjel. .- El Ministro de la Guerra--Sebastián Agreda.Mandamos por tanto á todas las autoridades la cumplan y hagan cumplir.- José Maríade Achá.- El Ministro de Gobierno, Culto y Relaciones Exteriores --Rafael Bustillo: 1BO-L-18630605Bolivia: Ley de 5 de junio de 1863
Annex 79
15
Bolivia: Law of 5 June 1863
JOSÉ MARÍA DE ACHÁ, CONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT OF BOLIVIA
Be it known that Congress has passed, and we are publishing, the following law:
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, GATHERED IN EXTRAORDINARY SESSIONS, HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Sole Article. The Executive Branch is hereby authorized to declare war against the Republic of Chile, provided that, all diplomatic means of conciliation having been exhausted, it has been unable to regain the usurped territory or a peaceful solution that is compatible with our national dignity. A special law shall be enacted defining the powers to be vested in the Executive to safeguard the integrity of the State.
This law is to be notified to the Executive to be signed into law and enforced. Passed on the Assembly Floor in Oruro, on 27 May 1863.
Lucas Mendoza de la Tapia, Speaker. Ricardo Mujia, Representative for the Capital, Sucre, Secretary. Félix Reyes Ortiz, Representative for the Department of La Paz, Secretary. Palace of the Supreme Government in Oruro, 5 June 1863.
So ordered.
José María de Achá. The Minister of Government, Worship and Foreign Affairs, Mr. Rafael Bustillos. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Melchor Urgnidi. The Minister of Education and Justice, Mr. Juan de la Cruz Renjel. The Minister of War, Sebastián Agreda. All authorities are thus ordered to comply with and enforce this law. José María de Achá. The Minister of Government, Worship and Foreign Affairs, Rafael Bustillo.
16
Annex 79
Ficha Técnica (DCMI)NormaBolivia: Ley de 5 de junio de 1863Fecha2015-10-22FormatoTextTipoLDominioBoliviaDerechosGFDLIdiomaesSumarioSe autoriza al Gobierno para declarar la guerra á la República de Chile,siempre que agotados los medios de la diplomacia, no se obtuviere lareivindicación del territorio nacional usurpado por ella.KeywordsLey, junio/1863OrigenLegislación Boliviana - Compendio de leyes de 1825-2007, CD elaborado porla biblioteca y el archivo histórico del Honorable Congreso NacionalReferencias1825-1960.lexmlCreadorLucas Mendoza de la Tapia.- Presidente.- Ricardo Mujia.- Diputado por laCapital Sucre.- Secretario.- Félix Reyes Ortiz Diputado por el Departamentode la Paz, Secretario. Palacio del Supremo Gobierno en Oruro; á 5 de Juniode 1863.-- Ejecútese.- José María de Achá. El Ministro de Gobierno, Culto yRelaciones Exteriores.- Rafael Bustillos --El Ministro de Hacienda--MelchorUrgnidi. .El Ministro de Instrucción y Justicia--Juan de la Cruz Renjel. .- ElMinistro de la Guerra--Sebastián Agreda. Mandamos por tanto á todas lasautoridades la cumplan y hagan cumplir.- José María de Achá.- El Ministrode Gobierno, Culto y Relaciones Exteriores --Rafael Bustillo:ContribuidorDeveNet.netPublicadorDeveNet.nethttp://www.lexivox.org2Ficha Técnica (DCMI)
Annex 80
Treaty of Limits between Chile and Bolivia, signed at Santiago on 10 August 1866
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 95 to its Memorial
17
18
Annex 80
Annex 80
19
Treaty of Limits between Chile and Bolivia
Signed at Santiago de Chile on 10 August 1866
Exchanged on 9 December 1866
Promulgated on 13 December 1866
JOSE JOAQUIN PEREZ
President of the Republic of Chile
On 10 August of the present year, through fully authorized Plenipotentiaries, between the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bolivia, a Treaty of Limits was negotiated, concluded and signed and on 25 August, an additional Act to the referred Treaty was drafted and signed. This is their text:
The Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bolivia, wishing to put a friendly and mutually satisfactory termination to the old question pending between them as to the settlement of their respective territorial limits in the desert of Atacama, and over the exploitation of the guano deposits located in the shoreline of that same desert, and committed to establish through this document the good understanding; the brotherly friendship and the ties of intimate allegiance that bind them together, have agreed to relinquish part of the territorial rights that each one of them, based on good titles, believes to possess, and have agreed to conclude a Treaty that definitively and irrevocably settles the aforementioned issue.
To that effect, they have appointed the following Plenipotentiaries:
H.E. President of the Republic of Chile, Mr. Alvaro Covarrubias, Minister of State in the department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic; and
H.E. President of the Republic of Bolivia, Mr. Juan Ramon Muñoz Cabrera, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile.
After exchanging their powers and finding them in good order, they have agreed to the following provisions:
Article 1. The demarcation line of the limits between Chile and Bolivia in the Atacama desert, from now on, will be parallel 24 of meridian latitude, from the Pacific shoreline to the eastern limits of Chile; so as Chile, on the south, and Bolivia, on the north, will have possession and dominion of the territories stretching up to the aforementioned parallel 24, thus exercising all acts of jurisdiction and sovereignty related to the master of the land.
The exact demarcation line between the two countries shall be fixed by a commission of suitable and expert individuals. Half of the members of said commission shall be appointed by each of the High Contracting Parties.
Once the dividing line is set, visible and permanent landmarks shall be placed at the expense, pro rata, of the Governments of Chile and Bolivia.
Article 2. Notwithstanding the territorial division set forth in the preceding paragraph, the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bolivia will share in half the proceeds of the exploitation of
20
Annex 80
Annex 80
21
the guano deposits discovered in Mejillones and other deposits that may be found in the territory located between degrees 23 and 25 of meridian latitude, as well as the export duties that they may collect over the minerals extracted from the aforementioned territory.
Article 3. The Republic of Bolivia agrees to enable the bay and port of Mejillones, and to establish a customs post with the number of employees that trade and industry may demand. It will be the only customs post that can collect the proceeds from guano and export duties of minerals dealt with in the preceding article.
The government of Chile may appoint one or more tax employees who, vested with surveillance rights, may intervene in the income accounts of such customs of Mejillones and who will receive from the same office, directly and by trimesters, or in the way established by both Treaties, the portion of the benefits that Chile is entitled to pursuant to Article 2.
The Government of Bolivia will enjoy the same rights, so long as the Government of Chile, for the collection of the proceeds from products discussed in the previous article, establishes a tax office in the territory located between degrees 24 and 25.
Article 4. Products from the territory between degrees 24 and 25 of meridian latitude that are shipped through the port of Mejillones will be free from any export duty.
Any Chilean raw products imported through the port of Mejillones will be free of any import duty.
Article 5. The guano export or sale system and the export duties over minerals mentioned in Article 2 of this Pact will be determined by mutual agreement of the High Contracting Parties, whether through special conventions or the way they deem the most convenient and speedy.
Article 6. The contracting Republics undertake the obligation not to transfer their possession and dominion rights over the territory they divide for themselves through this Treaty, to another State, corporation or individual.
If one Party wishes to perform such transfer, the buyer can be no other than the other Contracting Party.
Article 7. As compensation for the damage that the issue of limits between Chile and Bolivia has inflicted to the individuals that, through corporations, were the first to exploit the guano deposits of Mejillones and whose exploitation work was suspended by the Chilean authorities on 17 February 1863, the High Contracting Parties undertake, on considerations of equity, to pay to the aforementioned individuals $80,000 pesos, plus ten percent of the net proceeds of the customs of Mejillones.
Article 8. This treaty will be ratified and its ratifications will be exchanged at La Paz or Santiago within 40 days or earlier, if possible.
Witnessing the aforementioned, the Plenipotentiaries of the Republics of Chile and Bolivia have signed this treaty and put their seals in Santiago, on 10 August eighteen sixty six.
Alvaro Covarrubias
Juan R. Muñoz Cabrera
22
Annex 81
Secret Defensive Alliance Treaty between Bolivia and Peru, signed at Lima on 6 February 1873
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific, Vol. I (1884), pp 151-152
23
24
Annex 81
Annex 81
25
I
Secret Treaty between Peru and Bolivia.
PROTOCOL.
At a meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the undersigned Manuel Irigoyen, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Serapio Reyes Ortiz, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia, on a confidential mission, agreed, in accordance with the additional article in the Defensive Alliance Treaty concluded between Peru and Bolivia on 6 February 1873, and after having presented their respective full powers, to make that Treaty public.
In witness whereof, the undersigned have signed this declaration in duplicate and have affixed their seals to it.
In Lima, 5 April 1879.
Manuel Irigoyen. Serapio Reyes Ortiz.
Lima, 5 April 1879.
In view of the foregoing protocol, all parts of it are approved, and therefore, the orders necessary for its enforcement are given. To be published and recorded.
Initials of His Excellency—Irigoyen.
ADOLFO BALLIVIAN,
CONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA.
Whereas, the Republics of Bolivia and Peru, by their respective Plenipotentiaries, signed in the City of Lima on 6 February of this year the following:
T
reaty of Defensi ve Alliance
The Republics of Bolivia and Peru, desiring to strengthen the bonds between them, thereby increasing their force, and guaranteeing themselves certain reciprocal rights, have entered into this Defensive Alliance Treaty, to which end the President of Bolivia has conferred sufficient powers for such negotiations on Juan de la Cruz Benavente, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Peru, and the President of Peru has conferred them on José de la Riva-Agüero, Minister of Foreign Affairs, who have agreed to the
following provisions:
A
rt. I.
The high contracting parties agree to mutually guarantee their independence, their sovereignty and the integrity of their respective territories,
and agree upon the terms of this Treaty to defend each other against any foreign aggression, whether by another independent State or States or by a force without a flag that does not obey any recognized power.
Art. II.
The alliance shall be made effective to preserve the rights expressed in the previous article, and especially in cases of offense, which consist of:
1. Acts aimed at depriving one of the high contracting parties from a portion of their territory, with the intention to take dominion over such territory or to cede it to another power.
2. Acts aimed at submitting either of the high contracting parties to a protectorate, sale or cession of territory, or at establishing any superiority, right or preeminence over it that would diminish or threaten the full and complete exercise of its sovereignty and independence.
3. Acts aimed at voiding or varying the form of Government, the political Constitution or the laws that the high contracting parties have given or will give themselves in exercise of their sovereignty.
A
rt. III.
Since both high contracting parties recognize that any legitimate alliance is based on justice, both of them shall have the right to decide whether the offense received by the other is included among those designated in the previous article.
Art. IV.
Once the casus foederis has been declared, the high contracting parties agree to cut off their relations with the offending State immediately; to expel their Diplomats; to cancel the letters patent of all Consular Agents; to prohibit the import of its natural and industrial products; and to close ports to its ships.
A
rt. V.
The high contracting parties shall appoint Plenipotentiaries to make the specific arrangements, via a protocol, to determine the subsidies, the army and navy contingents or the auxiliaries of any type to be provided to the offended or attacked Republic; the manner in which the armed forces are to work and the assistance is to be provided, and all other matters that are appropriate for the success of the defense.
The meeting of the Plenipotentiaries shall be held at the place designated by the offended party.
A
rt. VI.
The high contracting parties agree to provide the offended or attacked party with the means of defense that each of them believes that it has, even
26
Annex 81
Annex 81
27
if the arrangements provided for in the previous article have not been made, provided that the matter is urgent in their opinion.
A
rt. VII.
Once the casus foederis has been declared, the offended party may not enter into peace treaties, truces or armistice agreements without the consent of the ally that, if it was the case, took part in the war.
A
rt. VIII
The high contracting parties further agree:
1. to preferably use all conciliatory means, whenever possible, to avoid a break of diplomatic relations or to terminate the war, even if the break of diplomatic relations has taken place, and shall deem arbitration by a third power as most effective between themselves.
2. not to concede to or accept from any nation or Government, protectorate or superiority that diminishes their independence or sovereignty, and not to cede or sell any part of their territories to any nation or Government, except in cases involving a better demarcation of limits.
3. not to conclude treaties of limit or other territorial arrangements without the prior knowledge of the other party.
A
rt. IX.
The provisions of this treaty do not extent to acts by political parties or resulting from internal commotion independent of the intervention of foreign governments, because the principal purpose of this Treaty is to guarantee the reciprocal sovereign rights of both nations, and none of its clauses may be interpreted in opposition to its principal purpose.
A
rt. X.
The high contracting parties shall, collectively or separately, solicit the adhesion of other State or States in America to this Defensive Alliance Treaty when they deem it appropriate to do so in a subsequent agreement.
A
rt. XI.
The ratifications of this treaty shall be exchanged in Lima or in La Paz as soon as it is perfected in accordance with the Constitution, and it shall be in full force and effect twenty days after the ratifications are exchanged. It shall remain in effect indefinitely, with each party reserving the right to terminate it when such party sees fit to do so. In such case, the party shall notify the other party, and the treaty shall be null and void forty months after the date of such notice.
In witness whereof, the Plenipotentiaries signed it in duplicate and affixed their personal seals to it.
Done in Lima on the sixth day of the month of February of 1873.
Juan de la Cruz Benavente. J. de la Riva-Agüero.
ADDITIONAL ARTICLE. This Defensive Alliance Treaty between Bolivia and Peru shall be kept secret until the high contracting parties decide by mutual agreement that it should be published.
Benavente – Riva-Agüero.
Therefore, since the foregoing treaty was approved by the Extraordinary Assembly on the 2nd of this month and year, by virtue of the authority conferred on me by the Constitution of the Republic, I have confirmed and ratified it so that it will govern as a law of the State, with the Republic and national honor being committed to comply with it. Given in the city of La Paz de Ayacucho, on the 10th day of the month of June of 1873 and countersigned by the Minister of Government and Foreign Affairs.
A
d
olfo Ballivian.
Mariano Baptista.
In the city of La Paz de Ayacucho, on the 10th day of the month of June of 1873, at a meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Mr. Mariano Baptista, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Aníbal Víctor de La Torre, Envoy Extraordinary and Resident Minister of Peru, sufficiently authorized to exchange the ratifications of His Excellency the President of Peru of the Defensive Alliance Treaty concluded between the two countries on 6 February of this year, read the original instruments of such ratifications, and finding them to be correct and in due and proper form, they carried out the exchange.
In witness whereof, the undersigned have drawn up this document, which they sign in duplicate and to which they have affixed their respective seals.
Mariano Baptis ta.
A
. V. de la Torre
28
Annex 82
Bolivian Decree approving the bases for the concession in favour of the Chilean Nitrate Company, 27 November 1873
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Official documents of Bolivia regarding the issue of the Pacific (1879), pp 69-72
29
30
Annex 82
Annex 82
31
[…]
Nitrate Issue
Concession of 27 November 1873
T
erms of Settlement
“1st. The area of land that was granted to the Company via the Supreme Resolution of 13 April 1872 shall be reduced to the nitrate deposits currently being exploited by it at “Salar del Cármen,” and the portion of the nitrate deposits in Salinas that is within the boundaries of the parallelogram established in said Resolution.”
“2nd. As compensation for the considerable reduction of that area, the Company is awarded half quintals of nitrate in the same Salinas lands that are outside the parallelogram designated in the aforementioned Resolution, which the Company may take either contiguously or separately.”
“Such half quintals shall cover the area established in Article 28 of the Supreme Resolution of 31 December 1872. The Company shall assess the situation of such half quintal prior to 31 December 1874, so they may be measured and marked as required by law.”
“3rd. The Company shall annually pay a patent fee of forty Bolivianos (40 Bs.) for each of the aforementioned half quintals: such patent fee shall remain unchanged and may not be increased during the life of this concession.”
“4th. The Company is granted, for a period of fifteen years as from
1st January 1874, the right to freely ex-
32
Annex 82
Annex 82
33
ploit the nitrate deposits on the land designated in the 1st and 2nd terms above, as well as the right to export the products obtained from these deposits via the port of Antofagasta, free of any and all export duties and any other municipal or fiscal tax.”
“5th. The Company is authorized to build a private railway from the port of Antofagasta to the Salinas deposits, to transport only the products of its exploitation, without affecting or in any way upsetting the exploitation of the State railway. It may also build the necessary branch lines to serve and develop its own nitrate deposits, occupy and use, free of charge, any State land it may need to build its railway lines, stations and other service offices.”
“6th. The Company is hereby exempted from any and all import duties on goods imported via the port of Antofagasta for the construction, preservation and service of the railway lines it may build and its Nitrate production offices.”
“7th. Should it be in the Company’s best interests not to build such private railway up to Mantos Blancos, where it would join the Mejillones rail line, but choose instead to use the rails from said line from that point on to its farthest nitrate possessions in Salinas, it may then deal with the Mejillones railway contractors directly, so they may sign a contract under which the contractors would place a third rail on the track at the Company’s expense, such that, using its own materials and equipment, the Company may use the State’s line on that section; for this, the Company will pay a toll consisting of five cents per hundredweight, whether for up-traffic or down-traffic, on the understanding that first shall be none other than that required to develop
34
Annex 82
Annex 82
35
the nitrate business, and, the latter, the nitrate deposits at the Company’s establishments. The stipulation is that said agreement shall require prior approval by the Government.”
“8th. The Company shall set up a permanent representative at the port of Antofagasta, with sufficient powers to fully legally represent the Company.”
The above terms were approved by the Supreme Government, as evidenced by the following decree issued in Sucre, on 27 November 1873.
It provides as follows:
“Ministry of Finance and Industry.– Sucre, 27 November 1873.
“The settlement terms proposed by Mr. Belisario Peró on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Nitrate and Railway Company of Antofagasta having been examined at the Cabinet Council; whereas, on 2 September of ‘68 and
13 September of ‘70, said company was awarded a concession to exploit and export, on an unlimited basis, the nitrate deposits in the Littoral and since, because of its privilege, it was outside the scope of application of the laws of 9 and 14 August of ‘71, whereby all decisions rendered and concessions granted by the aforementioned Melgarejo Administration were annulled, it requested that the Government order the continuation of its concession; whereas, as a consequence thereof, the Government issued the Resolution of 13 April 1872, restricting said concession as to certain aspects and confirming it as to all others, due to special reasons stated therein; whereas, the nitrate company has proposed and later insisted that the resolution be amended, proposing certain combinations for a final arrangement that were rejected; whereas, the latest such proposal, the draft of which has already been examined, is aimed at reconciling the company’s interests with those of the operator
36
Annex 82
Annex 82
37
of the Mejillones railway and other industrial businesses engaged in the exploitation of nitrate and other inorganic substances, eliminating the costly awarding of a considerable portion of State-owned land; whereas, lastly, the Company of Antofagasta is already exploiting the nitrate deposits of Salar del Cármen, and discovered the Salinas deposits prior to the issue of the decrees of 8 January and
31 December 1862, which lay down the necessary conditions to acquire and exploit inorganic substances, there are thus hereby accepted as a settlement, exercising the authority vested in the Executive by means of the Law of 22 November 1872, the eight terms contained in the above proposal, with any prior acts that conflict with such terms hereby becoming null and invalid.”
“Ballivian – Mariano Baptista – Daniel Calvo – Mariano Ballivian Pantaleon Dalence.”
38
Annex 83
Treaty of Limits between Chile and Bolivia, signed at La Paz on 6 August 1874
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 48-49
39
40
Annex 83
Annex 83
41
Treaties of Limits between Chile and Bolivia
Signed at La Paz on 6 August 1874 and 21 July 1875
Exchanged on 28 July and 22 September 1875
Promulgated on 25 October 1875
FEDERICO ERRAZURIZ
President of the Republic of Chile
Whereas on 6 August 1874, the Republics of Chile and Bolivia, through fully authorized Plenipotentiaries, negotiated, concluded and signed in the city of Sucre a Treaty of Limits; and whereas between said Republics and through the same fully authorized Plenipotentiaries it was negotiated, concluded and signed on 25 July of the present year a Treaty of Limits supplementary to the aforementioned one; Treaties that literally provide as follows:
In the name of God
The Republics of Chile and Bolivia, both being equally willing to strengthen their mutual and good relations; and willing to set aside, through solemn and peaceful agreements, any reason that may hinder them, have agreed to conclude a new Treaty of Limits that, modifying that of 1866, will ensure the citizens and the governments of both Republics the peace and good harmony necessary for their freedom and progress.
To that effect, they have appointed the following Plenipotentiaries: For the Republic of Chile, Carlos Walker Martínez, and for the Republic of Bolivia, Mariano Baptista. After exchanging their powers and finding them in good order, they have agreed to the following provisions:
Article 1. The parallel of degree 24, from the sea to the Andes Cordillera, at the divortia aquarum, is the limit between the Republics of Chile and Bolivia.
Article 2. For the purposes of this treaty, the lines of parallels 23 and 24, set by commissioners Pissis and Mugía and established in the Minutes drafted in Antofagasta on 10 February 1870, are deemed settled and existing.
Should there be any doubt concerning the exact and true location of the Caracoles mining deposit or any other mineral producing site, in considering them to be outside those parallels; a commission of two experts will determine their location. Each of the Contracting Parties will appoint one of the experts. Should there be disagreement between the experts, they will appoint a third one. If they fail to agree on the appointment of the third expert, the Ambassador of Brazil will appoint it. Evidence to the contrary being absent,
42
Annex 83
Annex 83
43
the mineral deposits will be deemed to be located within the aforementioned parallels.
Article 3. The guano deposits existing now or discovered in the future in the perimeter indicated in the previous article shall be divided in half by Chile and Bolivia; the system of exploitation, administration and sale shall be decided by mutual agreement of the Governments of the two Republics in the form and manner in which it has been done to date.
Article 4. Export duties over minerals taken from the area referred to in the preceding articles shall not exceed the amount currently in force and individuals, industries and Chilean capitals shall not be subject to any contributions other than those currently in place, regardless of their nature.
The provisions in this article shall last for twenty-five years.
Article 5. Chilean raw products imported through the Bolivian coastline comprised within parallels 23 and 24 will be free and exempt from any duty. In reciprocity, Bolivian raw products imported through the Chilean coastline comprised within parallels 24 and 25 are identically exempt.
Article 6. The Republic of Bolivia undertakes the obligation to permanently enable Mejillones and Antofagasta as major ports of its coastline.
Article 7. The Treaty of 10 August 1886 is hereby repealed in all its parts.
Article 8. This treaty will be ratified by each of the Contracting Republics, and the ratifications will be exchanged in the city of Sucre within three months.
Witnessing the aforementioned, the Plenipotentiaries of the Republics of Chile and Bolivia have signed this Protocol and put their seals in Sucre, on 6 August eighteen seventy four.
(Signed) Carlos Walker Martínez.
(Signed) Mariano Baptista
44
Annex 84
Supplementary Protocol to the 1874 Treaty of Limits between Chile and Bolivia, signed at La Paz on 21 July 1875
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 50-51
45
46
Annex 84
Annex 84
47
SUPPLEMENTARY PROTOCOL
Signed at La Paz on 21 July 1875
In the city of La Paz on the 21st day of the month of July of 1875, the Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile, Mr. Carlos Walker Martínez, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Mr. Mariano Baptista, met in the office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, and before exchanging the ratifications of the Treaty of Sucre of 6 August 1874, agreed to sign the following Protocol in order to clarify certain questions that had arisen about the interpretation of that Treaty.
In accordance with the notes exchanged between Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile and the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs, on 25 and 27 August 1874, which were reviewed and submitted to the deliberation of the Bolivian Assembly, the Protocol of 1 November was signed, which was considered from the start an additional part of the Treaty of 6 August. Pursuant to this interpretation, it was approved by the Assembly at its session on 6 November of the same year, and therefore the Bolivian Government is fully authorized to exchange the ratifications, provided that Articles 3 and 10 of the Treaty are amended.
The Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs declares the same thing with respect to the provision suggested by the Bolivian Assembly, which sets forth the principle of submitting to arbitration any issue that should arise between the two High Contracting Parties. The Bolivian Foreign Ministry, transmitting the deliberations of its Assembly, recorded and specified this concept in the terms of its dispatch of 10 November 1874, referring only to issues related to the understanding and enforcement of the same Treaty.
In view of this background, the Bolivian Government views as a fait accompli everything related to the provisions of Articles 3 and 10 of the Treaty and the interpretation of paragraph 4 of the law of the Bolivian Assembly.
However, for greater clarity, the negotiators agreed to reproduce the foregoing provisions and reduce them to the form of a new supplementary Treaty, on the following terms:
"In the name of God"
The Plenipotentiaries of the Republics of Chile and Bolivia, Carlos Walker Martínez and Mariano Baptista, respectively, having been duly authorized by their respective Governments, agree to the following articles, which shall be incorporated into the Treaty of Sucre of 6 August 1874:
48
Annex 84
Annex 84
49
Article 1. It is declared that the meaning to be given to the community in the exploitation of guano discovered now and in the future, mentioned in Article 3 of the Treaty of 6 August 1874, refers to the territory between the 23rd and 25th latitude south parallels.
Article 2. All issues related to the understanding and enforcement of the Treaty of 6 August 1874 shall be submitted to arbitration.
Article 3. This Treaty shall be ratified as soon as possible and the ratifications shall be exchanged in any city in Bolivia.
In witness whereof, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Republics of Chile and Bolivia have signed this Protocol and affixed their respective seals to it in La Paz on the 21st day of the month of July of 1875.
Carlos Walker Martínez
Mariano Baptista
Whereas said Treaties have been ratified by me following approval by the National Congress, and the respective ratifications exchanged in the city of La Paz on 28 July and 22 September of this year, between Carlos Walker Martínez and Mariano Baptista, Plenipotentiaries appointed to that effect by the interested Governments;
Therefore, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the State Constitution, I order that all parts of the aforementioned Treaties be complied with and implemented by all authorities and citizens of the Republic, which shall be made known through publication in the official gazette.
Done at my office, in Santiago, on 25 October 1875.
Federico Errázuriz
José Alfonso
50
Annex 85
Bolivian Law of 14 February 1878
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 8 to its Memorial
51
52
Annex 85
Annex 85
53
Law of 14 February 1878
The National Constituent Assembly:
Decrees:
The transaction entered into by the Executive on 27 November with the representative of the Antofagasta Nitrate and Railway Company is hereby approved, provided that a tax of at least 10 cents per quintal of nitrates exported is enforced.
Give notice hereof to the Executive Branch so that it can be enforced and complied with.
La Paz, 14 February 1878.
R. J. Bustamante, President. Samuel Velasco Flor, Deputy Secretary.
Abdon S. Ondarza, Deputy Secretary.
54
Annex 85
House of the Supreme Government. La Paz, 23 February 1878.
To be enforced. H. Daza. Great seal of the State. The Minister of the Finance and Industry—Manuel I. Salvatierra.
Annex 86
Note from the Legation of Chile in Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, 2 July 1878
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 29 to its Memorial
55
56
Annex 86
Annex 86
57
Claim by the Chilean Minister, 2 July.
L
egation of Chile in Bolivia, —La Paz. 2 July 1878.
Dear Sir:
In the first days of April of this year, I had the opportunity to meet with the Honorable Mr. Salvatierra, who was at that time the Minister of the Treasury, by virtue of a claim by the Chilean Nitrate Company in Antofagasta, notice of which was given to me by my Government, with the express task of supporting it.
On 14 February 1878 the National Constituent Assembly declared, as a minimum, a tax of ten cents per quintal of nitrate exported by the Antofagasta Nitrate and Railway Company, and on the 23rd of the same month, the Supreme Government ordered the enforcement of that decree, which was published by edict in the city of Antofagasta.
The Nitrate Company considered its ownership peaceful and its rights vested after various vicissitudes and disruptions suffered from 1868 until the decree of 31 December 1872, which resulted in the agreement of 27 November 1873, which was recorded in the Official Yearbook of the Law of Bolivia for that year, on page 185, and incorporated in a public protocol.
That agreement, which was recorded in a notarial instrument in Sucre on 29 November 1873 by Government Notary José Félix Oña, leaves no issues outstanding because the Government had accepted it by virtue of the authorization granted to the Executive Branch by the law of 22 November 1872, on page 220 of
58
Annex 86
Annex 86
59
the Yearbook of Law and supreme resolutions of that year, article 2 of which reads as follows: "The Executive Power is authorized to settle regarding compensation and other currently pending claims against the State, whether by nationals or foreigners, and to agree with the interested parties on the most appropriate manner of carrying out their respective obligations, and only if they are not able to reach an agreement will these matters be submitted to the Supreme Court for a decision, which must then report it to the next Assembly."
The law was explicit; it conferred absolute powers on the Executive without the need for revisions or approvals, simply requiring it to report to the Assembly if the matter was decided by the Supreme Court. As a result, the transaction was recorded in a notarial instrument at the same time and inserted in the Yearbook and enforced without being submitted to the Assembly for approval, which the Minister of Finance merely informed that it had been entered into, in the official report of 1874. In that report, the Minister of Finance, referring to the Nitrate Company, said that through the transaction he had put an end to "an odious question that for a long time has compromised the Government's honesty in the eyes of the public, but he has not yet decided what to do with the large sums of money that the owners paid to establish the large-scale nitrate industry in the Atacama Desert."
I would also like to point out another matter that occurred; the Municipality of Antofagasta having addressed the President of the Council of State, by means of an official letter of 4 May 1875, asking that a municipal tax of three cents per quintal of nitrates exported be imposed on the Nitrate Company, relying, among other considerations, on the fact that the Supreme Government had declared that the Company was not exempt from municipal taxes; that application was submitted as a
60
Annex 86
Annex 86
61
report to the Departmental Council of Cobija by decree of 9 June of the same year, dated in Sucre and signed by Mr. Reyes Ortiz, now the Minister of Justice and then President of the Council of State. The Departmental Council reported that the application should be rejected because it violated Article 4 of the transaction entered into between the Supreme Government and the Company of 27 November 1873, which stipulates that exported nitrate is free of any export duties and any other fiscal or municipal tax" and also because “there is a treaty of limits with Chile, that is in force, pursuant to which no new taxes may be charged in the Littoral”. In view of this report and the reasons on which it is based, the decree of 27 August was issued in Sucre declaring that the tax sought to be established was illegal.
To this brief discussion I must add another factor that is more serious and unavoidable. The Antofagasta Nitrate and Railway Company is Chilean; it has its registered office in Valparaíso and is made up almost completely of Chilean capital. By virtue of the transaction by the Supreme Government on 27 November 1873, which was recorded in a notarial instrument and recorded in the Official Yearbook of the Laws of Bolivia, the Chilean company is under the protection of the treaty signed in Sucre on 6 August 1874; because at the date of this treaty, the Company was quietly and peacefully operating the nitrate mines that had been granted to it by that transaction, they were free from any duties on nitrate exports, and goods brought in through the port of Antofagasta to maintain and service the railway lines and their nitrate facilities were also exempt from duties.
Therefore, the tax, a minimum of ten cents per quintal of nitrate exported, which they are now trying to impose on the company, would constitute a violation of the treaty in force with
62
Annex 86
Annex 86
63
Chile, and my Government would not find any basis to support its establishment. If the nitrate company owns property guaranteed by the law and by a solemn contract that is also protected by an international treaty, how can a subsequent law of the Republic throw out this contract that was properly entered into by the sovereign authority and breach the international pact without the agreement or consent of the other high contracting party?
I trust, Minister, that these brief considerations, which I do not think need to be expanded upon since they are so clear and so obvious, will allow Your Excellency to see the unavoidable need for Your Excellency's Government to take action that will protect the rights and property of the Antofagasta Nitrate Company, which were violated by the law of 14 February 1878. Failure to comply with a claim that is obviously just and legal, calling into question the Treaty of 1874, would mean putting the issue in a delicate, slippery position that both Governments must avoid. That is how the Minister of Finance of the previous Cabinet, Dr. Salvatierra, with whom I began this claim orally, understood it, when in agreement with me and to avoid seriously significant consequences, ordered the indefinite suspension of the law of 14 February 1878, while Your Excellency's Government found a wise solution that would protect the interests of the Nitrate Company.
The Antofagasta Nitrate and Railway Company, with the enormous amount of capital invested in the nitrate industry, which amounts to four million pesos, gives life and work to the people of Antofagasta and Salinas; and if its property rights are attacked through improper action, it could be forced to suspend or terminate their jobs, leaving thousands of people and operators without work, and then there could be
64
Annex 86
Annex 86
65
an uprising, which neither the Chilean Government nor the Bolivian Government could be indifferent to.
With sentiments of high consideration and esteem, I have the honor to remain sincerely yours. — P. N. Videla.
To His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia.
66
Annex 87
Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to the Chargé d’Affaires of Chile in Bolivia, 26 December 1878
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 30 to its Memorial
67
68
Annex 87
Annex 87
69
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
La Paz, 26 December 1878
Dear Sir:
I thank Your Excellency for acknowledging receipt of my letter dated on the 18th day of this month. In the referred letter, I answered the inquiry made by Your Excellency in a previous note to inform whether the Bolivian Government had already decided to impose a 10-cent tax on the nitrate exported by the Antofagasta Company or if it would wait for the Chilean Government to learn about such measure. I replied that the Ministry of Finance had already ordered the application of the tax. Your Excellency was concerned about the news as you considered that this measure violently ended the pending discussion arising from the claim made by this Legation and whose arguments should, in your opinion, be analyzed thoroughly and at length. Your letter further stated that since the Bolivian Government was expecting reports from Mr. Medina, the Minister of Finance, regarding Your Excellency’s claims on the municipal taxes of Antofagasta, it should do the same with respect to the nitrate tax. Your Excellency also pointed out that my latest reply shatters every opportunity for a quiet and pacific solution to the problem and prevents us from engaging in discussions on the matter. As a result, Your Excellency resolved to declare, on behalf of the Chilean Government, that complying with the law that imposes a tax on the Nitrate and Railway Company of Antofagasta entails a breach of the Treaty of Limits of 6 August 1874 which is in currently in force between Chile and Bolivia, and that the Government of Bolivia is exclusively responsible for the consequences of such declaration.
In the letter dated 18th of the present month sent to Your Excellency –to which the report issued by the Ministry of Finance on the nature of the tax created by the Law of February 14th of the present year was attached– I have explained the particular reasons that have forced the Bolivian Government to apply the referred law. Worthy of note among them is the fact that the tax in question is only applicable with respect to private contracts between the Nitrate and Railway Company of Antofagasta and my Government. This means that the latter may not affect the treaty between Chile and Bolivia, which has no effect on any private contract.
Since the referred law, which was enacted by the National Assembly, may not be suspended for much longer –given that it was only temporarily suspended due to Your Excellency’s claim and our deference to the Government of Chile–, I would like to state that the Bolivian Government has only complied with its constitutional duty to declare the coming into effect of the law. This does not entail, as Your Excellency assumes, the end of any discussion or a breach of the treaty of 6 August 1874. Your Excellency should bear in mind that if disputes arise over the treaty’s interpretation and execution, article 2 of the supplementary treaty sets forth, for the benefit of both countries, recourse to arbitration.
As for Your Excellency’s claim on the municipal taxes of Antofagasta, I would like to point out that the Bolivian Government
70
Annex 87
Annex 87
71
wishes that the controversies on that matter be amicably and cordially solved. To that end, the Bolivian Government will satisfy Your Excellency’s request that a convenient decision be made only after the reports from the Minister of Finance are received. However, I would like to express my deep concern about Your Excellency’s declaration on behalf of the Honorable Government of Chile about the breach of the Treaty of 1874.
I would like to ask that Your Excellency include this letter when reporting to the Government of Chile about these developments. I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.
Sincerely,
Martín Lanza
T
o the Chargés d’Affaires in Chile. Hand delivered.
72
Annex 88
Letter from the Minister of Finance of Bolivia to the Governor of Caldera in Bolivia, 31 December 1878
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific, Vol. I (1884), p 28
73
74
Annex 88
Annex 88
75
No. 4. Antofagasta, 31 December 1878.
Dear Governor:
Please advise the Minister of Foreign Affairs that on the 28th day of this month, the law that taxes the export of nitrates came into force, and requires payment corresponding to what has been exported from25 February onwards.
God bless you,
S. Reyes.
To the Governor of Caldera.
76
Annex 89
Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Government of Bolivia, 3 January 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific, Vol. I (1884), p 29
77
78
Annex 89
Annex 89
79
Santiago, 3 January 1879.
The Government has learned that the Antofagasta Nitrate and Railway Company has been required to pay a 10-cent tax per quintal of nitrate, as established by the Bolivian law of 14 February 1878.
My Government believes that this law clearly violates the Treaty of 1874, which is in effect between both countries and exempts Chilean people, property and capital from taxes for 25 years.
The necessary instructions were sent on this steamship to our Minister in La Paz so that he could demand that the Bolivian Government effectively and peremptorily suspend the law of 14 February, and could also inform the Government that its refusal to comply with our just request would be seen as a deliberate, unjustifiable breach of the Treaty of 1874, which would put Chile in the unfortunate situation of needing to resort to measures that are repugnant to its feelings of friendship, but that would be necessary because of its duty to defend the interests and rights of the Republic.
My Government cherishes the firm hope that the Bolivian Government will not reject this call for conciliation and a peaceful discussion of this question, and that it will hasten to order the suspension of that law, which, if it were enforced by violent means, would create an extremely grave situation between the two countries.
Chile is willing to discuss this issue and ultimately to submit it to an arbitrator for decision, as provided by the Treaty of 1874; but to do so, Bolivia must not resolve the issue by itself, by ordering and implementing measures that we cannot accept, because they violate our dignity and harm our interests.
In this situation, you will attempt to get the Mayor of that department to defer the collection of the tax long enough for the Government of Bolivia to answer Chile's demand. It cannot escape the Mayor’s attention that the only purpose of Chile's petition is to avoid the consummation of acts that would be an obstacle—and perhaps an insurmountable one—to reaching a peaceful solution, as befits the well understood interests of both countries.
A delay by a few days in collecting the tax should not cause any difficulties or make the Political Head liable, in my opinion, because the Company is willing to furnish a bond just in case the Government of Bolivia again insists on collecting the tax, which I believe to be unlikely. You will use all the resources that you deem useful to persuade the Mayor in a way that safeguards everyone's rights and does not make peace between the two nations impossible.
In our opinion, this could be obtained if the authorities in Antofagasta were to agree to temporarily suspend the collection of the tax, based on lofty considerations of patriotism, as my Government hopes that it will, in view of the serious reasons for doing so.
Since the stance taken by the Bolivian Government makes us fear that unpleasant events could occur, my Government has ordered the battleship Blanco Encalada to leave immediately for Antofagasta, and it set sail from Lota yesterday morning.
The commander of that ship, which is meant to protect Chileans and their interests, has orders to proceed in all matters in which you believe he needs to take action.
In this regard my Government believes that for now, you should proceed with caution, because we are still convinced that the Bolivian Government will modify the determination of 14 February, and my Government does not want new complications to arise in the meantime.
If, contrary to our justified expectations, the Bolivian Government should persist in violating the Treaty of 1874, the opportunity will have arisen to use our ships to demand that Chile's rights are properly respected.
For this emergency, you and the commander of the battleship will be provided with the necessary instructions.
Your efforts for now, I repeat, should be to get the authorities in Antofagasta to suspend the violent enforcement of a measure that could have dangerous consequences for the peace of the two nations.
Keep me posted as events occur.
God bless you,
A
lejandro FIERRO .
80
Annex 90
Letter from Severino Zapata, Colonel of the Bolivian Army, to the Customs Administrator in Antofagasta, 11 January 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific, Vol. I (1884), p 28
81
82
Annex 90
Annex 90
83
PREFECTURE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COBIJA.
Antofagasta, 11 January 1879.
TO THE CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATOR.
Sir:
Today the assets of the Nitrate and Railway Company of Antofagasta were seized, and they were sufficient to cover the amount owed to the Treasury for the export duty on nitrate, including deposits of that substance.
I am letting you know about this so that you can give the necessary orders to prevent shipment of nitrates, asking the law enforcement officers to take the necessary action if this order is violated.
God bless you,
Severino Zapata.
84
Annex 91
Note from the Legation of Chile in Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 42, 20 January 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 31 to its Memorial
85
86
Annex 91
Annex 91
87
Legation of Chile in Bolivia.—La Paz, 20 January 1879. —Number 42.
Sir:— My Government is aware of the two notes from Your Excellency, dated 13 and 18 December, the first of which is to answer the claim that this Legation made on 2 July 1878 and the second to tell me that on that day the order to implement the law of 14 February, which was the subject of that claim, was sent to the Littoral.
My Government has also learned that the note that this Legation had the honor of sending to Your Excellency that same day 18 December, declaring that the enforcement of that law constituted a breach of the Treaty of Limits of 6 August 1874, currently in force between Chile and Bolivia.
The instructions that I have received as a result allow this Legation to answer the note from Your Excellency, dated 26 December,
88
Annex 91
Annex 91
89
in which Your Excellency confirms what was said in prior notes, and draws my attention to one of the articles of the Supplementary Treaty negotiated in La Paz, in 1875.
In my opinion, Minister, it would be completely useless and futile to open a new debate to demonstrate that the law of 14 February 1878 is contrary to Article IV of the Treaty of Limits of 1874. Since Your Excellency's Government, ignoring the claim by this Legation, ordered that the tax on nitrates be implemented in the Littoral, without even giving my Government time to take cognizance of this unexpected act, it is no longer possible to discuss the merits of the question that gave rise to this conflict.
Now I can do nothing more than answer the aforementioned note from Your Excellency dated 27 December, and set forth certain considerations that are necessary for a fair appraisal of what is happening.
Your Excellency assures me that the enforcement of the law will not put an end to the discussion, much less does it constitute a breach of the Treaty of 1874, as I have declared in the name of my Government, because Article II of the Supplementary Treaty, which Your Excellency assumes that I have forgotten, provides for arbitration to resolve all difficulties caused by the understanding or application of that Treaty.
Your Excellency makes a serious mistake in believing that in handling this delicate matter, I have forgotten a provision of such importance as Article II of the Treaty of 25 June 1875, of which Your Excellency reminds me.
That article reads as follows:
"All issues related to the understanding and enforcement of the Treaty of 6 August 1874 shall be submitted to arbitration."
In no way has my conduct deviated from the duty imposed on both contracting parties by the articles that I have just transcribed.
90
Annex 91
Annex 91
91
If anyone has forgotten that before committing a breach, it was necessary to resort to arbitration, it was certainly not my Government, which with perfect right and without violating in the least its commitments to Bolivia has had to declare that in its judgment, the enforcement of the law of 14 February would annul the Treaty of 1874 because it would thus establish the true reach of the question at issue and tried to maintain it in the conditions created by the agreement entered into with me in April 1878 by the Minister of Finance of Bolivia, by means of which the effects of that law were temporarily suspended.
That declaration, which was perfectly correct and consistent with international practices, could not in any case authorize the violent measure taken by the Government of Your Excellency which, disregarding the opinion of the Government of Chile, and as a sole response to it, ordered enforcement of the tax law, thus resolving by itself a question that could not be resolved so precipitously.
It is true that after that act, Your Excellency remembered arbitration and has proposed it as a means of resolving this dispute. But Your Excellency may not have noticed the exceptional circumstances in which this proposal was made.
Arbitration, which is being adopted by the civilized world to settle international disputes, is imposed especially on Chile and Bolivia, not only because it is enshrined in a solemn treaty that is binding on both countries, but also because their historical background and their future destinies are identical, because of the harmony of their economic interests and by analogy to the laws that govern their development.
However, in order to resort to arbitration in any dispute, the two parties must be in
92
Annex 91
Annex 91
93
equal positions. And that equality does not exist in this case because Bolivia has ordered the enforcement of acts that damage the integrity of the Treaty, in accordance with my Government's evaluation of the acts.
An arbitrator appointed in the current order of things established by the decree of 18 December would not decide on the genuine interpretation of Article IV of the treaty, which is the subject of the dispute, but on the legality of a fait accompli, which puts one of the parties in an unequal position and in a completely unacceptable situation.
And Your Excellency should note that this unequal position, created by an inexplicable act by the Bolivian Government, is what put this Legation in the difficult position of not being able to appeal to arbitration, even though it was very well aware that the Treaty provided for this means of reaching a satisfactory solution.
The truth is that it would not have been proper for the Chilean Government to make proposals for resolution to an opposing party that, failing to comply with the customary proceedings in any loyal dispute and with the reciprocal respect that friendly nations must show each other, took justice into its own hands and preferred patently unlawful acts to the calm, lofty discussion to which it had been invited.
On top of that, after what had happened, my Government would have had even more reason to refuse flatly to accept the proposal of arbitration that Your Excellency made me, because that proposal cannot be reconciled with the conduct of Your Excellency's Government, which began to avoid arbitration at the very time it proposed it, by ordering enforcement of a law, which Chile believes is contrary to the Treaty in force.
Nevertheless, instead of taking this step that was justified by the background of the current dispute, my Government, in its desire to maintain healthy relations between the countries, still prefers attempting the recourse that is offered
94
Annex 91
Annex 91
95
for avoiding a breakdown in relations, for which the rest of the Americas would hold Your Excellency solely responsible.
Chile has manifested at all times the always sincere desire to live in peace and friendship with all its neighbors, and the Treaty of 1874—in which it generously ceded some of its legitimate, recognized rights—is proof of its sympathy for the Bolivian Government and people; consistent with that glorious tradition of its past, it now wants to make a new offering for the tranquility of the American continent and once again announces the noble sentiments governing its relations with the peoples of the same origin.
To this end my Government has asked me to tell Your Excellency's Government that accepting the indication that has been made to me, it is willing to continue the discussion that was interrupted by the order to enforce the law of 14 February and to resort to arbitration if it is not possible to find a direct solution.
But my Government is doing so with the persuasion that Your Excellency's Government is proposing to give immediate orders to suspend the enforcement of the law and to return matters to the status quo that existed prior to the decree of 18 December, since this would be the logical consequence of Your Excellency's arbitration proposal.
Bolivia has violated the provisions of the Treaty of 1874 by reestablishing in 1878 the tax system existing in the Littoral on the date of that treaty: consequently, the suspension of the decree that ordered the imposition of the new tax is an essential prior requirement for resuming the discussion or for initiating the discussions leading to the establishment of the arbitral tribunal.
This is so natural and so obvious that I do not dare even think that the Bolivian Government, in reminding me of Article II of the Supplementary Treaty, did not intend to return matters to the only status that will make a peaceful settlement
96
Annex 91
Annex 91
97
possible, i.e., to the status quo established from the time the law was promulgated.
But this uncertain situation, which is full of danger, cannot continue any longer without causing considerable harm to both countries; such uncertainty must disappear as soon as possible and to that end, the Bolivian Government must let us know its thoughts as quickly as possible.
I therefore beg Your Excellency that, regardless of the final stance your Government takes in view of this note, you would be so kind to let me know it before the 23rd of this month because on that day, I must let the Chilean Government know, and it is awaiting a resolution to this most serious question with intense interest.
This Legation is pleased to remind Your Excellency that it has not excused any efforts to resolve this dispute with dignity by means of an agreement compatible with the justice of the cause it sustains and in harmony with Chile's traditional policy, which is always aimed at cultivating the most candid and cordial friendship with its neighbors and in particular with its allies.
It is now up to Your Excellency's Government to state whether it is also motivated by conciliatory aims that will make it possible to seek an amicable solution to the conflict.
Given the current state of the dispute, it must be promptly resolved once and for all, because this is vital for the tranquility of two neighboring peoples, united until today by close social and commercial ties.
That important resolution is left to the Bolivian Government and it bears the responsibility for all the consequences of a rupture, if this should become necessary because it refuses to suspend the decree of 18 December of last year.
Chile, supported by its rights, has not taken a single step that is not strictly in keeping with the principles of fairness and that does not reveal the decided intention to remove from the discussion
98
Annex 91
Annex 91
99
anything that could be a reason for discord between the two Governments.
If the very unfortunate case of a rupture should arise, this prudent and moderate conduct will be its best justification before the conscience of the Americas, and before the impartial judgment of all friendly nations; they will see that Chile defends the forums of justice, which have been violated in this case by the failure to comply with a solemn treaty, and they will not be able to look at such a noble cause with indifference, a favorable solution that is in the interest of all civilized peoples.
Reiterating to Your Excellency the assurance of my distinguished consideration, I have the honor of remaining sincerely yours.—(Signed.)—Pedro N. Videla.
To His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia.
100
Annex 92
Bolivian Resolution of 1 February 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 14 to its Memorial
101
102
Annex 92
Annex 92
103
FEBRUARY
RESOLUTION OF 1 FEBRUARY.
The transaction of 27 November 1873, between the Government and the Antofagasta Nitrate Company is hereby rescinded; the effects of the law of February 1878 imposing the 10 cent tax are suspended.
Ministry of Finance and Industry. La Paz, 1 February 1879. Having considered in the Council of Government, with the statements of the District Attorney, and
104
Annex 92
Annex 92
105
Whereas: laws are mandatory throughout the Republic from the time they are promulgated, whether by edict or by insertion in the official gazette: the law of 14 February 78 was promulgated by both means; consequently it is mandatory for the Antofagasta Nitrate and Railway Company, represented by Mr. Jorge Hicks; therefore, the defense that it was not served in person is unlawful and inappropriate.
Whereas: said representative also protested against that law of 14 February before the notary of the port of Antofagasta, José Calisto Paz;
Whereas: although that protest would introduce an unusual practice not recognized by our laws, it nevertheless meant that in the case at hand, the company would not agree to and would oppose the law of 14 February 1878;
Whereas: this law is the last and principal act of the acts taken by the company to settle with the government on the gratuitous and illegal concessions that the company obtained from the Melgarejo administration, and which were annulled by the laws of 9 and 14 August 1871;
Whereas: in this regard the protest against the act approving the agreement of 27 November 73 constitutes a breach of that agreement, and returns matters to the state in which were they left by the law of 9 and 14 August 1871;
Whereas: since it is solely with the jurisdiction of the Legislative Body to sell national assets, it was necessary for the agreement of 27 November, which constitutes an enormous and gratuitous award of nitrate deposits rather than a transaction, to be approved by that Body, as indeed it was by the law of 14 February;
Whereas: the same authorizing law, by giving the Executive the authority to settle fees and other claims outstanding against the State, imposed on the Executive the obligation to report to the Legislature, so that it could approve or disapprove the stipulations that had been reached by means of a transaction;
Whereas: without that approval, the transaction in question cannot be deemed to have been formed and to have legal and definitive value; this is what the Legislative Branch has declared, and that Branch has the sole power to interpret laws, which it did simply by issuing the law of 14 February;
Finally, whereas: the government has the power to enforce and ensure compliance with the laws and to exercise the ultimate vigilance and protection of the national interests, by virtue of which contracts entered into by the government that have not been performed in good faith by the parties thereto may be rescinded;
Declares, the agreement of 27 November 1873, between the government and the Antofagasta Nitrate Company is hereby rescinded and null and void; and as a result the effects of the law of 14 February 1878 are suspended. The relevant minister shall issue the proper orders to recover the nitrate mines held by the company.
Take note of the foregoing, send it to the proper persons and return it.
106
Annex 92
Daza. Martin Lauza. Serapio Reyes Ortiz. Manuel Othon Jofre. Eulogio D. Medina.
Annex 93
Letter from the Consul General of Chile in Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 7 February 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific, Vol. I (1884), pp 30-31
107
108
Annex 93
Annex 93
109
Antofagasta, 7 February 1879.
Dear Minister:
On the 5th of this month, at 4:00 p.m., the manager of the nitrate establishment was informed of a decree by the Prefecture, ordering an auction of the Company's assets that were seized, following an appraisal.
The circumstances that preceded this act are serious enough that I hurried to let your Ministry know about it at any cost. These circumstances are: on the 4th, the Mayor received a telegram (by the steamship that arrived from the North that day) with which I am not familiar, but that I have good reason to believe that it was from La Paz, containing orders from the Government; the auction decree was dated that same day,
110
Annex 93
Annex 93
111
and it was notified on the 5th, at the time indicated, after the steamships of the South and the North left. In my opinion, there was the intention to delay the notice for at least three days by steamship, which notice I was able to give to my Government using the cable in Iquique or Caldera.
Furthermore, the fact that arbitration proposals had been exchanged between our Legation and the Government in La Paz, which were subject to the condition precedent of suspending the effects of the law taxing nitrates, means that the auction is quite worrisome, especially if we consider that it was ordered on the same day as the receipt of that telegram, and after the procedures in the lawsuit had been suspended for more than 20 days.
These factors forced the manager of the Company to send a telegram of his own to Mejillones, so that when it reached the steamship, a report could be transmitted from Iquique, which I assume you have already received.
Since the time when the Company was notified, the situation has changed dramatically. The apparent calmness resulting from the suspension of the enforcement proceedings was followed by a state of terrible agitation. The people are alarmed and worried, and there is a marked sense of concern among merchants. Above all, I am afraid that the time for the auction will come, because if the Company has suffered the serious harm that this situation causes because it has been so protracted, I do not know to what extent its large number of employees and its 2,000 workers will be unfazed by this predatory act.
Obviously I did not think it appropriate to ask for the suspension of such a serious measure, but I will do so at a more opportune moment when my action can be more effective, in an attempt to obviate the disadvantages of the spirit of controversy which dominates these authorities.
In addition to these grounds for agitation, there has been a rumor that Bolivian forces were approaching Caracoles: this rumor is completely false, and I have taken action to get very early news, if it should come true.
The alarm has been so great that the manager of the Company has been terribly afraid, and deferring to his wishes, I have agreed with the Commander of the Blanco Encalada that preventive measures will be taken if his valuable interests are attacked.
I am sending you an authorized copy of the protest made by the manager Mr. Jorje Hicks, in response to the notice of the auction.
God bless you,
N
i
canor Zenteno.
To the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile.
112
Annex 94
Note from the Chargé d’Affaires of Chile in Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, 8 February 1879 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
113
114
Annex 94
Annex 94
115
La Paz, 8 February 1879. Sir: I am in receipt of Your Excellency's answer dated the 6th of this month to the note that this Legation had the honor of sending to your Ministry on the 20th of January.
In the answer, Your Excellency states that in view of the protest made in Antofagasta by the Nitrate Company against the enforcement of the law of 14 February 1878, and for the reasons expressed in the resolution of 1 February, a certified copy of which Your Excellency sent to me, Your Excellency's Government has been forced to rescind the contract that it had entered into with that Company, thereby suspending the effects of the Law of 14 February.
Your Excellency goes on to say that the Bolivian Government believes that this act obviates the reason for the claim made by this Legation on 2 July 1878 and for the arbitration proposed in the note that Your Excellency is answering.
Your Excellency then expresses the hope that this resolution will completely reestablish the harmony and good relations between the Government of Chile and the Government of Bolivia, and further states that, if a new incident should occur, which Your Excellency does not expect, your Government will always be willing to resort to arbitration as set forth in Article II of the Treaty of 1875.
Having carefully read the Note from Your Excellency and the copy of the Supreme Resolution that you sent to me, I cannot conceal from Your Excellency how surprised I was to learn of the new and unexpected incident that Your Excellency's Government raises in this matter.
Reminded by Your Excellency, in the note of 26 December, the arbitration recourse as a means of resolving the dispute between the Government of Chile and the Government of Bolivia because of the enforcement of the law creating a tax on the export of nitrates, this Legation declared, in the note of 20 January, that notwithstanding the improper way Your Excellency's Government was handling this matter by ordering the tax law to be enforced, my Government, motivated by the good will that always governs its relations with friendly States and in homage to the loyalty with which international pacts must be obeyed, accepted Your Excellency's indication and was willing to initiate the preparations for putting together the arbitral tribunal.
Both my Government and this Legation believed, because it was natural and logical to think so, that the thorny issue being discussed had actually been satisfactorily resolved because both Governments were going to submit the dispute to the decision of impartial arbitrators appointed by mutual agreement.
Nevertheless, in the government resolution of which Your Excellency sent me a copy, the grounds for which I have no reason to analyze, Your Excellency's Government rescinded the transaction entered
116
Annex 94
Annex 94
117
into with the Nitrate Company on 27 November 1873, approved by Supreme Decree of the Government and recorded by a notary of the 29th of the same month and year. Pursuant to this declaration, Your Excellency's Government suspends the effects of the law of 14 February 1878 and entrusts the relevant Minister with giving proper orders for the vindication of the nitrate mines owned by the Company.
In other words, by avoiding the clear and final answer requested by this Legation and refusing to arbitrate as set forth in an international treaty and agreed to with the express consent of both Governments, the Government of Bolivia has abandoned diplomatic negotiations and is taking a wrongful path to decide the question alone, in its own favor. The truth is that this constitutes nothing more than the annulation of a valid contract entered into by the Nitrate Company with a constitutional government that was duly authorized by a Legislative Assembly.
Complying with the instructions of its Government, this Legation has always maintained, both at meetings in person and in its notes of 2 July and 18 December 1878 and 20 January 1879, that the Nitrate Company owns the land on the coastline that it occupies, and that the rights secured for it under the transaction of 27 November 1873 are legitimate. Your Excellency will therefore not be surprised to learn that the Chilean Government—which had thought that no export or import duties could be imposed on the Company and that its operation of the nitrate deposits that belong to it could not be obstructed due to the Treaty of 1874—now thinks it that certainly cannot be evicted from possession of the nitrate mines of which it has been in quiet possession for five years.
Without considering the theory established in the resolution of 1 February, pursuant to which Your Excellency's Government believes that it has authority to rescind all contracts entered into by a constitutional administration, I nevertheless think that it is important to take note of that in this communication.
Given the foregoing background, Your Excellency declared, in response to its note of 6 February, that unlike Your Excellency's Government, my Government does not believe that the termination of the contract makes the reason for this Legation's claim disappear, nor does it obviate the arbitration pointed out for the first time by Your Excellency in the note of 2 December, which was rightly agreed to by my Government.
Consequently, and bearing in mind the certainty that Your Excellency has given me in the note that I am answering, that if a new incident arises (and I would classify the current one as a new incident) Your Excellency's Government will always be willing to resort to arbitration, I therefore ask Your Excellency to tell me once and for all, in a frank and categorical response, whether or not Your Excellency's Government accepts the arbitration established in the Treaty of 1875, previously suspending any new matter in the Littoral with respect to the issue at hand.
In view of the grave harm being caused every day to the industries and trade in that Department, and in recognition of the serious threat to public tranquility, I also take the liberty of asking Your Excellency to give me that response within 48 hours.
The consequences that will necessarily result from a
118
Annex 94
negative answer will be the sole responsibility of the Government of Bolivia.
Reiterating to Your Excellency the expression of my highest consideration, I remain sincerely yours. (Signed.) P.N. VIDELA.-To His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia.
A true copy. Francisco Valdes Vergara.
Annex 95
Note from the Chargé d’Affaires of Chile in Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, 12 February 1879 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
119
120
Annex 95
Annex 95
121
Annex No. I.
(Copy.)
La Paz, 12 February 1879. Sir: On Saturday the 8th of this month, at 6 p.m., I had a note delivered to the chief administrative officer at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs asking you to give me a final answer, within 48 hours, as to whether or not your Government agrees to the arbitration provided for by the Treaty of 1875.
Today, Wednesday at 1 p.m., the deadline has more than passed and yet I still have not had the honor of receiving your response. This silence is tantamount to a refusal, which makes it completely useless and unfruitful for this Legation to remain here in Bolivia.
Therefore, in accordance with the instructions I have received from my Government, I take the liberty of asking that you please issue the necessary passports to me.
Before I leave, in order to make it clear what has happened, I must declare that this rupture is solely the fault of your Government, which twice proposed the arbitration established by the Treaty that is in effect, and has twice forgotten its proposal after it had been accepted by my Government with its customary loyalty.
Now that the Treaty of 6 August 1874 is broken, because Bolivia has not complied with the provisions thereof, Chile again has the rights that it legitimately asserted prior to the Treaty of 1866, to the territory to which that Treaty refers.
Consequently, the Chilean Government will take all actions it deems necessary to defend its rights, and the Bolivian Government should only see such actions as the logical result of the breakdown that it provoked and its repeated refusal to seek a fair solution that would have been equally honorable for both countries.
With sentiments of respect and honor, I remain sincerely yours. (Signed.) P.N. Videla.
To His Excellency Mr. Eulogio D. Medina, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia.
A true copy. Francisco Valdés Vergara.
122
Annex 95
Annex 95
123
124
Annex 96
Telegram from a correspondent of the newspaper La Patria (Peru), 15 February 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific, Vol. I (1884), p 55
125
126
Annex 96
Annex 96
127
TELEGRAM FROM "LA PATRIA" CORRESPONDENT
(Received at 3 p.m.)
The Bolivia anchored at 2 p.m.
On Friday, at 7 a.m., 300 men from the Marine Artillery took possession of Antofagasta without the least resistance.
The arrival of the squadron that same day could not have been timelier.
The 14th was the day scheduled for the auction of the assets seized from the Nitrate Company, and the people were indignant about that and were preparing to rise up against the authorities.
These and a small Bolivian police force were placed under the protection of the Chilean troops.
Yesterday, Saturday, 100 men marched to Caracoles and when the steamship left, they had arrived in Salinas without any problems.
Also yesterday, the O'Higgins went to occupy Mejillones and one of the battleships left for Cobija.
There were no casualties.
The people showed great jubilation and now everything is back to normal.
The Consul General of Chile, Mr. Zenteno, has been appointed Governor of the new department.
THE CORRESPONDENT.
128
Annex 97
Bolivian Presidential Decree declaring the rupture of communications with Chile and the seizure of properties belonging to Chilean nationals, 1 March 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific, Vol. I (1884), pp 101-102
129
130
Annex 97
Annex 97
131
Expulsion of Chileans and Confiscation of their Assets
HILARIÓN DAZA,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA, ETC.
Whereas:
The Government of Chile has invaded our national territory without complying with the rules of the law of nations or the practices of civilized peoples, violently expelling the authorities and nationals residing in the Department of Cobija;
The Government of Bolivia has a duty to take vigorous measures required by the urgency of the situation, but not violating the principles enshrined in the public law of nations,
I decree:
Art. 1. All trade and commerce with the Republic of Chile is severed as long as the war it has waged against Bolivia lasts.
Art. 2. Chileans residing in Bolivian territory are required to vacate it within 10 days from the date on which they are notified by the local political authority, and they may take with them their
132
Annex 97
Annex 97
133
private papers, luggage and household items.
Art. 3. The expulsion ordered in the previous article may only be suspended for a period that is strictly indispensable, due to illness or other serious impediment, in the opinion of the authorities.
Art. 4. The respective authorities shall seize the real and personal property of Chilean citizens in the territory of the Republic, with the exception of the objects designated in Article 2.
Mining companies belonging to Chileans on in which there are shareholders of that nationality may remain in business, and shall be entrusted to a manager appointed by the authorities or with the intervention of a representative of the Treasury, depending on which the authorities deem more appropriate.
Art. 5. The net proceeds of mining companies that belong to Chileans or of the shares of such companies shall be placed in the national treasury.
Art. 6. The seizure ordered by this decree shall become a permanent confiscation provided that the nature of hostilities by the Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation by Bolivia.
Art. 7. Any transfer of Chilean interests made after 8 November shall be null and void, as that is the date on which the Chilean Government declared the Treaty of 1874 null and void; and therefore any contract made in that regard must be deemed fraudulent.
The Minister of Government of Foreign Affairs shall ensure that this decree is published and enforced.
Given in the city of La Paz de Ayacucho, on 1 March 1879.
(Signed.) H. Daza.—Manuel Othon Jofré.—Julio Méndez.—(Initial)—Eulojio D. Medina.—A true copy. The clerk—Luciano Valle.
134
Annex 98
Order of the Ministry of War of Bolivia, 1 March 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific, Vol. I (1884), pp 106-107
135
136
Annex 98
Annex 98
137
MINISTRY OF WAR.
(General Order.— General Headquarters.)
La Paz, 1 March 1879.
The President of the Republic and Captain General of the Army, having considered:
1. that the Supreme Decree of 26 February declared the fatherland in danger, and all Bolivians have a strict duty to offer their services to defend their honor that has been sullied by the perverse invaders of their territory;
2. that it is up to the national army to teach a lesson to those who, in violation of every principle of international law, including those that govern the conduct of belligerents in a war, have taken our undefended ports of Antofagasta, Mejillones and the mineral of Caracoles, in a traitorous and quixotic display of maritime and military power;
3. that since bravery and enthusiasm are not sufficient to beat and conquer an enemy, but the essential conditions for a victory are discipline and morale, which are indispensable in any war and strategy, we should establish these bases of a moral nature;
4. that it is necessary to add new troops to the national army, so that once soldiers are experienced in the practice of their profession, they will be prepared to face danger serenely and accept death as the ultimate duty, I order the following:
Art. 1. Beginning tomorrow, the national army is declared on campaign, in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Military Code, with special recommendation that Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of that chapter be complied with.
Art. 2. A general roll of army chiefs and officials will be formed in the State General Mayor, in accordance with their seniority, by special dispatches in form. If any question should arise about seniority, it will be resolved by the head of the State General Mayor, and this decision shall be final, with any murmuring or discontent in this regard being considered an act of insubordination and punished as such, and on the other hand, any action that manifests a desire and resolution to serve the fatherland with abnegation shall be rewarded. This provision does not exclude fair and moderate claims.
Art. 3. The general commanders of departments shall join the State General Mayor with the following lists:
1. Generals, chiefs and officers on active duty.
2. Id. id. id. on site, on the border, at civil locations or disabled.
3. Id. id. id. retired from the army.
4. Chiefs and officers of the national guard.
Art. 4. All civil and military authorities shall have the inalienable obligation to take up rifles, fusiles, munitions and other articles of war that are necessary to arm the national guard, providing a detailed list to the Office of the Commander General of the department, who will send it to the State General Mayor, within 15 days of the publication of this general order.
Art. 5. A list shall also be made of all private weapons, without taking them away from their owners, in order to arm any troops of warriors that may be organized from time to time.
Art. 6. No chief or officer may leave his barracks without a permit or for longer than three hours.
138
Annex 98
Annex 98
139
Art. 7. When the call to arms is sounded, all corps shall be formed in their respective barracks, ready to start marching.
Art. 8. Tomorrow, after mass is said on the Plaza de Armas, the entire army corps shall again pledge allegiance to their flags and standards, in accordance with Article 29, section 3, chapter 5 of the Code, except for the discharge provided for therein, and shall sing the National Anthem.
Art 9. Citizen Enrique Pinedo has been rehabilitated in his class as second lieutenant and assigned to the "Daza" battalion, first grenadiers of the guard; the head of that corps shall give him that position.
Give notice in the agenda for the information of the army and other applicable persons.
The Minister—Jofré.
Communicated.—The second major adjutant—Eduardo Gutiérrez.
140
Annex 99
Letter from the Legation of Chile in Peru to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 22 March 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific, Vol. I (1884), pp 162-163
141
142
Annex 99
Annex 99
143
LEGATION OF CHILE IN PERU.
Lima, 22 March 1879.
Dear Minister:
If, as I presume, my previous communication has reached your hands, you must be aware of the manner in which I have proceeded in fulfillment of my duties to ask this Government for an immediate declaration of neutrality. The copy that I attached to that communication will have told you the terms of the dispatch that I sent on the 17th of this month about this matter
144
Annex 99
Annex 99
145
to Mr. Irigoyen, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. When he received that dispatch, on the afternoon of the day on which it was dated, the Council of Ministers met immediately to consider it; but they did not reach any decision at that meeting. At the meeting held on the next day, if the news I have received is correct, Mr. Irigoyen presented a draft response of absolute refusal to my request, a draft that was not accepted, and which therefore caused the Minister to try to resign from his post. A day later, the 20th, when I was prepared to speak with His Excellency General Prado about these grave issues, I received his invitation to do so and held the meeting with him that I will describe below.
His Excellency asked me to candidly tell him the purpose of my dispatch of the 17th. I replied that there was no other purpose or intention in that document than those that are clearly set forth therein; that the Chilean Government, desiring to maintain its friendly relations with the Peruvian Government, could not help but consider the stance of this country and its Government as intended to thwart its desires, as expressed in the specific facts described in my dispatch; that therefore, it would now be my turn to ask him for a candid statement at that time. His Excellency then told me that he could not formulate in precise terms what his later decision would be, since although personally he aspired to maintain peace between Chile and Peru, as the president of Peru, he had to put the country's interests ahead of his own; that his Government, which was already bound to Bolivia by a secret treaty of offensive and defensive alliance, would inevitably take that country's side, unless friendly relations were restored between it and Chile, or unless the Peruvian Congress, special sessions of which will be called soon, authorizes non-compliance with that treaty. That it was necessary to be prepared for all events and that was why preparations for war were being made. When he reached this point, he tried to conceal from me the fact that he had given orders to acquire battleships in Europe: but I spoke to him directly about this matter, citing names and dates, he did not contradict me. In conclusion, he told me that his Government would not make any decision until it found out whether the mission entrusted to Mr. Lavalle had been successful, after questioning the country through its representatives to the Congress; that therefore, only his representative in Chile could give our Government the final answer to my note of the 17th, and that Mr. Irigoyen would answer me on the next day. I comment that this procedure, instead of putting an end to the reasons for alarm, would only maintain them and their pernicious effects; that, therefore, after communicating with my Government, as I had obviously intended to do, I thought that I had no choice but to insist on my demand for a categorical declaration. Mr. Prado admitted that that was fair, or so I assume, since it did not say anything substantially contrary to it.
The meeting I have just discussed was held in Chorrillos on the night of the 20th, and yesterday, the 21st, I hastened to give you a concise report on it by telegraph, by sending you the encrypted message marked Nivel, i.e., message no. 16, which when deciphered said the following: "My reasonable note, asking for declaration of neutrality, will be answered today. President told me last night that he could not decide, has alliance treaty with Bolivia, will convene Congress for decision and ask Lavalle to explain himself to our Government. This mission is evasive move to gain time. Preparations for war and public agitation continue. I think I must insist on immediate declaration, and if I do not obtain it, I should ask for passports. I await your orders."
Consequently, as the President had said, I received an answer from Mr. Iri-
goyen yesterday afternoon, a copy of which is attached, and today I informed you of the substance thereof by means of the telegram marked Escuadra (telegram number 17), which, when decrypted, reads as follows:—"Yesterday I received response to note on declaration of neutrality. It says that instructions were sent to Lavalle to reach an agreement on that issue with Government of Chile. I confirm everything that I said in my telegram Nivel."
In my telegram of yesterday, I alluded to the moderate tone of my dispatch to this Government, so that you would be prepared against whatever they may tell you to the contrary, or because the press here has maliciously claimed that the tone of the document is hurtful and offensive to the dignity of Peru. In the same document, I recommended that all my communications be kept confidential, including my telegrams, as well as ordinary communications, given the fact that our Congress will meet soon, and they must be given an account of everything at secret sessions.
Since I am short on time, as usual, and this letter needs to get out, I close by informing you that preparations are continuing in this country with unusual activity, and the intent to gain time is becoming more evident every day. My ordinary communications and those sent by telegraph from now on will undoubtedly continue telling you that given the current situation, we must precipitate the events.
God bless you,
Joaquín Godoi.
To the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile.
146
Annex 100
Letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, 31 March 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru, Memoria of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 1879, pp 173-179
147
148
Annex 100
Annex 100
149
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
La Paz, 31 March 1879.
Sir,
The extremely transcendental, and increasingly important for the Americas, occurrences that have been taking place with marked violent and scandalous overtones since this past 14 February leave me in the sad position of having to address Your Excellency to briefly apprise you of the injustice and the outrageous audacity with which the government of Chile has occupied by force of arms the Bolivian Littoral located between 23°S and 24°S, taking over the important towns of Antofagasta, Mejillones and Caracóles, three sources of wealth due to their natural products of nitrate, guano, silver and copper metals, and many other substances.
Such attack, extremely undermining of Bolivia’s sovereignty and independence, its decorum and dignity, has now been further aggravated in an even more scandalous manner, if possible, by the occupation of the ports of Cobija and Tocopilla that was carried out on the 21st and 22nd days of this month.
The violent situation Chile has created for Bolivianaturally brings about the stance to be expected of the latter and its duty to use all means necessary to forcefully repel the armed attack and take back its usurped territory.
Chile’s attack during completely peaceful times without a prior declaration of war or any other step, when the negotiations started by Mr. Videla, the Chargé d'Affaires of the Chilean Government, in this City are still underway, was nothing short of a shock to my Government, which was caught completely unprepared. The presence of the “Blanco Encalada” battleship in Antofagasta waters has been denounced all along by the public opinion and even by the Valparaiso press itself as the precursor to the events which came to pass later on; however, trustful of Chile’s circumspection and probity, my Government refused to lend credibility to such offensive, inadmissible rumors, and opted to merely inquire about them to the Chilean Representative instead. His response, stated in his official letter of 27 January, was satisfactory, and my Government had no way of suspecting that this was a tactic devised to dull and hide the truth; otherwise, it would have tried to deploy protection to its defenseless ports, ruling no sacrifice out, and, without question, Chile would have found the armed occupation less easy, if more honorable.
The defenseless status of the Pacific Littoral area, and its remote location from the seat of the Bolivian Government’s action and power, the sudden and unexpected nature of the event, the concealed nature of a plan that was slowly and calmly devised for some time, these are all circumstances which undermine the Government of Chile’s honor and reveal the true nature and tone
150
Annex 100
Annex 100
151
of the crime perpetrated against Bolivia and the public law of nations.
Because such occurrence, which stands as an embarrassing memory for the aggressor, is a publicly known event, I will not offer an account of the
facts that make it even more odious, even though the Santiago Cabinet is making efforts intended to present it to the world in the best possible glorious light.
The lengthy Account of the Facts published in the Official Gazette I will have the honor of sending Your Excellency will provide you with in-depth knowledge of the issue Chile has been trying to resolve by the easy expedient of using force; in the meantime, I will merely provide you with a report which, even if brief, will reveal how fair and right Bolivia’s claims are in this international issue.
Bolivia, which, under the name of “El Alto Peru” was the region of the Americas that fought the longest for its emancipation, proclaimed its independence and autonomy in 1825, using the limits of the old provinces that it was to comprise. Concurrently, very close in time, i.e. in 1826, the territorial jurisdiction of each of the eight provinces that made up the Republic of Chile was determined, with the first one, as per the law’s text, being “from the unpopulated area of Atacama to the north bank of the Chapoa river; the second province extending from the Chapoa river, and so on.” Such demarcation merely followed old-standing traditions, as the founder of Santiago de Chile himself, Mr. Pedro de Valdivia, had written these notable words to Emperor Charles V in a letter in which he recounted his trip to such Kingdom: “I walked from Cuzco to the Copiapó valley, which is where this land begins past the unpopulated Atacama area.”
Chile’s original Constitution was in agreement with conquistador/founder Valdivia’s words, and documents which were later on verified have provided evidence establishing that the great unpopulated area of Atacama was a part of the Alto Peru’s territory.
I could not possibly discuss this issue without a careful, meticulous listing of data, documents, stories, and traditions that were produced at the time and today would merely distort the nature of this communication.
It was in 1842 that, on the occasion of the guano discoveries in Mejillónes, Chile first asserted its unfounded claims to the territory extending between 23°S and 24°S. It was then that it issued a law whereby it proclaimed, not precisely its outright ownership of the land, “but ownership of the existing guano deposits in the Atacama desert.”
The Government of Bolivia wasted no time in complaining, and Chile resorted to delaying tactics, using times of political unrest – unfortunately so frequent in Bolivia – for its arbitrary exploitation. The work and creation of six different Legations set up at different times were not sufficient to force that Government to drop its calculated tactics of postponements and delays.
152
Annex 100
Annex 100
153
A natural and precise consequence of such conduct has been Chile’s system of ad perpetuam armed occupation of the desired territory at the most favorable times.
One such occasion arose in 1878, due to the increased size of Chile’s forces, in preparation for dealing with the Argentine issue, which forces were then set to target Bolivia.
An excuse was needed, and the Government of Chile found one in the Law of 14 February 1878, issued by the National Constituent Assembly to tax with ten cents per quintal of nitrate exported by a Company to which the Government of Bolivia had awarded a free-of-charge concession over vast nitrate deposits. This was an entirely private issue that could not affect Chile’s rights or have any bearing on its international policy.
The discussion over limits was interrupted in 1863, because the Government of Chile had always avoided the alternatives of agreement and arbitration, persisting in its system of de facto occupation, as it did that year, providing Bolivia with a fair reason to issue the Law of 5 June, authorizing the Government to declare war, provided that, once all diplomatic conciliation avenues had been exhausted, the recovery of the usurped land had not been achieved. This was the reason why relations with said country were broken off.
Then, the Administration of General Melgarejo took office, and, at a time when the vindication principle devised by the old Metropolis came to upset the peace and quiet of the Americas, said Administration signed the alliance to which Chile was a party and concluded the 1866 treaty of limits with Chile, with said instrument establishing the 24° parallel as the demarcation line between the two nations.
In what represented an expression of sovereignty, the people’s revolution of 1871 completely changed the state of affairs created by the Melgarejo Administration; however, in what constituted a tribute to the standing of international pacts, it honored the treaty with Chile, which was reviewed in 1874, ratifying the main condition of demarcation along the 24° parallel. Under Article 4 of this treaty, which is not necessarily connected to its main purpose, all Chilean capital, industries and persons were declared tax-free.
The Law of 14 February 1878, as it reviewed and approved the concession granted by the Government on 27 November 1873 to the “Company” over the nitrate deposits and the Antofagasta railroad, levied a tax of ten cents per quintal of nitrate exported, as the only compensation for the enormous or extra-legal concessions granted to the Company for no consideration, calling it a transaction. The legislative body, which could have rejected an agreement that was so evidently detrimental to the State on the grounds that it was null and void, merely demanded such minor compensation, in a brilliant show of its circumspection and good judgment, honoring the Government’s word and reconciling, as far as it was possible, equity and the law, as well as the interests of the Company and those of the State.
Claiming its rights had been adversely affected, the Company
154
Annex 100
Annex 100
155
waived the administrative action available to it, considered it appropriate to turn its back on all formalities established by the laws of Bolivia, and took its claim to the Government of Chile, asserting its Chilean nationality and residence in Valparaiso.
It did not take long for the Santiago Cabinet to treat as a diplomatic matter an issue which, by its very own nature, was a domestic-law one; in a communication dated 8 November 1878, it stated its findings in an unusual manner, exhibiting unprecedented arrogance, and demanded the suspension of the effects of the Law of 14 February, or the breach of the treaties of limit.
It argued that the tax in question breached Article 4 of the 6 August 1874 Treaty. My Government found such claim to be neither founded nor fair, as the tax was based on a private contract, and was to be viewed as minor and insignificant compensation for the enormous concessions granted to the Company for no consideration. Accordingly, it ordered that the law be enforced; however, because the Company had made a formal complaint, disregarding the mandatory application of the law, it was forced to declare the 27 November agreement rescinded, therefore ordering as well the stay of the application of the tax challenged by the Government of Chile.
With the agreement rescinded – which agreement was improperly designated a transaction – the dispute should have been reduced to a merely private matter to be settled by the courts of Justice, in which the Government of Chile could have no involvement whatsoever since, as the effects of the 14 February Law had been suspended, the tax had simultaneously ceased to apply, with the pending enforcement lawsuit, the alleged breach of Article 4 of the Treaty of 6 August 1874 and, finally, the international arbitration proposed and demanded by that Government.
Hardly could the manner in which the conflict with the Company was handled have been any more natural and logical, or any more fair and peaceful. Once the Courts of Justice had declared that the rescission was lawful, which rescission the Government had declared only administratively, the vindication of the nitrate deposits would have been carried out through legal means before these very Courts of Justice, with no fuss or violence involved. The Bolivian Courts, and I am extremely honored to be able to proclaim this, have, on more than one occasion, brilliantly exhibited wisdom, solid reasons, and perfect independence.
A telling indication of this has been recently given by the Supreme Court when it found against the national Government in a claim asserted by Chilean citizen Juan Garday.
Unfortunately, however, the international arbitration Chile had boldly insisted on was nothing but a pretext to cover up its pre-devised plan for conquest and annexation that has just been implemented in a perfectly deliberate way. And it is for this reason that the Chilean Legation refused to even address the stated reasons for the Order of this past 1st February and wasted no time in triggering the conflict.
For several years the Chilean Government had been a spiteful spectator of the quick development and expansion of the port of Antofagasta, lusting after the riches of Caracóles, and considering the Mejillones guano as a safe means to ease the strain on its empty state coffers, and jumped at the first opportunity that presented itself to take those possessions away from Bolivia. The profit
156
Annex 100
Annex 100
157
incentive, boosted by the easy nature of the undertaking, has been the true motive behind Chile’s invasion.
Since I am making such a serious, harsh accusation, it is only fair that I state the reasons it is based upon. The communication issued on 8 November this year by Chile’s Minister of Foreign Affairs revealed the intention of his Government; however, when confronted with the text of Article 2 of the supplementary Treaty of 21 July 1875, and very much to his regret, he had to propose an arbitration; in the meantime, Chile was undertaking formidable war preparations: the “Blanco Encalada” was dispatched to Antofagasta waters, manned with a competent landing force; more troops were stationed at the Port of Caldera, and the Chargé d'Affaires, Mr. Videla, was peremptorily ordered to hasten a discussion and trigger a dispute. It was against this backdrop that he issued his communication of 8 February, insisting on an international arbitration; in the meantime, however, unaware and uninformed of the outcome of the negotiations that were underway in this City, his Government and the military Chiefs stationed in Caldera breached the Treaties with Bolivia via the armed invasion of its territory. Accordingly, Mr. Videla’s negotiations were nothing more than a façade, and served no purpose other than focusing my Government’s attention elsewhere; far from doubting Chile’s loyalty and the honor of its Representative in this City, my Government completely trusted that an issue that was simply economic and minor in nature could only be resolved in an amicable way, and could not even remotely constitute a casus belli between two neighboring Republics that had been together in the American alliance and were supposed to be moved by the spirit of peace and fraternity that is so necessary in the peoples of this Continent for their common development and progress.
The fact that no previous declaration of war was issued is yet another element that evidences the irregular procedure and pre-conceived ideas followed by the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is well known that every State is required to exhaust the available means of peaceful conciliation prior to engaging in an offensive war, and to commence hostilities, it is required to previously state its intention to resort to arms. According to a contemporary public-law scholar, civilized International Law is critical of any State that wages offensive war without a prior declaration in an attempt to surprise its adversary, triggering hostilities. Unscrupulous in its observance of these formalities, the Chilean Government disregarded all of this, and, even though Bolivia’s peaceful stance evidenced its desire for conciliation and amity, did not hesitate to start a war, starting by taking away a portion of Bolivia’s territory on the pretext that the Treaties of limit had been breached, a declaration it made by and before itself, relying on an alleged possession predating 1866 which it never actually held. Transitory possession prior to that time, which was every bit as violent and arbitrary as it is in the present day, never entailed anything other than an abuse of material force, taking advantage of Bolivia’s lack of maritime warring resources.
158
Annex 100
Annex 100
159
I do not, however, believe it is necessary to further dwell on this point. The violent occupation of Bolivia’s Littoral has already been judged by public opinion throughout the Americas and found to be an unjustifiable attack. Chile has suddenly taken on the role of an armed invader and, acting in breach of its obligations as one of the signatory Republics of the 1866 alliance compact, has broken off its ties to the American Union: it has breached the rules and practices of international law and created one more scandal in the history of these Republics, one that will become a sinister precedent in relations between weak and strong States and will tear down the legal fence in the frequent diplomatic disputes existing between Nations in the Americas.
No matter how well-founded the reasons stated against the enforcement of the 14 February Law might had been, Chile could not breach the treaties of limits or assert a vindication of that which never belonged to it.
Treaties of limits are viewed as reciprocal concessions, as true compromises whereby each signatory waives a portion of its rights in exchange for securing the rest. Your Excellency is aware that these treaties, like assignment treaties, exchange-of-territories treaties, and, generally, any treaties establishing rights, which cannot be implicitly abrogated, are perpetual and their nature is such that, even if suspended during times of war, they are thereafter reinstated with no need for an express agreement to that effect. So is contended by the most authoritative scholars.
Only Chile’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been willing to neglect this doctrine the way it has; that war may not be waged other than for a public-law reason; private-law lawsuits are subject to deliberation by the Courts of Justice; only the violation of a State’s fundamental or essential rights, a violent dispossession, or an encroachment upon the pillars upon which order and the law rest are legitimate reasons for war.
If Chile’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs disregards and breaches the 1866 and 1874 treaties of limits, Bolivia will be forced to take back and maintain its property rights over the three geographical degrees it assigned to Chile on its littoral under those Treaties, in an attempt to uphold peace, and wishing to preserve the most perfect harmony between the two Republics.
Chile has provided no justification whatsoever that would authorize its offensive war against Bolivia. The attack perpetrated against Bolivia via the conquest of its territory and the breach of its treaties of limits cannot possibly be any more unfair and violent; because, much to its regret, it has been pushed to such an extreme situation, it is now inevitably forced to take up arms to defend its usurped territory, its defrauded revenue, its violated dignity, and its flag that has been disrespected on Bolivian soil.
Bolivia did not wish or look for a war, as it is fundamentally a peaceful Republic that knows how to respect the rights of all other Nations; it is not, however, fearful of it either; it will gladly accept it, and will spare no effort or sacrifice to
160
Annex 100
Annex 100
161
fight force with force, to vindicate its rights, and to preserve its national honor untouched.
I ask that Your Excellency make this communication known to your Government, such that, informed of the current state of war, it will understand the forced position Bolivia has been left in, and will fulfill its duties to it as required under the law of Nations.
I avail myself of this opportunity to assure Your Excellency of my highest consideration.
Eulojio D. Medina.
To His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Peru – Lima.
162
Annex 101
Peruvian Presidential Decree declaring Peru to be in a state of war with Chile, 4 April 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
P. Ahumada Moreno, War of the Pacific, Vol. I (1884), p 206
163
164
Annex 101
Annex 101
165
XVIII
State of war
MARIANO I. PRADO, CONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC,
Whereas,
Peru is in a state of war with the Republic of Chile,
I hereby decree as follows:
Art. 1. The national army and navy are hereby ordered on campaign.
Art. 2. The General Chief of Staff, war commissions, and other agencies shall be organized via separate decrees.
The Ministry of the State for War and the Navy shall be in charge of enforcing this decree, as well its publication and circulation.
Issued at the Government Palace in Lima, on 4 April 1879. Mariano I. Prado.—Domingo del Solar.
166
Annex 102
Communiqué from Guillermo Matta, Mayor and Commandant-General of the Armed Forces in the Province of Atacama, 5 April 1879
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
EducarChile, Writings on our history,
<http://ww2.educarchile.cl/UserFiles/P0001/File/escritos_19.pdf&gt;
167
168
Annex 102
Guillermo Matta, Intendente i Coman-dante General de armas de la Provinciade Atacama.Por cuanto el Supremo Gobierno me hacomunicado con fecha de hoi i por telégrafolas siguientes declaraciones de guerra:Al Gobierno de Bolivia.“En virtud de la facultad que me confiereel n° 18 del artículo 82 de la Constitucion delEstado i la lei de 3 del presente,He acordado i decreto:El Gobierno de Chile declara la guerraal Gobierno de Bolivia. El Ministro del In-terior hará llegar esta declaracion a noticia delos ciudadanos de la República mandándola pu-blicar con la solemnidad debida.Dado en Santiago a cinco de abril de milochocientos setenta i nueve.A. Pinto.- B. Prats.- Alejandro Fierro.- C. Saavedra.- J. Blest Gana.- Julio Zegers”Al Gobierno del Perú.“En virtud de la facultad que me confiereel nº 18 del art. 82 de la Constitucion del Estadoi la lei de 4 del presente,He acordado i decreto:El Gobierno de Chile declara la guerra alGobierno del Perú. El Ministro de RelacionesEsteriores comunicará a las Naciones amigasUn sitio deIII Región de Atacama, AtacamaComandancia de Armas1879“Comunicado del Intendente y Comandante Generalde Armas de la provincia de Atacama relativa a ladeclaración de la Guerra del Pacífico. Copiapó,1879”DOCUMENTO
Annex 102
169
III Region of Atacama, AtacamaOffice of the Commander of Arms1879“Communiqué of the Governor and General Commander of Arms of the Province of Atacama regarding the declaration of the War of the Pacific. Copiapó, 1879”
Guillermo Matta, the Governor and General Commander of Arms of the Province of Atacama.
Whereas, the Supreme Government has communicated the following declarations of war to me today by telegraph:
“To the Government of Bolivia.
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 18 of Article 82 of the Constitution of the State and the law of the 3rd of this month,
I have decided and hereby decree:
The Government of Chile declares war on the Government of Bolivia. The Minister of the Interior shall bring this declaration to the notice of the citizens of the Republic, having it published with all due solemnity.
Given in Santiago on 5 April of 1879.
A. Pinto.- B. Prats.- Alejandro Fierro.- C. Saavedra.- J. Blest Gana.- Julio Zegers”
To the Government of Peru.
“By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 18 of Article 82 of the Constitution of the State and the law of the 4th of this month,
I have decided and hereby decree:
The Government of Chile declares war on the Government of Peru. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall inform friendly nations
170
Annex 102
esta declaracion esponiendo los justos motivos de laguerra, i el del Interior la hará llegara noticia de los ciudadanos de la Repúbli-ca mandándola publicar con la solemni-dad debida.Dado en Santiago a cinco de abril demil ochocientos setenta i nueve.A. Pinto.- B. Prats.- Alejandro Fierro.- C. Saavedra.- J. Blest Gana.- Julio Zegers.”Por tanto i para que llegue a conocimien-to de todos los habitantes del Departamento,publíquese por bando i en los diarios de estaciudad.Dado en la sala de despacho de laIntendencia de Atacama a cinco dias del mesde abril de mil ochocientos setenta i nueve.Guillermo MattaJosé M. GorvesecretarioCertifico: que con esta fecha ha publicadoel bando anterioren los lugares acostumbrados a serede musica i con la solemnidad corres-pondiente. Copiapó, Abril 5 de 1879.Agapito Vallejoescribano publico
Annex 102
171
of this declaration, and shall state the just motives for the war, and the Minister of the Interior shall bring this declaration to the notice of the citizens of the Republic, having it published with all due solemnity.
Given in Santiago on 5 April of 1879.
A. Pinto.- B. Prats.- Alejandro Fierro.- C. Saavedra.- J. Blest Gana.- Julio Zegers.”
Therefore, so that all inhabitants of the Department will be aware of this decree, it shall be published by the town crier and in the newspapers of this city.
Given in the office of the Governor of Atacama on 5 April of 1879.
Guillermo Matta.
José M. Gorve
Secretary
I certify: that on this date I published the foregoing edict in the customary places accompanied by music and with the appropriate solemnity. Copiapó, 5 April 1879.
Agapito Vallejo
notary public
172
Annex 102
Annex 102
173
174
Annex 103
Treaty of Peace and Amity between Chile and Bolivia,
signed at Santiago on 18 May 1895
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Memoria of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 1896, pp 167-170
175
176
Annex 103
Annex 103
177
T
reaty of Peace and Amity between Chile and Bolivia
JORJE MONTT
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE
Whereas, the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bolivia have negotiated and signed, through their respective and duly authorized Plenipotentiaries, in the city of Santiago, a Treaty of Peace and Amity, the wording of which is as follows:
Treaty of Peace and Amity between the Republics of Chile and Bolivia
The Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bolivia, desirous of fixing in a definitive Treaty of peace the political relations which unite the two countries, and being decided to consolidate by this means, and in a stable and lasting manner, the bonds of sincere friendship and good understanding which exist between the two countries, and in order to realize that purpose and the longing for harmony which has been pursued by the High Contracting Parties since the Truce Pact of 4 April 1884, have determined to conclude a Treaty of Peace and Amity, and for that purpose have appointed and constituted their Plenipotentiaries, which are:
178
Annex 103
Annex 103
179
His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chile, to Luis Barros Borgoño, Minister of Foreign Affairs; and His Excellency the President of the Republic of Bolivia, to Heriberto Gutierrez, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile.
Who after having exchanged their Full Powers, found to be in due and proper form, have agreed upon the following articles:
Article I
The Republic of Chile shall continue exercising possession in absolute and perpetual dominion over the territory which it has governed to the present time in accordance with the Truce Agreement of 4 April 1884. In consequence, the sovereignty of Chile is recognized over the territories extending to the south of the River Loa, from where it empties into the Pacific, to the parallel 23 degrees South latitude, and which have for their eastern boundary the series of straight lines fixed by Article II of the Truce Pact, that is to say, a straight line which begins from Zepaleri and from the intersection of the said territories with the boundary-line separating them from the Argentine Republic to the volcano of Licancaur. From this point a straight line shall continue to the peak of the extinct volcano Cabana or highland called the Cajón. From there another straight line shall continue as far as the cascade which is at the southernmost point of the Lake Ascotán, and thence another straight line which crosses the said lake lengthwise and terminates in the volcano Ollagua. From this point another straight line to the volcano Túa, the dividing line continuing from there between the Department of Tarapacá and Bolivia.
Article II
The Government of Chile assumes and commits to pay the obligations recognized by Bolivia in favor of the mining companies of Huanchaca, Corocoro and Oruro, and of the balance of the Bolivian loan which was raised in Chile in 1867, after deduction of the sums which have been already paid on this account, pursuant to article 6 of the Truce Pact. It likewise obliges itself to pay the following loans which are an encumbrance upon the Bolivian littoral: the one corresponding to the bonds issued for the construction of the railway from Mejillones to Caracoles; the credit in favor of Pedro López Gama, currently represented by
180
Annex 103
Annex 103
181
Alsop and Company, of Valparaiso; the one of Enrique G. Meiggs, represented by Eduardo Squire, arising out of the contract concluded by the former with the Government of Bolivia on 20 May 1876 for the leasing of the Government nitrate fields at Toco; and the one recognized in favor of the family of Juan Garday.
These loans shall be the object of a special liquidation as well as detailed specifications in an supplementary protocol.
Article III
Apart from the obligations abovementioned herein, the Government of Chile does not recognize any loans or responsibilities of any kind as affecting the territories which are the subject of the present Treaty, whatever may be their nature and origin. The Government of Chile is likewise relieved of the obligations contracted in accordance with Article 6 of the Truce Treaty, the receipts of the Customs Offices of Arica and Bolivia having the privilege of establishing its Customs Offices in whatever place and manner it deems appropriate.
Article IV
Should any difference arise with reference to the boundary-line between the two countries, there shall be appointed by the High Contracting Parties a commission of engineers to proceed to the demarcation of the frontier-line, determined by the points enumerated in Article I of the present Treaty. In a like manner they shall proceed to reestablish landmarks which exist, or to fix those that may be necessary on the traditional boundary between the ancient department, at present Chilean province of Tarapacá, and the Republic of Bolivia. If unfortunately there should occur between the engineers charged with the demarcation any disagreement which cannot be settled by the direct action of the Governments, the question shall be submitted to the decision of a friendly Power.
Article V
The ratifications of this Treaty shall be exchanged within six months and the exchange shall take place in the city of Santiago.
182
Annex 103
Annex 103
183
In witness whereof the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia signed and sealed, in duplicate, the present Treaty of Peace and Amity in the city of Santiago, on 18 May 1895
(L. S.)– Luis Barros Borgoño.
(L. S.)– H. Gutierrez.
184
Annex 104
Report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to the Bolivian Congress, 20 August 1900
(extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
to the Ordinary Congress (1900), pp 22-25
185
186
Annex 104
Annex 104
187
Chile
If we examine our national statistics, we will see at first glance that our industrial and commercial relations with the Republic of Chile have a prominent place. Our populations in the Altiplano obtain consumer goods and all the material for mining works in the Chilean markets. The city of Valparaiso is, in this regard, the center of our more urgent commercial orders.
188
Annex 104
Annex 104
189
Going over the different industrial enterprises in Bolivia, we also found that many of them, and perhaps the most valuable and productive ones, belong to Chilean companies or capitals. Also, the Chilean community settled from Oruro to the border of Antofagasta is not a small one.
Consequently, it is in the best interest of both States to set out the issues emerging from the War of the Pacific, in a way that would ensure peace and good relations of amity and commerce. For this purpose, the Treaties of May 1895 and the Supplementary Protocols of 9 December 1895 and 30 April 1896 were entered into.
The diplomatic representatives of Chile, especially Mr. Salinas, promised that their Ministry of Foreign Affairs would advise the Legislature to approve these protocols.
Five years have gone by and the pacts have been abandoned and forgotten.
Bolivia, in exchange for its precious littoral, had proposed the most equitable conditions, one of them, the principal one, being to be granted a port on the Pacific capable of satisfying its commercial needs. This condition was of vital importance: Bolivia has a right to political, commercial and customs-related independence. However, a long and sad experience has taught Bolivia that such right will not be granted and that it will be subject to the will of its neighboring countries if it does not preserve free communication with other States of the world.
190
Annex 104
Annex 104
191
Recently, the Chilean nation has pronounced against this legitimate request and has declared, through all means of publicity, that it will not surrender an inch of territory on the coast to Bolivia.
In accordance with the foregoing, His Excellency the Representative of Chile has recently submitted to our Ministry of Foreign Affairs bases for an arrangement, which have been the subject of discussions, but no final agreement has been reached. Such proposal reads as follows:
BASES
“The Chilean Government is willing to assume and undertake to pay the obligations incurred by the Government of Bolivia to the mining companies in Huanchaca, Corocoro and Oruro, and the outstanding balance of the Bolivian loan taken out in Chile in 1867, after deducting any amounts paid to such account, as per article 6 of the Truce Pact.
The Government of Chile may also honor the following debts of the Bolivian littoral: the debt pertaining to the bonds issued for the construction of the Mejillones to Caracoles railway; the debt owed to Mr. Pedro López Gama, who is currently represented by Alsop y Ca; the debt to Mr. Enrique Meiggs, represented by Mr. Eduardo Squire, derived from the contract entered into by the former with the Bolivian Government on 20 March 1876, for the lease
192
Annex 104
Annex 104
193
of the Toco nitrate deposits; and the debt acknowledged in favor of the family of Mr. Juan Garday.
Such debts will be subject to particular payment and to a specification detailed in a supplementary Protocol.
The Government of Chile will also pay a sum of money that will be fixed by mutual agreement between both governments, and that must be invested in the construction of a railway connecting some port of Chile with the Bolivian interior, or continuing the existing Oruro railway.
The amount, as well as the starting and ending points, will be fixed by mutual agreement; but it may be anticipated that the Government of Chile is willing to pay up to six million Pesos.
The point selected as the start of the railway will be declared duty free for all products and goods entering thereby in transit to Bolivia, and for all Bolivian products and goods exported thereby.
In exchange for such concessions, the Bolivian Government will be willing to enter into the Peace Treaty, ensuring the definitive cession of the Bolivian littoral, occupied by Chile, pursuant to the Truce Pact.”
194
Annex 105
Boundary Treaty between Brazil and Bolivia, signed at Petrópolis on 17 November 1903
(Original in Portuguese, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil <http://dai-mre.serpro.gov.br/atos-internacionais/bilaterais/1903/b_60/a…;
195
196
Annex 105
44
Annex 105
197
45
198
Annex 105
Annex 105
199
47
200
Annex 105
48
Annex 105
201
49
202
Annex 105
50
Annex 105
203
40
204
Annex 105
41
Annex 105
205
42
206
Annex 105
43
Annex 106
Treaty of Peace and Amity between Bolivia and Chile, signed at Santiago on 20 October 1904
(Spanish transcription, English translation, original in Spanish)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 100 to its Memorial
207
208
Annex 106
Annex 106
209
In order to implement the purpose stated in Article 8 of the Truce Pact of April 4th, 1884, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile have agreed to celebrate a treaty of peace and amity, and to that effect have named and constituted as their plenipotentiaries, respectively:
His Excellency the President of the Republic of Bolivia, Mr. Alberto Gutiérrez, Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile and His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chile, Mr. Emilio Bello Codesido, Minister of Foreign Affairs:
Who, after having exchanged their Full Powers and having found them in good and due form, have agreed on the following:
Article I
The relations of peace and friendship between the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile are restored, being thereby terminated the regime established by the Truce Pact.
Article II
By the present Treaty, the territories occupied by Chile by virtue of Article 2 of the Truce Pact of April 4th, 1884, are recognized as belonging absolutely and in perpetuity to Chile.
The boundary from South to North between Chile and Bolivia shall be that here indicated:
From the highest point of the Zapaleri Hill (1) in a straight line to the highest point (2) of the ridge jutting out towards the south from Guayaques Hill, in latitude (approximate) 22°54’; from here another straight line to the pass of the Cajón (3), and thence along the watershed of the ridge that runs north by the peaks of Juriques Hill (4), Licancábur Volcano (5), Sairecabur Hill (6), Curiquinca Hill (7), and Putana or Jorjencal Volcano (8). From this point it will follow by one of its spurs to Pajonal Hill (9) and in a straight line to the south peak of the Tocorpuri Hills (10), from where it will follow once again along the watershed of the Panizo Ridge (11) and the Tatio Range (12). It will further extend towards the North by the watershed of the Linzor Ridge (13) and the Silaguala Hill (14), from its northern peak (Apagado Volcano) (15) where it shall go by a spur towards the Silala hill (16), and thence in a straight line to Inacaliri or Cajón Hill (17).
From this point it shall go in a straight line to the peak which stands in the middle of the group of the Inca or Barrancane Hills (18), and, again taking the watershed,
210
Annex 106
Annex 106
211
shall proceed north along the ridge of Ascotán or Jardín Hill (19); from the peak of this hill it shall go in a straight line to the peak of Araral Hill (20) and by another straight line to the peak of Ollagüe Volcano (21).
From here in a straight line to the highest peak of Chipapa Hill (22), descending towards the West by a range of small hills so as to reach the peak of Cosca Hill (23).
From this point it shall be the watershed of the ridge which joins it to Alconcha Hill (24), and thence it shall go to the Olca Volcano (25) by the dividing ridge. From this volcano it shall continue along the range of the Millunu Hill (26), the Laguna Hill (27), Irruputuncu Volcano (28), Bofedal Hill (29), Chela Hill (30), and, after a high knot of hills, shall reach the Milliri (31), and then the Huallcani (32).
Thence it shall go to Caiti Hill (33) and shall follow the watershed to Napa Hill (34).
From the peak of this hill it shall go in a straight line to a point (35) situated ten kilometers to the south of the eastern peak of the Huailla Hill (36), whence it shall continue in a straight line to the mentioned peak, turning from there towards the East, it shall follow along the range of Laguna (37), Correjidor (38), and Huaillaputuncu (39) hills to the easternmost stone heap of Sillillica (40), and thence by the ridge that runs northwest to the peak of Piga Hill (41).
From this hill it shall follow in a straight line to the highest point of the Tres Cerritos (42), and then in a straight line to Challacollo Hill (43) and the narrow part of Sacaya Meadow (44), opposite to Vilacollo.
From Sacaya the boundary shall run in straight lines to the stone-heaps of Cueva Colorada(45) and Santaile (46), where it will keep on to the northwest by Irruputuncu Hill (47) and Patalini Hill (48).
From this peak the boundary shall go in a straight line to Chiarcollo Hill (49), cutting the Cancosa River (50), and thence also in a straight line to the peak of Pintapintani Hill (51), and from this hill following along the range of the Quiuri (52), Pumiri (53), and Panantalla (54) hills.
From the peak of Panantalla it shall go in a straight line to Tolapacheta (55), midway between Chapi and Rinconada, and from this point in a straight line to the pass of Huialla (56); thence it shall pass on by the peaks of Lacataya (57) and Salitral (58) hills.
It shall turn back towards the North, going in a straight line to the Tapacollo Hill (59), in the Salar of Coipasa, and in another straight line to the landmark of Quellaga (60), from which it shall continue in straight lines to the Prieto Hill (61) to the north of the Pisiga meadow, Toldo Hillock (62), to the landmarks of Sicaya (63), that of Chapillicsa (64), Cabarray (65), Tres Cruces (66), Jamachuma (67), Quimsachata (68), and Chinchillani (69), and crossing the Todos Santos river (70), it shall go to the landmarks of Payacollo (71) and Carahuano (72), to Canasa Hill (73) and Captain Hill (74).
212
Annex 106
Annex 106
213
It shall then continue to the north along the watershed of the Lliscaya (75) and Quilhuiri (76) hills range, and from the peak of the latter is shall go in a straight line to Puquintica Hill (77).
To the North of this last point Bolivia and Chile agree to fix the following frontier line:
From Puquintica Hill (77) it shall go northward by the range that runs to Macaya, and shall cross at this point the Lauca River (78), then running in a straight line to Chiliri Hill (79). It shall keep on to the North along the watershed of the Japu Pass (80), the Quimsachata Hills (81), the Tambo Quemado Pass (82), the Quisiquisini Hills (83), the Huacollo Pass (84), the peaks of the Payachata Hills (85, 86), and Larancahua Hill (87) to the Casiri Pass (88).
From this point it shall go to the Condoriri Hills (89), which divide the waters of the Sajama and Achuta rivers from those of the Caquena, and it shall continue along the ridge which, jutting out of these hills, goes to Carbiri Hill (90), passing by the Achuta Pass (91); from Carbiri Hill it shall run down its slope to the narrows of the river Caquena or Cosapilla (92), upstream of the post-house which also bears the name of the latter.
It shall then follow the course of the River Caquena or Cosapilla far as the confluence (93) of the apparent drainage of the open plains pertaining to the Cosapilla Farm, from which confluence it shall go in a straight line to the boundary-mark of Visviri (94).
From this landmark it shall follow in a straight line to the Santuario (95), which is to be located to the north of the Maure to the north-west of the confluence of this river with another which flows from the north 2 kilometers to the north-west of the Maure post-house; it shall continue in a north-westerly direction along the ridge which leads to the landmark of the Chipe or Tolacollo Hill (96), the last point of the frontier.
Within six months from the ratification of this Treaty the High Contracting Parties shall appoint a Commission of Engineers to demarcate on the spot the boundary-line, the points of which, enumerated in this Article are indicated in the annexed plan, which shall form an integral part of the present Treaty, and in accordance with the proceedings and at the time agreed upon by special agreement between the two Foreign Ministries.
Should any disagreement arise between the engineers entrusted with the demarcation, which could not be settled by the direct action of both Governments, the question shall be submitted to the decision of His Majesty the German Emperor according to Article XII of this Treaty.
214
Annex 106
Annex 106
215
The private rights legally acquired by nationals or foreigners in the territories which, by virtue of this Treaty, remains under the sovereignty of the one or the other country shall be recognized by the High Contracting Parties.
Article III.
With the object of strengthening the political and commercial relations of both Republics, the High Contracting Parties agree to unite the port of Arica with the Alto de la Paz by a railway, the construction of which, shall be contracted by the Government of Chile at its own cost within the term of one year from the ratification of the present Treaty.
The property of the Bolivian section of this railway shall be vested to Bolivia at the expiration of the term of fifteen years from the day it is fully finished.
For the same purpose Chile undertakes to pay the obligations that might be incurred by Bolivia for guaranteeing up to 5 per cent on the capital that might be invested in the following railroads, the construction of which shall begin within the term of thirty years: Uyuni to Potosí; Oruro to La Paz; Oruro, via Cochabamba, to Santa Cruz; from La Paz to the Beni region, and from Potosi, via Sucre and Lagunillas, to Santa Cruz.
The undertaking shall not occasion for Chile a disbursement greater than one hundred thousand pounds sterling annually nor exceed an amount of one million, seven hundred thousand pounds sterling, which is fixed as the maximum of what Chile will allocate to the construction of the Bolivian section of the railway from Arica to the Alto de La Paz and to the guarantees referred to above, and it shall be null and void upon the expiration of the thirty years indicated above.
The construction of the Bolivian section of the railway from Arica to the Alto de la Paz, as well as that of the other railways that may be constructed with the guarantee of the Chilean Government, shall be a matter of special Agreements between the two Governments, and therein shall be taken into consideration the facilities that should be given to the commercial exchange between the two countries.
The value of the section mentioned shall be determined by the amount of the tender to be accepted in the corresponding construction contract.
Article IV.
The Government of Chile undertakes to deliver to the Government of Bolivia the sum of three hundred thousand pounds sterling in cash, in two instalments of one hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling each, the first of which will be paid six months after the exchange of ratifications of this treaty and the second one year after the first.
216
Annex 106
Annex 106
217
Article V.
The Republic of Chile assigns to the final cancellation of the credits recognized by Bolivia, for indemnities in favor of the mining companies of Huanchaca, Oruro, and Corocoro, and for the balance of the loan raised in Chile in the year 1867, the sum of four million, five hundred thousand pesos in gold of 18 pence, payable, at the option of its government, in cash or in bonds of its external debt valued at their price in London on the day on which the payment is made, and the sum of two million pesos in gold of 18 pence payable, in the same form as the preceding, for the cancellation of the credits arising from the following obligations of Bolivia: the bonds issued, that is to say., the loan raised for the construction of the railroad between Mejillones and Caracoles under the contract of July 10th, 1872; the debt recognized in favor of Mr. Pedro López Gama, represented by Messrs. Alsop and Company, subrogees to the rights of the former; the credits recognized to John G. Meiggs, represented by Edward Squire, arising out of the contract entered into on the 20th March, 1876, for the renting of the nitrate fields in Toco; and, finally, the sum recognized to Mr. Juan Garday.
Article VI.
The Republic of Chile recognizes in favor of Bolivia, and in perpetuity, the fullest and most unrestricted right of commercial transit through its territory and ports on the Pacific.
Both Governments will agree, by special acts, upon the suitable regulations to ensure, without prejudice to their respective fiscal interests, the above referred purpose.
Article VII.
The Republic of Bolivia shall have the right to establish customs agencies in the ports which it may designate for its commerce. For the time being, it indicates as such ports for its commerce, those of Antofagasta and Arica.
The agencies shall take care that the goods in transit go directly from the pier to the railroad station, and that they are loaded and transported to the Bolivian custom-houses in closed and sealed wagons, and accompanied by way-bills indicating the number of packages, weight and mark, number and content, which shall be exchanged for exchange way-bills.
Article VIII.
Until the High Contracting Parties agree to conclude a special Treaty of Commerce, the commercial trade between the two Republics shall be regulated by rules of the
218
Annex 106
Annex 106
219
strictest equality with those applied to other nations, and in no case shall any product of either of the two Parties be placed under conditions inferior to those of a third party. In consequence, the natural and manufactured products of Chile, as well as those of Bolivia, shall be subject, upon their entry and their consumption, in one and the other country, to the payment of the taxes in force for those of other nations, and the favors, exemptions, and privileges which either of the two Parties may grant to a Third party may be demanded on equal conditions by the other.
The High Contracting Parties agree to grant, reciprocally, on all railroad lines which cross their respective territories, the same tariffs to the national products of the other country that they accord to the most favored nation.
Article IX.
The natural and manufactured products of Chile and the nationalized goods, introduced into Bolivia, shall be dispatched with the proper consular invoice and with the way-bills mentioned in article seven. Cattle of all kinds and natural products of little value may be introduced without any formality and dispatched with the simple declaration written in the custom-houses.
Article X.
The natural and manufactured products of Bolivia in transit to foreign countries shall be exported with way-bills issued by the Bolivian custom-houses or by the officers responsible of this duty. These way-bills shall be delivered to the customs agents in the respective ports and with no other formality, once the products are embarked for foreign markets.
In the port of Arica imports shall be carried on with the same formalities as in that of Antofagasta, being necessary at this port to issue way-bills with the same requirements as those indicated in the previous articles.
Article XI.
Bolivia being unable to put this system into practice immediately, it shall continue to be applied, for the term of one year, the current system established in Antofagasta, which shall be extended to the port of Arica, setting a reasonable term for putting into effect the tariff of Bolivia, until it is possible to regulate the transit trade in the manner before mentioned.
Article XII.
All matters which may arise with regard to the understanding or execution of the present Treaty shall be submitted to the arbitration of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany.
220
Annex 106
Annex 106
221
The ratifications of this Treaty shall be exchanged within the term of six months, and the exchange shall take place in the city of La Paz.
In witness whereof the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile and the Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia have signed and sealed with their respective seals, in duplicate, the present Treaty of Peace and Amity, in the city of Santiago, on the twentieth of October of the year one thousand nine hundred and four.
(A. GUTIERREZ.)
(EMILIO BELLO C.)
La Paz, 11 November 1904
The Cabinet Council approves the aforementioned Treaty of Peace and Amity signed in the city of Santiago on 20 October 1904, between Mr. Alberto Gutierrez, Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile, and. Mr. Emilio Bello Codesido, Minister of Foreign Affairs of said Republic.
Ismael Montes
Claudio Pinilla
Anibal Capriles
Weice Castillo
Juan M. Saracho
La Paz, 14 November 1904
To the mixed commission of Foreign Affairs of both Chambers,
PO of Mr. P Jss Carrasco
222
Annex 106
152
Annex 10
Annex 106
223
Annex 10
153
224
Annex 106
154
Annex 10
Annex 106
225
Annex 10
155
226
Annex 106
156
Annex 10
Annex 106
227
Annex 10
157
228
Annex 106
158
Annex 10
Annex 106
229
Annex 10
159
230
Annex 106
160
Annex 10
Annex 106
231
Annex 10
161
232
Annex 106
162
Annex 10
Annex 106
233
Annex 10
163
234
Annex 106
164
Annex 10
Annex 106
235
Annex 10
165
236
Annex 106
166
Annex 10
Annex 106
237
Annex 10
167
238
Annex 106
168
Annex 10
Annex 106
239
Annex 10
169
240
Annex 107
Bolivian Supreme Resolution approving the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Amity between Bolivia and Chile,
11 November 1904
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Collection of Treaties in Force in the Republic of Bolivia, Vol. IV, p 403
241
242
Annex 107
Annex 107
243
SUPREME RESOLUTION OF 11 NOVEMBER 1904
La Paz, 11 November 1904.
Having been discussed by the Cabinet Council, the foregoing Treaty of Peace and Amity, concluded in the City of Santiago on 20 October 1904, by Mr. Alberto Gutiérrez, Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile, and Mr. Emilio Bello Codecido, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, is hereby approved.
ISMAEL MONTES.— Claudio Pinilla.— Aníbal Capriles.— W. del Castillo.— J. Saracho.
244
Annex 108
Bolivian Law approving the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Amity between Bolivia and Chile, 4 February 1905
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Collection of Treaties in Force in the Republic of Bolivia, Vol. IV, pp 403-404
245
246
Annex 108
Annex 108
247
LAW OF 4 FEBRUARY 1905
ISMAEL MONTES
Constitutional President of the Republic
Whereas, the National Congress has approved the following Law:
THE NATIONAL CONGRESS
DECREES:
Article 1 of 1. The Treaty of Peace and Amity signed in Santiago on 20 October 1904, by the Plenipotentiary of Bolivia, Mr. Alberto Gutiérrez, and the Minister of
248
Annex 108
Annex 108
249
Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Chile, Mr. Emilio Bello Codecido, and the Protocols of 20 October and 15 November and the Notes exchanged on 21 October and 16, 17 and 21 November of the same year are hereby approved.
Give notice hereof to the Executive Branch for constitutional purposes.
Meeting room of the National Congress.
La Paz, 31 January 1905.
Eliodoro Villazón. José S. Quinteros. José Carrasco, S.S. Luis Serrudo Vargas, D.S. Isaías Morales, D.S.
Therefore: I promulgate it such that it shall be deemed to be, and complied with as, a Law of the Republic.
Signed in the Palace of the Supreme Government in the City of La Paz, on 4 February 1905.
ISMAEL MONTES.
Claudio Pinilla.
250
Annex 109
Bolivian Supreme Decree ratifying the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Amity between Bolivia and Chile, 10 March 1905
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Collection of Treaties in Force in the Republic of Bolivia, Vol. IV, pp 404-405
251
252
Annex 109
Annex 109
253
SUPREME DECREE OF 10 MARCH 1905
ISMAEL MONTES
Constitutional President of Bolivia.
Whereas: Between the Republics of Bolivia and Chile, it was concluded and signed on 20 October 1904, in the City of Santiago, a Treaty of Peace and Amity and a Protocol supplementing it on the following terms:
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
And whereas, the Legislative Branch approved the foregoing acts by virtue of the law of 4 February of this year.
Therefore: by virtue of the authority vested in the Head of State by Article 89, first attribution, of the Political Constitution, I ratify the Treaty and Protocol mentioned above, commit the faith and honor of our country to complying with them, order that they be treated and complied with as a Law of the Republic.
254
Annex 109
Annex 109
255
Signed in the Government Palace in the City of La Paz, sealed with the appropriate seal and countersigned by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on 10 March 1905.
ISMAEL MONTES.
Claudio Pinilla.
256
Annex 110
Official Gazette of the Republic of Chile recording the promulgation and ratification of the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Amity between Bolivia and Chile, 27 March 1905 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Official Gazette of the Republic of Chile, No 1455, 1905, pp 1265-1268
257
258
Annex 110
BE LA HEPUBLICA DE CHIEEOFICINA DE LA IMPRENTA NACIONAL, CALLE DE LA MONEDA, NÜM. 145S110 XXIXSantiago, Lunes 27 de Marzo de 1905Núm. 8,169SÜMABIOPODER EJECUTIVOMinisterio del InteriorDIO» &5I, TZSOKO.—Decretos que conceden' i i d'sponen pagos.Inlslerlo de Relaciones Estertores,Culto 1 Colonizado»tío de Paz i Amistad i Protocolo complemen-«lebrado entre las Repúblicas de Chile i ol'.via,Ministerio de Justicia¡que e?tieaden nombramientos.-den ¡ioat eias i disponen pigosi del despacho de esta Ministerio.Ministerio íle Guerraal despacho de esto Ministerio.nisíj-Id. queDedúzcase del ítem 3,414, partida 89 delpresupuesto del Interior.Ríndase cuenta documentada de su inver-sión.Refréndese, tómese razón, rejístrese i comu-niqúese.—RLESCO.—Emilio Bello C. Núm. 372.—Santiago, 3 de febrero de 19U5—Vistos estos antecedentes,Decreto:Autorízase al GobernadorJuan Urrutia, para que, a contardel actual, haga uso de los quince dias deferiado que acuerda la lei a los empleados pú-blicos.Tómese razón, rejístreseRIKSCO.—Emilio Bello C. Núm. 382.—Santiago, 3 de febrero de 190.5,—Vistos estos antecedentes,Decreto:Concédese un meB de licencia, por motivosde salud, a contar desde el 2 de enero próximopasado, al administrador principal de correo»de Santiago don Cesáreo Echegóyen; i nóm-brase para que lo reemplace al interventor i cajero de la misma oficina donv0scar Saintej m . j Marie, propuesto por él jefe respectivo,de lraiguendon; Páguese al nombrado la respectiva diferen-cia de sueldo, que se deducirá del ítem 1,027del presupuesto del Interior.Refréndese, tómese razón, rejístrese i comu-comuníqueae. níqnese.—RIESCO.—Emilio Bello C. Núm. 377.—Santiago, 3 de febrero de 1905. MINISTERIO DE RSLACIGK3S SSTBKIORES,sr¡o de Industria i ObrasPúblicas3I0M BSLTXSOBO.— I ecreto quo concede a i Aatofígas a ¿nd Bolivia Railw \y Ccmpany'led» el u o i gocs de la aguada denominada, ubicada en el prime.' distrito de la octa- i rrespondiente, que se deducirátíeielega- i -n d> / s:o-a-i, del depaitamsnto del presupuesto del Interior.A>tofag*st't. — Id. que entienden dtverses • qneC°nC£den )Í efCkS 'jníquese. —RIESGO.—Emilio Bello C. id H'í p cbo de e-te Ministerio.—Vistos estos antecedentes,Deere Lo:Autorízase a la telegrafista de quinta clasede la oficina d9 Achao doña Ana Rojas, paraque, u ex>m,ar desde el 17 de febrero, haga uso ¡ de los quince dias de feriado que acuerda la leia los empleados civiles; i nómbrase para qu«,'durante dicho tiempo, preste sus servicios enla indicada oficina a don Francisco Hermida,propuetto por el jefe respectivo.Pilgüese al nombrado la remuneración co-del ítem 2,799«ren/ro x coLOíiizAoiaMJERMAN RIESCO,PUES ¡DENTE DÉ LA REPÚBLICA DE CHILEPor cuanto entre la República de Chile i laRepública de Bolivia se negoció, concluyó i firmó, el dia veinte de octubre de mil nove-cientos cuatro, por medio de Plenipotenciariosdebidamente autorizado?, un Tratado de Paz i Amistad i un Protocolo complementario delmismo, los cuales dicen a la letra como sigue:Refréndese, tómese razón, rejístrese i comu-Minlsterio de Haciendantss i decreto que aprueba los estatutosi sociedad anónima denominada «S:ciadad|itr'co!;i i Ganadera de Rupanco».—Id. que cía-•ton como de primera i segunda clase, reepecIfcmente, !a Compañía Chilena da Segaros de-lioiiiiii&da «La Nacional» i la Compañía interna-Hml do Seguros sobreli Vida «ta Americ¿na».>ce o o eelhdo en /ebrero de 1905.«¡ION DEL TESOKO.-—Decretos que estienden oficina da esa ciudad.Núm. 380.— Santiago, 3 de febrero de 1905.Vistos estos antecedentes,Decreto:I La Tesorería Fiscal do San Fernando pagaráa dcña Raquel Fernández la suma de cientosetenta i cinco pf sos ($ 175), que le corres-ponde percibir por sueldos devengados desdeel 1.° de setiembre hasta el 15 de diciembredel año próximo pasado, tiempo que sirvió ene .lidad de telegrafista de quinta clase de lajimbrami ntoi militares.—Id. que conceden lí-elas i d tponen pagoi.i del despacho de este Ministerio,PODER EJECUTIVOÍMSTERIO DEL INTERIORDirección de! TesoroEn ejecución del propósito consignado en elartículo 8* del Pacto de Tregua de 4 de abrilde 1884, la R pública de Chile i la República, de Büli via han acordado celebrar un Tratadode Paz i Amistad, i al efecto han nombrado i constituido por sus Plenipotenciarios, a saber:Su Excelencia el Presidente de la Repúblicade Chile a don Emilio Bsllo Codecido, Minis-tro de Ralaciones Esteriores, i Su Excelenciael Presidente de la República de Bolivia a donAlberto Gutiérrez, Enviado Estraordinario i Ministro Plenipotenciario de Bolivia en Chile;Quienes despues de haber canjeado sus Ple-nos Poderes i habiéndolos hallado en buena i debida forma, han convenido en lo siguiente:ARTÍCULO PRIMERODedúzcase del ítem 3,425 del presupuestodel Interior.*Refréndese, tómese razón, rejístrese i comu- i níquase.—RIESOO.—Emilio Bello G. | Restablécense las relaciones de Paz i Amia-3 de febrero de 1905. tad entre la República de Chile i la Repúblicade Bolivia, terminando, en consecuencia, el; réjimen establecido por el Pacto de Tregua.Núm. 381.—Santiago,—Vista la nota que precede,Decreto:La Tesorería Fiscal de Santiago entregará alinterventor i cajero de la administración prin-| cipal dí> correos de Santiago don Oácar SainteMario, sin sujetarse a lo dispuesto en el artí-oií, , ,„/»v culo 5° del decreto del Ministerio de Haüienda,Nata.870. —Santiago, 3 de febrero de 1903.de 24 de dicieuabre de 1903.1a suma de dos-•Vistos estos antecedentea, ¡cientQa cincuenta pssoa250), a fin de queDecreto:: atienda al pago de un telón adquirido el añoLa Terrería Fiscal respectiva entregará al | próximo pasado para cubrir, en la época de'.limador de Limache, con arreglo a lo dia-; verano, el techo de vidrio de la seacion de en-listo en el artículo 4.° del decreto del Minis- comiendas.da Hacienda, número 353, da 13 de febrero Dedúzcase del ítem 3,425 del presupuesto delño próximo pasado, la suma de quinientos Interior, i ríndase cuenta documentada de suiventa peso-t (8 590), a fin de que con ella inversión.a a las reparaciones que eti necesario Refréndese* tómese a-ason, rejístrese i comu»t ea *> edificio de l¡» i n^Vf-^.-^'Utmm^ timilio ¿tefí® <7,¿9» • —-ARTICULO IIPor el presente Tratado quedan reconocido»del dominio absoluto i perpétuo de Chile losterritorios ocupados por éste en virtud del ar-tículo 2.° del Pacto de Tregua de 4 de abrilde 1884.El límite de Sur a Norte entre Chile i Boli-via será el que se espresa a continuación:De la cumbre mas alta del cerro Zapaleri(l),en línea recta a la cumbre mas alt¿ (2) del oor»don desprendido hácia el Sur del cerro Guaya-ques, en la latitud aproximada de veintidósgrados cincuenta i cuatro minutos (22° 64')jdg aq»l olra al portezuelo dal Oajoo (3),i tá afguMa I* siji ijjttiae wJm»
Annex 110
259
1266MABI© OFICIALque corre tácia el Norte por las cumbres de'cerio Juriques (4) volenn Licancábur (5) cerros Sairecábur (6) i Curiquinc» (7' i vo!r • Putaña o Jorjéncal (8). Do'éste punto seguirápor uno de sus contrafuertes ra dirección aicerro del Pajonal (9). i en línea recta a la cum-bre sur do los cerros de Tocorpnri (10). desdedonde seguirá nuevamente por la divisoria delas aguas del cordon del Panizo (11) i cordi-llera de Tátio (12). Seguirá siempre al Nortepor la divisoria de las aguas del cordon delLínzor (13) i de los cerros de Siiwguala (14):desde cuya cumbre norte (Volcan Apagado^(15) irá por un contrafuerte al cerrito de Sil»la (16) i después en línea recta al cerro de Inacaliri o del Cajón (17).K Desde este punto irá en línea recta a 1», cumbre que aparece en el centro en el grupo decerros del Inca o Barrancane (18) i temandonuevamente la divisoria de las aguas seguiráhácia el Norte por el cordon del cerro de Ascotan o del Jardin (19); desde la cumbre do estecerro irá en línea rectal a la cumbre del cerroArttra! (20), i por otra recta a la cumbre de!volcan OilagíM (21)De aquí ea línea recta a la cumbre mas altadel cerro de Chipapa (22), descendiendo al occidonfce por un cordon de lomas para tomar 1»cumbre del cerro Cosca (28).Desde este punto irá dividiendo las aejuasdel cordon que lo use al cerro Aleoneha (2 i) i de aquí irá al volcan Olea (25) p >r el lomo di-visorio. Da este volcán sesru'rá por el cord< n de los cerros del M lmnu (26), de- la Laguna(27), volran Jrruputuocu (28), cerróla BeíVdel(29) i Chrla (30) i después de un a'fc nu • decerros, llegará al Milliii (31) i luego B1 Huaii-cani (32)."De aquí irá al cerro Caí ti (33) i seguirá porla divisoria de las aguas al cerro Napa (34).De la cumbre de este cerro irá t-n "¡mea rectaa un punto (35) situado diez qui'ómefcros alsur de la cumbre oriental del cerro Haaiiia(36), desde donde irá en línea recta a esacumbre mencionada, doblando en seguida hácia eloriente, seguirá por el cordon de los cerrosLaguna (37), Oorrejidor (38) i Huaillaputuncu(39)a la apacheta mas oriental do Silliilica (40),dirijiéndose por el cordon que va al noroeste >•la cumbre del cerro Piga (41).De este cerro irá en lint a recta a la cumbremas alta de Tres Cerritos (42) i en seguida enlínea recta al cerro Challacollo (43) i a la estrechura de la vega de Saeaya (44), frente e Yillacollo.De Sacaya el límite irá en lineas rectas a las apachetas de Cueva Coloradla (45) i de San-tal! e (45), donde seguirá al noroeste por .lo-cerros de Irruputuncu (47) i Patalam*(48).De esta cumbre irá eí límite «u línea rectaal cerrito Cinara.lio (49), cortando el rio Cancosa (50) i de ahí también en línea recia a lacumbre del cerro Pint&pintani (5Í), siguiendodespues de esta cumbre por < 1 cordon de 1 s cerros do Qaiuri (52), Pumiri (53) i PaaaotallDe la cumbre de Panantalla irá en línea recta a Tolapachata (55), a medía distancia entreChapi i Rinconada, i de este panto en líne»recta al portezuelo de Haarila (56); en seguidapasará por las cumbres da los cerros de Lacataya (57) i del Salitral (58),Volverá hácia el Norte yendo en línea rectaal cerrito Tapacollo (59), en el Salar de Coipasa, i en otra recta al mojon de Qaellaga (60).de don"1 e seguirá por lín as rectas al cemtoPrieto (61) al norte de la vega de Pisiga ce-rrito Toldo (62), mojones de Siciya (63) Chapillicsa (64), C»barr»y (65), Tres Cruces(66)Jamachuma (67), Quiuo.sochata (68) i COM.chi lani (69), i cortando el ri< To - Sa io-(70) irá a loa mojones de Payac dio (7:) i % rahuano (72), f¿l corro de Gasas» (73) i al -rro Oapitau (~4).Seguirá despues hácia el norte por • d visoria de l*s aguas del cordón de; s rro-Iiljaóafte 1*0) i Qiühuiri (76>» i .J»i»fl« l¡t >:\ni>br« iré «u IUM»» resi® ** **-y^tóiííifffé él* jH mu»?* ' ¡--'^ ••1 > vía onvienen en fijar entra si la siguiente lí-nea fronteriza: ' D 1 cerro Puquinfica (77) irá al norte por elcoroon que pe dirij a Maeaya. cortará en esteponto t i rio Lauca (78) dirijiéndose en seguidaen línea recta al cerro Chiliri (79); seguirá alnorte por la divisoria de las aguas del porte2ue o fle Japu (80) i cumbres de Quiiusachata(81), portezuelo de Tambo Quémalo (82), ca-iros ele Quisiquisini (83)^ portezuelo de Hua»ííóllo (84) cumbres de los cerros de Payachata(85 i 86), cerro Larancahua (87) hasta el pasode Casiri (88).Desde este punto irá a los cerros de Condo-riri (89), que dividen las aguas de los rios tía jama i Achata de las dtl Caquena, i proseguirápor el cordon que desprendiéndose de e>tis ce-rros va al cerro Carbiri (91). pasando por elportezuelo da Acbuta (90); del cerro Carbiri,bajará por su falda a la angostura del rio Caquena o CosBpilla (92), agu^s arriba del tambode ente último nombre.Seguirá despues el curso del rio Caquena o Cosapilla, h ¡sta la afluencia (93) del desaguaaparenta de las vegas de la estancia de Cosapilla, desde cuya afluencia irá en línea recta almojon de Visviri (94).De este mojon irá en línea recta al santuario (9o) que se encuentra al norte del Maure,al noroeste da la confluencia do esta rio contro que le viene del norte, dos quilómetros alnoroeste del tambo n¡el Maure; sfguirá hácia elnoro ste por el cor Ion que S'- dirije al moj ¡ndel Q-rro Chipe o Tolaculb (96), último puntodj la fronteraDentro de 1 ® seis mases siguientes a la rati-ficación de este Tratado, las Altas Partes Con.tratantes nombrarán una comísíon de ¿ajenia-ros para que proceda a demarcar en el terrenola línea divisoria cuyos pun os, enumera los eneste artí ulo, se señalan en el plano » ijnntoque formará parte inti grante del presi nte Trá-melo, i con arreglo al procedimiento i en lasépocas que S J convengan por un acuerdo espe^c-ial de ambas Cancillerías. • Si ocurriera entra los injenieros demarcadores algún desacuerdo qua no pudiere ser alianado por la acción directa de arabas Gobiernos,se i-otn' terá la cuestión al íallo de 8 i Majes-tad el Smpe ador de A'emmia, conforma a lopi'tvisto en el artículo XII de este Tr*<a lo.Serán reconocidos por las Altas Partas Con-tratantes los d rechos privados de los naciona-les o estranjeros que hubieren si Jo 1 galmtnteadquiridos, en los territorios que, en virtud deeste Tratado, quedan bajo la soberanía de unou otro pais.ARTÍCULO IIICon el fin de estrechadlas relaciones políti-ca2 i comerciales de ambas Repúblicas, las Al-tas Parces Contratantes convi» ríen" en unir elmuerto de Arica con el Alto da La Paz pos: unferrocarril cuya construcción contratará a sucosta el Gi b erno de Chile dentro del plazo deun nño conta io desde la ratificación de! pre-senta Tratado.La propie iad de !a sección boliviana da esteferrocarril se traspasará a Boiivi i a la espiracion del pl«z i da quince años contados desde 6.1di» f-n que esté totalmente terminado.Coa ignal fin. Chile contrae ei compromisode | a^ar las obiigaciones en que pudiera incu-rrir BJivia por garantías hasta de ciño porciento sobre IOJ capitales qua se inviertan eulos siguientes ferrocarriles, cuya construcciónpodrá emprenderse dentro del plazo de treintaaños: TJyuni a Potosí; Oruro a La P«z; üruro,yor C .chabambft, a S.t'ta Cruz; (1« La Paz a la i'-jioa del B ni; i de Potosí, par Sucre i La-gs.ndlas, a Santa CruzE-¡te eempromi o no podrá importar p^raChile un desembolso mayor de eisn mil librasef.'-.irliíiaa anuales, ni exceder de la cantidad de'irv millón eetecientns m 1 libras esteri nas que•>" «orno si tn"SÍ'»¡«í0 de le qü® UHi!« ft»aÍ •:»."<vA » ift fioí>»«'ftt<-.j!ij»í fi« ¡a B®n6jtsíí b» i^ifthiifigffafiftffÚ «k M Alto 4n m I « b"* i ^nMjieél nfiiíJningún valor al vencimiento de los trein'a a ánt» s indicados.La ronstruccion de ía spccion bolivianaferr irarril de A ira al Alto de La Paz, enla de ios (Sernas f rrncarriles que se cdfaBt'uyalcon la garaatí i del G -bieno chileno, será > taria da acuerdos espaciales de ambos Gobienos i e i ellos se consultarán las facilidadesqup darán al intercambio comercial de los d países.El valor de la referida sección sad?teraürá par el monto de la propuesta que se acren el respectivo contrato de conssrocoion.ARTÍCULO IV£U Gobierno de Chil j se obliga a entregar alGobierno de B ¡livia la cantidad de trescientasmil libras esterlinas en dinero tfactivo i en losparciali ladea de ciento cincuenta o il libras;debiendo entregarse la primera parcialidad s<umesas despues de canjea ias las ratificación ' de e¿te Tratado; i la segunda, u<i año daspuetde la primera entrega.ARTÍCULO V La República de Chile destina a la cancela-ción definitiva da los orédit a rec nidios porB >livia, por in íe.mtiizacion s en fárdelasCompañías mim-ras da ílaanch-ca, Oruro i Corocoro, i por el saldo d I empréstito levanta-do en Chile en el año 1867, la suma da cuatromillones quinientos nnl pasos, oro de dieciochopeniques, p i^adera, a opcion de su Gobierno,en dinero tfectivo o en bonos de su deudn es-terna estimados al pre:io que tengan en L6n-dres el dia en que ss verifique el pago; i lacantidad de d >s millones do pesos, oro da die-ciocho peniques, paya lera en la misma Eonraque la anterior, a la cañe ilación de los créditosprovenientes de las siguientes obligaciones deBohvia: los bonos emitidos, o sea al empréstito1vantado para la construcción del ferrocarrilentre M-jillones i Caracoles, aagua contrato de10 de julio de 1»72; la deuda reconocida a fa-vor de don Pedro Lóp-z Qi'ra, representadopor los señores Alsup i Compañía, subrogatario?da los derechos de aquél; ios eré Jitos reconoci-do- n • avor de don Juan G. Meiggs, represen-tarlo por di n Eduardo Squire, provenientes delcontrato celebra i» ea 20 da ma^zo de 1876,sobre arrendamiento de salitreras ea el Toco; i,linalmente, la suma reconocida en faror dedonJuan Garday.ARTÍCULO VILa, República de Chile reconoce a favor dela de Boli"i ., i a perp tui la 1, el mas ámplio i libre derectio de trán-ito comerc al por su te-rritorio i puartos del Pacifico.Ambos Gobiernos acordarán, en altos espe-ciales, la reglamentación eonvanieite para ase-gurar, sin perjuicio para sus respectivos inte-reses fiscales, ei propósito arriba aspresado,ARTÍCULO VIILa República de Bolivia tendrá ol derechodo constituir ajencus a.maneras en los puertosqua designe para hacer nu comercio.Por ahora, señala poi fcales puertos habili-tados p¡ira nu comercio, ios de Autofagasta i Arica.Las aj encías cuidarán de que las mercade-rías desúnalas en tránsito, sa dirijan del mue-lle a la estación dal ferrocarril i se carguen i trasp rten has^a las aduanas de Bolivia enwagones cerrados i sellados i con guías que in-diquen i*l nÚ0iero de bultos, pe=o .. m .rca, nú-mero i contení le, qua sarán canjeados con tor-naguías.ARTÍCULO VIHMiéntras las Altas Partas Contratantesaeu> r aft celebrar un tratado especial do coK*-reÍt> «! Íntt»H>srtibio eomier^SMl oatre di¡ÍS r^tíft ¡m Im teglwdsl®resista » tgit Sil nlliWÍ i® ? IfSíf
260
Annex 110
r>T t».DE LA Mpítblioa de chile1267jhetoa de cua'quior.x de las, dos Parte* en c< n diri-np» da ¡uferiori íad respecto do las dj tir.Irdéro.! En contenencia, tanto los productes natup'es i manufacturados de Chile como los delolivia, quedarán sujeto?, en su internación i I ttaumo, efl uno i otro país, al pago de lo^1 ¡Injjuestoa vijentes para loa de las demás nació(tes, í los favores, ex nciones i privilegios que•talquiera do las dos Partas otorgare a un»«tercera podrán ser eXijdos tn igualdad do con-WiriOues por la otrn. • ma Alcas Partes Contratantes convienen e;liar, recíprocamente, t ti todas las líneas férrea:l|ne crucen Sus respectivos territorios, a losproductos nacionales de uno i otro pais. la tailla que acuernen a ¡a nación mas favorecida.ARTÍCULO IXLos productos naturales i manufacturadosde Chiles i las mercaderías nacionalizadas, parai»ruarse a Bolivia, serán despachadas con larespectiva factura consular i con l»s guias de(¡tu habla la cláusu'a sétima. Los ganados detoda especie i Jos productos ratura'es de pocoU>r, podrán eér internados sin ningUna í'ornulidad i despáchalos c n la simple manifes-tación escrita en las aduanas.ARTÍCULO X Los productos naturales i manufacturados deBolivia en tránsito para el e-tranjero serán esportados c„n guias flanqueadas por las adua-nas de Bjiivia o por los funcionarios encarga-sde este objeto. Dichas guias serán entro-jadas a los ujentt S aduaneros en los repp cti-voa puertos i íi i utra formalidad, embarcadosios productos pata los marcados estranjeros.Por el puerto de Ai i a el comercio de impor-tación se verificará con iguales formalidades(jileen el de Antofaga->ta, debier.do franquearsetueste puerto las guias de tránsito c-. n las mis-•i esprcifi-aci n-s qua las indi.»las en ksartículca anteriores.ARTI'I ULO XINo pudiendo Bolivia poner en práctica estesistema inmeaiatamente, continuará observán-dose, por el término de un año, el que se hallap.^blecido actualmente en Autofagasta, questív-i estensivo al puerto de Arica, fijándo-e na v-.^zo prudente para qua so ponga en vijen-Cia el arancel de aforos bolivianos, hasta queica posible regularizar el comercio de tránsitotn U forma antedicha.ARTÍCULO XIITodas las cuestiones q llegar n a suscitarsecon motivo de la intelijencia o ejecución delpresente» Tratado, S^rán sometidas al «rbitinjj' Su M^ji'stud el Empe a k>r He Al m inia.Las ratificaciones de este Tratado i-erAn can-idas dtmtro del plazo de seis meses i el canjetendrá lugar en la ciudad de Li Puz.En fe de lo cual, el señor Ministro de Rala(iones Exteriores da Chile i el señor EnviadoEttraordinario i Ministro Plenipotenciario deBilivia firmaron i sellaron con sus reep ctivos«ello», i por duplicado, el presente Tratado dePaz i Amistad, en la ciudad do Santiago, a losve n'e dias del rnoj de octubre dsl año mil no-vecientos cuatro.(L. S.j—EMILIO BELLO C.'-(L. S.)—A.GOTIERRBZ.Ea Santiago, a veinte dias dal mes de oc-tubre de mil novecientos cuatro, reunidos enla Sala da Despacho del Ministerio de Rela-ciones Exteriores de Chile ol señor Ministrodel ramo don Emilio Bailo Cocido, i si se-ñor Enviado Estiaordinario i Ministro Pienipotenciario de Buivia, don Alborto GuÜérrec, dsbidnnv-nt* autorisadoo sd efocfcoaún feápwííjVos Q.iWaroc"» f íMo pr««• ¡o* jSsMiTBo* ác Oblia i H Hm»iTra'ado de l'az i Acnistad concluido i firrnsir m esta mi-mi fecha, c invinieron en sustituirl»;s franquicias aduanera? solicitabas por Chilea favor da los prodatíbos naturales chilenos i los elaborados con ellos por otras facilidadesque no contraríen ol propósito de Bolivia deconservar su absoluta libertad comercial i queexista acuerdo entre ambos Gobiernos para con-signar en un ácto separado !a íníelij»ncia i al-cance one tiene al inci'o 50 del artículo III delich > Tratado en el que se hace referencia a as facilidades que en las convencianss sobreferrocarriles pe darán al intercambio comercialentre los dos Países, acoriaron lo siguiente:Los productos naturales i manufacturado 1 le ChiL que se internen a Bolivia, gozarán. enlos ferrocarriles que se construyan en el ierritorio boliviano con la garantía del G ibiernoChileno de una rebaja no menor de diez por"iento en las tarifas de fletes que rijan en dichosferrocarriles.Bolivia h.irá las jestiones necesarias paraque la m;ama o análoga ventaja se acuerde a los productos chilenos en la sección bolivianadel ferrocarril d9 Antofogasta a Oruro.En consecuencia tanto en las convencionesque celebren los Gobiernos de Chile i Boliviapara la construcción de ferrocarriles en conformidad a las estipulaciones contenidas en el artículo III del Tratado da Paz i Amistad, comoen lea contratos relacionados con la construc-ción i e°plotacion de las diversas líneas allíconsultadas se consignará la obligación de con-ceder a los productos chilenos la rebaja men-cionaba, . Ea fe de lo cual, el Ministro de RelacionesExteriores de Chile i el Enviado Extraordina-rio i Ministro Plenipotenciario de Bjiivia fir-man el presente Protocolo, en doble ejemplar,i lo sellan con sus sellos respectivos.(L. S.)—EMILIO BELLO.—(L. S,)—A. GU-TIÉRREZ.I por cuanto el Tratado i el Protocolo preinsertoB han silo ratificados por mí, previa Jaaprobación del Congreso Nacional, i las rati-ficaciones respectivas han sido canjeadas en laciu de La Paz el dia diez del presente mesde mirzo;P.jr tanto, eu uso de la facultad que me confiere la parte 19 del artículo 73 de la Constitucion Polínica, dispongo i man io se cumplani lleven a efecto en todas sus partes como leide la RepúblicaDala en la Sala de mi Despacho en la ciu-dad de Santiago, a veintiuno de marzo de milnovecientos cinco. — JERMAN RIESCO. — Luis A. Vergara. Actas protocolizadas suscritas, respectivamen-te, el 15 de noviembre i el 24 de diciembrede 1904, por el Ministro de Relaciones Es-teriores i el Enviado Estraordinario i Minis-tro Plenipotenciario de Bolivia.En Santiago, a quince de noviembre de milnovecientos cuatro, reunidos en el MinisteriodiR lacionas E-tenores de Chile el Miniitrodel ramo, don Luis A. Vergara, i el EnviadoEstraordinario i Ministro Plenipotenciario deBolivia en Chile, don Alberto Gutiérrez, el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores espus'?:Que, refiriéndose el artículo 11 del Trata lode Paz i Amistad suscrito el 20 ae octubre último a los territorios ocupa los por Chile envirtud del articula 2.° del Pacto de Tregua de4 de ab il de 1S84, o sea, a los comprendidosentre el rio Loa al Norte i el paralelo 23 alSur, i habiendo sido controvertido en ocasio-nes por el Gobierno de Bolivia el criterio conque Chile ha considerado invariablemente lasituación de los territorios que se encuentranentra los paralelos 23 i 24 de latitud meridio-nal oonsideraba oportuno d ,j vr claramente óslableOido que el Gobierno d» Bjiivia. róoonQCí!i «1 dtMftiiti'»' «bsolttía ( psfpatüp dP Otilia ;«i |94 éisims?, IMfitarttMj d»4rjit. 'rww h*»W si'! ¿W.irt.á* *e> tíSfP'iWiíta •MciH"" ' Agregó que, no obstante de desprenderse delespíritu de dicho Tratado, de conformidad conlos antecadentes qne Je han dado orí ¡en, que elGobierno de Chile conserva amplia libertadpara estudiar, calificar i liquidar lod créditosenumerados en el artículo V, como asimismoque, fuera de estas obligaciones, el Gobiernode Chile no toma a su cargo ningún otro cré-dito del Gobierno da Bolivia, cualquiera quet'aere su naturaleza i procedencia, estimabaconveniente dejar testimonio de que éste erael alcance e intelijencia que corre'-pondia al re-ferido artículo V.El señor Enviado Estraordinario i MinistroPlenipotenciario de Bolivia respondió que, de-bidamente autorizad" por su G)bierno, no teniainconveniente para hacer la declaración pedidapor el señer Ministro de Relaciones Esteriores,esto es, que el Gubierno de Bolivia reconoce eldominio absoluto i perpetuo de Chile en el te-rritorio situado entre los paralelos 23 i 24 delatitud meridional deede el mar hasta el actualdeslinda con la República Arjentina. Acepta,igualmente, la intelijencia que da el Ministroda R^laei nes Esteriores al artículo Y i decla-ra, en consecuencia, que el Gobierno de Chiletendrá completa libertad para estudiar, califi-car i liquidar dichos créditos; que, fuera de es-tas obligaciones, no toma a su cargo ningúnotro crédito ou Gobierno de Bolivia cualquieraque fuere su naturaleza i procedencia, i queeste último Gobíamo suministrará al de Chiletodos los antecedentes de que dispusiere rela-cionados con dichos créditos. Por último, ma-nifehtó el señor Gutiérrez que desearía, por suparte, dejar también,testimonio en esta confe-rencia ;de que la rebaja mínima de diez porciento acordada a los productos nacionales i manufacturados de Chile, a que se refiere elProtocolo suscrito en esta ciudad el 20 de octu-bre próximo pasado, solo subsistirá con el ca-rácter de obligatoria por el tiempo que dure lacontra-garantía que dé Chile en conformidadal artículo III del Tratado de Paz i Amistad.El señor Ministro de Relaciones Esterioresespresó que en los antecedentes del Tratado dePaz existe esta limitación, i que no tenia in-conveniente para aceptarla en los términos in-dicados por el señor Ministro de Bolivia.Para constancia, convinieron en protocolizaresta confartnsia, firmando i sellando esta actaen doble ejemplar.(L. S.)—Luis A. VERGARA.—(L. S.)—A. GU-TIÉRREZ.Está conforme,—César de la Lastra. En Santiago, a veinticuatro de diciembre domil novecientos cuatro, raunidos en el Minia»terio de Relaciones Esteriores el señor Minis-tro del ramo, don Luis A. Vergara i el señorEnviado Estraordinario i Ministro Plenipoten-ciario de Bolivia, don Alberto Gutiérrez, el se-flor Ministro da Relaciones Esterioras espresó:Que) durante la discusión que tuvo lugar en laCámara de Senadores del Tratado de Paz i Amistad de veinte de octubre último, se mani-festó por a'guno do sus miembros la convenien-cia de precisar el alcance que pudiera darse alinciso final del artículo 2.° de dicho Tratado,con el fin dejar pv-rfectameote establecido queel reconocimiento de derechos privados a quedicho inciso se refiera no podrá en ningún casoobligar a ¡as Altas Partes Contratantes a in-demnizaciones da ninerun jénero.Agregó el señor Ministro de Relaciones Es-teriores que, estimando por su parte conformeesta declaración con el espíritu e intelijenciaque tiene dicha cláusula, esparaba que el señorRepresentante de Bolivia se sirviera manifes-tar si su Gobierno le dá el^ mismo alcance.El aeñor Enviado Estraordinario i MinistroPlenipotenciario de Bolivia espresó que, debi-damente autorizado por su Gobieirno^ aceptabala declaración «ólicitada por el señor Ministrode R laciones Esteriores, declarando, en conse»QtMueta, qtta tí reconocimiento d§ deroofaan pridtfeéJlky.adtüíi Íft Í0* tojrlkíflcrt qrtó; el 'iV^dcS Awistftd Ce'.e.bíftMAwistM es'cbfado fiH' ttüjÉlcí OsMWRüH
Annex 110
261
1268DIARIO O ~fjALcomo ocurre e jhí'c.vya A-c - i al sur deirio Loa, i que seráti definidos por los tribuna-les ordinarios d.: justicia, no imp aclrlí. a laAltas Partes Con trata te inuamaizacicm - . • deningún jénero.Para constancia convinieron en pr a coazaresta conferencia, firmando i sellando cht>- Actaen doble ejemplar.(L. S.)—Luís A VERSARA.—(L S.)— A. GU-TIÉRREZ.Está conforme.—César de la Lastra. MINISTERIO DE JUSTICIA.Núm. 854.—Santiago, 21 de marzo de 1905.—Vistos estos antecedentes,Decreto:Concédese licencia de do? meses par* !cp¡írarse del desempeño de sus funciones al receptor de mayor cuantía de departamento d Ovalla don Emilio Donoso Márquez.Anótese i comuniqúese. — RIESGO. — Javier A. Figueroa. Núm. 876.—Santiago, 22 de marzo do 1905.—Vista la terna que precede,Decreto:Nómbrase a don Juan Francisco Valenzuelapara que sirva en propiedad la pieza de recap-tor r'e mayor cuantía del departamento deSania Cruz, que se halla vacante,Anótese i comuniqúese. — RI ssco, — Javier A Figueroa. Núm 889,—Santiago, 22 de marzo di 1905.—Vistos estos antecedentes,Decreto:Concédese licencia de di z meses para sepa-rarse del desempeño de sus funciones, B1 procurador del número del departamento de Onricó, den José Rufino Va';:«zue!a.Anótese i comuniqúese. — RIESGO. — Javier A. Figueroa. Klinnta del despacho de esteMinisterio24 de marzo. Decreto número 890.—Feriado i cuarenta i cinco dias do licencia promotor fiscal de M ga-llánes don Fernando Adriszola.Decreto número 891.—Pago sueldo a donEduardo Ojeda, ofic'al civil suplanto cuartacircunscripción de Chillan.Decreto número 892.—Licencia un mea saluda don Pedro N. Versara, oficial civil segundacircunscripción de Chillan.Decreto número 893,—Pago sualdc a donAlberto Urrmia, oficial civil suplente primeracircunscripción de Imperial.Decreto número 894.—Pago sueldo a donAbraham Briceño, oficial civil suplente segun-da circunscripción de Melipilla.Decreto número 895.—Pago sueldo a donJulio A. Domínguez, oficial civil suplente ter-cera circunscripción AntofagastaDecreto número 896.—Se acepta renunciade don Ambrosio Moníit, receptor de mayorcuantía de Valparaíso.Decreto número 897.—Autoriza juez laUnion jiro cuatrocientos pesos para reparacio-nes archivo judien-I.Decreto número 898.—Autoriza juez letradode Antofagasta jire tras mil pesos arreglo delarchivo judicial,Decreto número 899.—Licencia tres mesesal promotor fiscal de Castro, don Luis He-rrera.Decreto número 900.—Licenca da un mesal juez de subdelegacion de La Noria (Tarapa+Á), don José Espinosa.MINISTERIO D$ GUERRAli inta del despaclio de esteMinisterioPRÍMI-1\{ SECCIONJ¡. d< marzo. Decreto número 246.—Ordena pagar & laCompaüía Sud-Araeri.: na Je Vapores, la sumadoci--.il'.>uchenfc* i cuatro pesos vein.e centa-vos por pa ajeB i fi .tDecreto númaro 247.'-Ordena pagar a lami.-ma Com airía la Um d cchov :.t > docepesos ciarensa cen' »vos por igual causa.Decreto número 241.—Oren na pagar ai sar-jento primero Erasm ¡ Sá > h z, la -urna dacinco pesos treinta i tres cent, vos por graüli-ción local.Dacrot'j número 238.—Ordena ajuetar delsueldo correspondiente a enero último, a íoaveinte soldados de lu dotacion da,or anc-nz*?do la oficina de Ca; a.Decreto número 2c0.—Or Lna pon- r a disposicion dol director de Fábricas i Maestranzasla suma de cuatrocientos diez pesos parh lafabricación del estepin eléctrico «Chile», in-ventado por el teniente don Nicolás de lo, CruzDecreto número 240.—-Ordena pag -r a losex- -oldados Julio Aranoibiá, Salvw.ior Caballero, J lan Carvallo, Juan A. Delgado, ManuelTelb i Juan de la Cruz Maguia, la sum í deveinticuatro pesos cincuenta centavos a cadano, valor del pasaje entre Tocopilla i Valpa-raíso « Decreto número 222.—Autorízase i?l direc-tor da Fábricas i Ma ^tranzas para jirar hastapor la cantidad de siete mil pesos para la fabri-cación de setacient ; l ridones.Decraio número 216.—Acepta propuesta delos señores Etchepare i C.8 por veinticinco paresde botas 1 .-gas at precio de doce pesos el par,para ia Compañía de Uopauuicac:oa&s.Decreto número 235,-r-Orde a pagar a donBernardo Solar A. la suma'de quinientos pegoamensuales, p " arriendo da la c..sa ocupadapor las oficinas i bodegas de la Del ga cion delDe': irtamer fco Administrativo 'en V puraiao.9 de m rzo. Decreto rvúmoro 2"¡9— Au riza al D partamentó d-„> Adufiinisiraeim Mis para jirarpartida 6.a de! presupuesto e Guerra.Decreto número 261 —Ordena pagar a donCárlos Covarrúbias, éhfí rancia de sueldo.,de febrero. Decreto número ISO. —Pone a disposición delInspector Jeneral del Ejército, la suma de cincomil doscientos sesenta i dos pisos noventa i seis ceatavos para cancelar varias cuentas.SEGUNDA SECCION3 de febrero. Decreto número 234.—Ordena imputar )apensión de las señoras Je&us, Rita i MercedesArgomedo.13 d<¡ febrero. Decreto núm ro 317,- Ordena pagar peasiones insolutas al 3ubSenionte don AnastasioPérez.V.* B.o--V, QCBnev .M,KÜ,-.9 de marzo. Decreto nú-aero 365.—Or -ia pagar viáti-cos a los oficiales Matías Díaz G., Osvaldo Varas M. e Ignacio Herrera S.Decreto número 366.—Ordena psgar ".játi-cos al oficial don Ernesto Franzaui,Decreto número 378.—Or -na ¡ :igar viá i C03 a los oficides don Aiei ¡.n iro Pickering i don Luis Alberto Urrutia.Decreto núm , o 382.—Ord na p&gar treintai Bf- pasos al Correo d Val/di ia p r publica-ción de avino»,ftarreto número Wfr pagar vüMeop4 tantantt <lon Miü^éb Minfla!»».;, 10 de marzo. -v- 404. — Ordena íntrjMni mi a la Suciedad da Iav¿!id»i|Veteranos del 79, para fundación de un'iHde Ancianos.Deci úm o 401 - Ordena pagar viá',i(,1 terT..-3 don Santiago Urzúa.D . crcto número 403.—Ordena pagar gnfie ci a como enfermero a', sarjento primaraAgu°tin Carrasco,11 de marzo. D -creto número 423.—Ordena imputa M pmsi a de retiro al sarjento-mayor don Adol-1lo Castro H.Decreto número 434.—Ordena pagar n^Vai alférez don Narciso González,Decreto número 435.—Gonce Je premio fl constancia a Jt:sé Sanios González.Decreto número 436. — Concedó premio i?constancia a Adrián Morales.DaCreto núm°ro 437.—Concede premio deconstancia a Manuel Andrade.Dacreto número 438.—Concede premio d»constancia a Artemio Acuña.Docreto número 439.—Concede premia diconstancia a Gregorio Monianares.Deert-to número 440.—Concade premio deconstancia a Gregorio Monroi.D ereto número 441.—Cince la pramio dec nst mia a Ma u>l Mora.15 de mtrzo. | D eruto número 448.—Ordena pagarpen ion s insolutas a don Rodolfo Díaz Vrlar,Decreto númaro 449. —O«lana pagar pansio-res a Ion Evt«n;slao Frías.Dacreto núni ro 466,—Ordena pagar pen-sien s ir solutas a doña Viviana Tapia.D>cr. to número 467. —Or lena pngar peniiojnes iasoiutaB a don D mingo Barahona. fl V.° B.°— PEDRO N, CRUZ.,MISTERIO DE INDUSTRIA.ss.'^s írBLiaAa ¡-:D raccioia del TesoroNúm. 272 —Santiago, 11 de febrero da 1995.—Visto :•! d woníni -u 27!, da facha Ubdílactaa',Decreto:L Tesorería Fiscal de Santiago pagará aloficial segundo dal Miuisterio da Iadustria i Obras Públifas, don Eujanio Frias Callao, 1»suma de ciento cuarenta pesos cincuenta i trescentavos ($ 140 53) que se le adeuda como difa.rencia de ruello por habar reemplazado al jefede S.coion do Industria del esprasado departa-mento durante veintitrés días del moa de di-ciembre de 1904Dodúzcasa el gasto del ítem 631, partida 53,del presupu \sto del esprasado Dapartamento, | Refréndese, cómese razón, rejít-tresa i co-muníqnese.—RIESCO —E. Charme Núm 273.—Sanüago, 11 de febrero da 1905.—Vistos estos antecedentes,Dtcreto: J 1.° La Tesorería Fiscal da Santiago pagaráa d ¡i José Pedro Ale -sandri, o a quiea sus de-recho?! fepres&pte^ la suma de cuarenta i cuatromil quiñi ntos cincuenta i *iete pesos cuarentai un centavos ($ 44 557.41), importe lifj'iido déla situación número 47 la los trabajose^^Hdos en e! túnel de «B1 Arbol» del ferrocarril deAlcon s a Pirhihmu durante el me3 de eneroúltimo. ÍJ,2.° La misma Tesorería F:¿eal consignará end< pósito a la órden del Di' Garas P&blicas la cantidad de cuatro mil noveciewte ciucaiúta peso-i ochenta i dos centhvos(9 4,950. SS) qu« »« retittie aar íot)»impéHM el ^toaj ífigm d« 1»
262
Annex 110
OFFICIAL GAZETTE
OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE
NATIONAL PRINTING OFFICE, CALLE DE LA MONEDA, No. 1455
YEAR XXIX Santiago, Monday 27 March 1905 No. 8,169
SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
…
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Worship and Colonization
Treaty of Peace and Amity and Supplementary Protocol entered into between the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bolivia.
…
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, WORSHIP AND COLONIZATION
JERMAN RIESCO
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE
Whereas, between the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bolivia it was negotiated, concluded and signed, on 20 October 1904, by duly authorized Plenipotentiaries, the Treaty of Peace and Amity and a Protocol supplementing it, and they read as follows:
…
And whereas, the Treaty and Protocol mentioned above have been ratified by me, with the approval of the National Congress, and the respective ratifications have been exchanged in the city of La Paz, on 10 March;
Therefore, by virtue of the power vested in me by section 19 of Article 73 of the Political Constitution, I do hereby order and command that they be executed and carried out in their entirety, as a law of the Republic.
Signed in my office in the city of Santiago, 21 March 1905. Jerman Riesco. Luis A. Vergara.
Annex 111
Minutes of 23 March 1906 signed by the Bolivian and Chilean Directors of the Commission of Engineers, attached to the Letter from the Chilean Director of the Commission of Engineers to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile,
26 July 1906
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Office of Land Measurement of Chile, The Boundary Line with the Republic of Bolivia (1910), pp 340-344
263
264
Annex 111
Annex 111
265
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
OFFICE OF LAND MEASUREMENT
THE BOUNDARY LINE
WITH THE
REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA
[…]
16. REPORT SIGNED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMMISSION OF ENGINEERS
No. 62. Santiago, 26 July 1906. To the Minister:
I am pleased to inform you that, as notified by the engineers in charge of demarcating the Bolivian border, the border marking work has been completed, as per the document signed on 23 March this year, which I have attached hereto, the only exception being the boundary points between Guayaques and Sapaleri, which were not set owing to snowfall.
In the course of such work, certain difficulties arose in connection with the location of the Prieto Hill (61) and Visviri (94) markers, which were settled by agreeing to use the Bolivian commission member’s proposal for the former and the Chilean proposal for the latter.
266
Annex 111
Annex 111
267
Late last month I was invited to Antofagasta by the Director of the Bolivian Commission of Engineers in order to reach an agreement for the change in the border lines he proposed in the vicinity of Chacmuco and Collahuasi; I, however, did not think it was wise to accept his invitation, as, prior to forming an opinion on the matter, I wished to obtain as much data as I could on the subject, and the most valuable information would come from the demarcating engineers who visited the areas last summer, who only now are traveling to the city.
Moreover, the matter could not be settled instantly, as was being suggested to me, given that the changes, as proposed, need to be discussed by the respective Ministries of Foreign Affairs as well as, in my opinion, submitted for approval to the Legislatures, those bodies have given their formal approval to the 1904 Treaty, which establishes the border line with such precision that nothing other than very minor variations are possible.
As soon as engineers Bolados and Soza arrive in Santiago, I will have the honor of providing you with a detailed update on the proposed issue.
Please accept the assurances of my highest consideration. – (Signed). – L. Riso Patron S. – Minster of Foreign Affairs
No. 925. – Santiago, 6 August 1906. Set for publication, along with its annex, in the Official Gazette. – To be so recorded – By the Minister, Lastra.
_________
ANNE
X TOTO OFF ICIAL CO MMUN ICAT CATION No. 62
MINUTE S
The undersigned, Directors of the commission of engineers entrusted with demarcating the border line established in the Treaty of 20 October 1904 on behalf of the Republics of Chile and Bolivia, have agreed as follows:
268
Annex 111
Annex 111
269
1. The marking of the border line shall be done using iron markers to be placed at the following border points, with slight modifications allowed:
No of
Markers
2 From Chipe Hill (96) to the Sanctuary (95), located
north of the Mauri Inn
6 From the Sanctuary to Visviri Hill (94)
4 From Visviri Hill to the point where the Cosapilla farm outlet is
joined by river Caquena (93)
1 Where the line leaves the river Caquena (92)
1 On Carviri Hill (91)
1 At the Achuta Pass (90)
1 At the Casiri Pass (88)
1 At the Huacollo Pass (84)
1 At the Tambo Quemado Pass (82)
1 At Japu (80)
1 Where the line cuts river Lauca (Macaya) (78)
2 Between Macaya and Puquintica Hill (77)
1 Pass between Puquintica Hill and Quilhuiri Hill (76)
1 Captain Hill (74)
1 Payacollo Hill (71)
1 Quimsachata line (68)
1 Jamachuma marker (67)
1 Three Crosses marker (66)
1 Capillicsa marker (64)
1 Toldo Hill (62)
1 Prieto Hill (61)
1 Quellaga Hill (60)
1 Tapacollo Hill (59)
1 Salitral Hill (58)
1 Pass of Huialla (56)
1 Apacheta of Tola (55)
1 Panantalla (Pahuantalla) Hill (54)
At the request of the Director of the Bolivian Commission, demarcation
270
Annex 111
Annex 111
271
of the border line between Panantalla Hill and Piga Hill is postponed.
1 Between Piga and Sillillica (40)
1 Apacheta of Sillillica.
3 Between Sillillica and Laguna Hill (37)
2 Between Laguna Hill and Huailla Hill (36)
3 Bewteen Huailla Hill and Napa Hill (34)
3 Between Napa Hill and Caiti Hill (33)
2 Between Caiti and Chela Hill (30)
1 Chela Pass
1 Bofedal Pass
1 Irruputuncu Pass
1 Laguna Pass
1 Chutinza Pass
At the request of the Director of the Bolivian Commission of Engineers, demarcation of the border line between the Olca Volcano and Chipapa Hill has been postponed; demarcation continued as follows:
1 Chipapa Hill (22)
1 On the north side of the Salar of Ollagüe
2 At some point each side of the railroad line.
1 Between Ollagüe Volcano (21) and Araral Hill (Aral) (80)
1 At Ascotan Pass
1 At Inca Pass
1 Between the Inca range (18) and Inacaliri Hill.
1 At river Silala
1 Silala little hill (16)
1 Silala Pass
1 Linzor Pass
1 Panizo Pass
1 North of Pajonal Hill (9)
1 South of Pajonal Hill
1 Chaxas Pass
1 Cajon Pass (3)
5 Between Cajon Pass and Zapaleri Hill (1)
1. The Director of the Chilean Commission of Engineers appointed four representatives to act in his name in erecting
272
Annex 111
Annex 111
273
the dividing markers; in turn, the Director of the Bolivian Commission appointed three such representatives.
The names of the appointed representatives will be informed in proper time by the undersigned Directors.
3. Demarcation works will begin in Chilcaya this May 20th, with the presence of four of the representatives, two on behalf of each party, with work continuing northwards from Puquintica Hill to Chipe Hill, with two representatives, and southwards to Sacaya, with another two.
From Sacaya to the Olca Volcano, work will continue with the presence of the same Bolivian representative that will be acting from Chilcaya and one Chilean representative who will be awaiting in Sacaya.
The section between Chipapa Hill and Sapaleri will be demarcated by two representatives, who will meet at Ollagüe station on 30 May.
4. Minutes of the demarcation works will be drawn up, in two copies, for each of the four sections, using the attached form.
5. The basis for this work will be the Treaty of 20 October 1904; any issues arising during the works will be dealt with pursuant to paragraph V of the Border Convention of 24 July 1905.
6. The provisions of this agreement are the instructions referred to in Article III of the aforementioned Convention.
7. The undersigned Directors shall ask their respective Governments to order, as soon as possible, that the authorities in the region where the demarcation work is to be performed provide any and all necessary assistance and refrain from hindering the work of the demarcation delegations.
Done in two copies in the City of La Paz, on this 23rd day of March, 1906. – Luis Riso Patron S. – Julio Knaudt, civil engineer.
274
Annex 112
Protocol on Exchange of Territories between Bolivia and Chile, signed at Santiago on 1 May 1907
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 135-136
275
276
Annex 112
Annex 112
277
PROTOCOL ON EXCHANGE OF TERRITORIES
Signed at Santiago, Chile, on 1 May 1907.
Ratified on 5 November 1938.
Promulgated by Decree No 2163 bis, 6 November 1942.
In Santiago, Chile, on 1 May 1907, gathered at the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of this Branch, Mr. Ricardo Salas Edwards, and the Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia, Mr. Sabino Pinilla, in order to consider the change of certain sections of the boundary line established in the Treaty of 20 October 1904, as they agree that it better serves the interests of both countries, being duly authorized by their respective Governments, have agreed to execute the following Agreement:
1- The existing boundary line in the areas between the Chipapa Hill (22) and the Olca Volcano (25), and between the Patalani Hill (48) and the high Panatalla Hill (54), as set out in article 2 of the abovementioned Treaty shall be replaced by the following:
Between the Chipapa Hill and the Olca Volcano, the boundary line shall run in a straight line from the Chipapa Hill, which has already been demarcated, to the north top of the Paroma Hill, including within Chilean territory an area no smaller than one kilometer between the easternmost section of the Collahuasi Railway and the boundary line; from the Paroma Hill, it shall run along the crest shared by the Paroma Hill and the Olca Volcano.
Between the Patalani and Panantalla Hills, the boundary line shall run in a straight line from the Patalani Hill to the Irpa Pueblo Hill, and from there it shall run by the dividing range up to the highest peak of the Sillajhuay Hills, where it shall turn north and continue through the divide of the Torroni Hills to Apacheta de Oje, and thereafter through the dividing range to Armasaya Hill. From this point it shall run in a straight line to Apacheta de Tillujalla, and from there in a straight line to the Alto de Panantalla Hill, already demarcated.
2- The map signed by the undersigned in two copies shall be deemed an integral part of the present agreement.
This Agreement shall be ratified and the ratifications shall be exchanged in Santiago or in La Paz as soon as possible.
This Agreement is executed in two copies of equal value. Both Ministers have set their signatures and seals.
(Signed: Ricardo Salas Edwards)
(Signed: Sabino Pinilla)
278
Annex 112
And whereas, the Protocol has been ratified by the Government of the Republic, having been approved by the National Congress, with the understanding that the line between the Chipapa Hill and the north top of the Paroma Hill will be modified, if necessary, so that the Collaguasi Railway is never less than one kilometer from the Bolivian border, and the ratifications were exchanged with this understanding in Santiago, Chile, on 5 November 1938.
Annex 113
Protocol on Railway Guarantees between Chile and Bolivia, signed at Santiago on 26 May 1908
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 137-138
279
280
Annex 113
Annex 113
281
PROTOCOL ON RAILWAY GUARANTEES BETWEEN CHILE AND BOLIVIA
Signed in Santiago, Chile, on 26 of May 1908.
Ratifications exchanged in La Paz, on 20 September 1911.
Promulgated on 16 November 1911.
Published in the “Diario Oficial” No. 10167 of 22 November 1911.
On 26 May 1908, at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Chile, Mr. Federico Puga Borne, the relevant Minister, duly authorized by His Excellency the President of the Republic, and Mr. Sabino Pinilla, the duly authorized Extraordinary Envoy and Plenipotentiary Minister of Bolivia, met.
The Minister of Bolivia stated that the aim of his Government was to give to the various outlets of the rail traffic of Bolivia conditions of perfect equality and free competition, so that every part of the country can seek the most natural routes that correspond to its foreign trade according to their distances.
In turn, the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed that the Government of Chile wished to simplify the form of payment for the guarantee referred to in Article 3 of the Treaty of 20 October 1904.
According to these declarations, the negotiators agreed to the following:
Article 1
Freight fees, the collection of which is authorized by the Government of Bolivia, for the railways referred to in the aforementioned Peace Treaty and the contract concluded by the Government of Bolivia with the National City Bank and Messrs. Speyer and Company, shall keep the same ratio in each one of them with the number of kilometers travelled and the ongoing cost of operation.
Article 2
In accordance with the principle of the most favoured nation, the validity of the gradual scales of the said rates as well as any special discounts that may be granted, shall also include similar products from Chile, both natural or manufactured, under the same conditions and distances governing such reductions.
Article 3
The provisions of the preceding article will be understood with no other exception other than the ten percent (10%) reduction agreed in the freight rate charter for Chilean natural and manufactured products, which will be granted on any fee for which collection is authorized by the Government of Bolivia, in a permanent or transient manner, for all lines related to the contract with the National City Bank and Speyer and Company and during the period indicated below.
282
Annex 113
Annex 113
283
For the purposes of this provision, all Chilean products manufactured in Chile with Chilean or foreign raw materials will be deemed as products manufactured in Chile.
Article 4
This same ten percent discount shall also be granted to natural or manufactured products of Chile in the Bolivian Section of the Railway from Arica to La Paz, in the event that such Section has already been transferred to Bolivia and provided that the guarantee fund in question has not been exhausted.
Article 5
On the basis of compliance with the foregoing provisions, the Government of Chile agrees to pay to the Government of Bolivia or its diplomatic representative in Santiago, instead of the railway guarantee contained in Article 3 of the Treaty of 20 October 1904, the following annuities:
1. Twenty-two thousand five hundred pounds sterling (£ 22,500) payable on 30 September of each year, after the line from Oruro to Viacha is finished and made open to traffic;
2. Another twenty-two thousand five hundred pounds sterling (£ 22,500) payable on 1st April of each year after two hundred and fifty more kilometers in the aforementioned railway in connection to the Oruro to La Paz railway are completed; and
3. Lastly, ten thousand pounds sterling (£ 10,000) annually, once the branch connecting the Oruro – Viacha line with the Railway from Arica to La Paz, in the vicinity of Desaguadero River is completed, bearing in mind that it is the power of the Government of Bolivia to determine when to begin construction of said branch.
Article 6
These annuities shall be paid without interest until the balance resulting from the one million seven hundred thousand pounds sterling (£ 1,700,000) fund, provided for in subsection 4 of Article 3 of the Treaty of 20 October 1904, after subtracting the value of the Bolivian Section of the Railway from Arica to La Paz is completed. The ten percent freight rate discount for Chilean products provided for in article 3 of this Convention shall apply until payment of the last of such annuities is completed.
Article 7
Both Governments shall conclude, in due time, special agreements to facilitate the payment of international transport and customs clearance or transit in both countries, as well as for the distribution of the gross product of international railway traffic of the Arica Railway, in proportion to the exploitation cost of each section after the expiry of the fifteen year period provided for in Article 3 of the Peace Treaty.
This Convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged in Santiago or La Paz in the shortest time possible.
Witnessing the above, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile and the Extraordinary Envoy and Plenipotentiary Minister of Bolivia sign in two copies the present Convention and stamp it with their respective seals.
(Signed)): L S F. Puga Borne.
(Signed): L S Sabino Pinilla.
284
Annex 114
A. Decombe, Ministry of Industry and Public Works of Chile, General Inspectorate of Railways Under Study and Construction, History of the Arica-La Paz Railway (1913), pp 63-65 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
285
286
Annex 114
Annex 114
287
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
----- MINISTRY -----
OF INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC WORKS
GENERAL INSPECTORATE OF RAILWAYS
----- UNDER STUDY AND CONSTRUCTION -----
HISTORY
OF THE
ARICA – LA PAZ RAILWAY
ALBERTO DECOMBE
RAILWAY VISITING INSPECTOR
SANTIAGO DE CHILE
**** 1913 ****
CHAPTER VI
––––
COST OF THE RAILWAY
The expenses required for the study, construction, technical inspection, rolling stock, etc., of the railway were incurred in pounds sterling, Chilean gold of 18 pence and Chilean legal tender, as broken down in the following table:
$ legal tender
Gold 18 pence
£
A) STUDIES
1. Lluta Valley reconnaissance cost paid to Eng. J. Harding.............................................
45,000
-
-
2. Payment to the Public Works Union for the study of 263 km, survey and inspection........
-
-
21,384.00
3. Investment by Vivanco Administration....
10,000
-
-
4. Investment by Ossa Administration in 1.200 km of study.........................................
745,348.60
-
-
Total study expenses
800,348.60
-
21,384.00
B) CONSTRUCTION
1. Payment to the Public Works Union, excluding $ 5,384 of expropriations.............
279,933·15·4
288
Annex 114
Annex 114
289
$ legal tender
Gold 18 pence
£
2. Investment by Vivanco Administration...................................
1,606,242.75
-
-
3. Investment by Ossa Administration...................................
4,957,419.88
-
-
4. Payment of sleepers, coal, etc., during the last Administration............
287,172.57
642,143.43
-
5. Jackson Contract, not including Arica dock (£ 20,000), fence modification (£ 3.900) or condemnation cost (£ 6,000)..............
-
-
2,420,100.00
Total construction expenses...............
6,850,835.18
642,143.43
2,700,033·15·4
C) TECHNICAL INSPECTION
1. Technical personnel’s salaries, bonuses and employees’ wages..........
338,414.37
385,653.26
-
2. Police..............................................
472,186.70
1,394.49
-
3. Inspection of materials in Europe..
7,499.45
9,561.49
-
4. Other expenses...............................
65,129.46
5,207.58
-
Total technical inspection expenses
883,229.98
401,816.82
-
D) EXPROPRIATION
1. To the Public Works Union............
-
-
5,384.00
2. To the Jackson Union.....................
-
-
6,000.00
3. Paid on top of the previous amount
6,000.00
-
10,510·15·9
Total condemnation expenses.............
6,000.00
-
21,894·15·9
290
Annex 114
Annex 114
291
$ legal tender
Gold 18 pence
£
E) ROLLING STOCK
1. Contracted by Decree 1401 of 17 June 1912............................................
-
-
68,784
2. Contracted by Decree 2081 of 23 September 1912..................................
-
-
18,000
3. To be procured (approximate value)...................................................
-
-
10,400
4. Casing of previous material............
-
52,000
-
5. Payment to contractors ...................
-
-
25,000
Total rolling stock expenses................
-
52,000
122,184
SUMMARY
Studies.................................................
800,348.00
-
21,384
Construction........................................
6,850,835.18
642,143.43
2,700,033·15·4
Technical inspection............................
883,229.98
401,816.82
-
Expropriations.....................................
6,000.00
-
21,894·15·9
Rolling stock.......................................
-
52,000
122,184
Total cost of the Railway............
8,540,413.16
1,095,960.25
2,865.496·10·13
After converting the paper currency and pounds sterling into gold of 18 pence, at an average exchange rate of 10 pence 8795, gives a general total of 44,454,9411.86 pesos in gold of 18 pence, which represents a very approximate cost of this work.
292
Annex 115
E.B. Codesido, Annotations for the history of diplomatic negotiations with Peru and Bolivia 1900-1904 (1919),
pp 201-206 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
293
294
Annex 115
Annex 115
295
THE CONFIDENTIAL PROTOCOL
The diplomatic incident that we have just discussed is fairly telling, and no additional information is necessary in order to appreciate the influence that the peace negotiations with Bolivia necessarily had on the issue of Tacna and Arica.
The time had come to sign the solemn pact that would put a definitive end to those negotiations. At the same time, we had to shape up the prior commitment aforementioned, as a result of which it an agreement would be confidentially recorded to unite the action of both Governments to ensure by all means that the two countries could arrange for Chile’s dominion over the territories of Tacna and Arica.
This agreement supplementing the Peace Treaty specified
296
Annex 115
Annex 115
297
its scope and meaning regarding the plebiscite to decide the ultimate nationality of those territories.
At that time Peru exhausted all its efforts to get the Bolivian Government to refrain from signing that commitment, whose existence it should have known about or suspected. Some hesitation occurred at the last minute in the Bolivian Foreign Ministry, since its representative in Santiago said that he had received instructions not to sign the Confidential Protocol in question. But, given the comments by our Foreign Ministry, indicating the surprise at this change in the mindset that had dominated during the negotiations, which lent itself to interpretations prejudicial to the success of such negotiations, the Honorable Mr. Gutiérrez finally agreed to sign a formula, the terms of which were weaker but which basically maintained Bolivia’s commitment to cooperate with all its elements in Chile’s triumph in the plebiscite.
On 20 October the Treaty of Peace and Amity was signed in Santiago in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the principal antecedents of which we have discussed, and at the same time, and with the same external solemnities, so was the Supplementary Confidential Protocol to that Treaty, with duplicate copies being issued, since this is customary for this type of international conventions.
It may seem strange to mention a confidential diplomatic incident in this publication, even though it is unquestionably important in order to understand the background of that Treaty and its influence on the solution of the pending problem with Peru. But the fact of the matter is that the Confidential Protocol I have been discussing is no longer a confidential document, because the original copy that was being kept in the confidential archive in our Foreign Ministry disappeared a while ago, along with other documents of a similar nature that were stolen due to inconceivable negligence, and having fallen into the hands of the Peruvian Government, by means that there are no reasons to classify, most of them were published in 1909 or 1910 in the Lima press.
We can assume, therefore, that the Supplementary Protocol to the Peace Treaty with Bolivia is now in some
298
Annex 115
Annex 115
299
special archive in the Peruvian Foreign Ministry, but this is not sufficient to make the agreement itself disappear, because it is a historical event of which the other party has written evidence, and which can easily be put back together. Our Legation in La Paz also has a record of its text. In addition, we can be certain that the Protocol has not suffered a similar fate in the Bolivian Foreign Ministry.
However, it is worth noting that the book of telegrams, in which the final stage of the history of the negotiations with Bolivia was kept, has also disappeared from our files, although it is not impossible to recreate that documentation through our Legation in that country.
There has been a lot of talk about the theft of documents that occurred in 1909, but no one has found out until now that among those documents there was a Supplementary Protocol to the Peace Treaty with Bolivia, a document of whose existence many of the Chilean Ministers of Foreign Affairs after 1904 were unaware.
Therefore, confidentiality is no longer required in this matter, and as embarrassing as it may be to reveal the defects in the management of government offices where the most delicate issues of our international policy are dealt with, events that the public opinion in the country is entitled to know about and judge can no longer be ignored, given their historic significance. It is possible that the seriousness of these revelations will ultimately lead to a reorganization of the services provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and that it will establish in its offices and agencies the proper rules for handling these delicate matters, which are so different from the matters handled by other Departments of the Government.
Having analyzed the fundamental bases of the Treaty of 20 October 1904, in the light of all the background information set forth herein, the following question arises: have we obtained all the fruits of these important negotiations that we are entitled to expect from them?
Without judging acts subsequent to those in which I participated, and although I was not involved
300
Annex 115
Annex 115
301
in the intimate details of our foreign policy in recent times, I must point out the unfortunate fact that in the course of 14 years, no progress has been made in solving the only one question resulting from the War of the Pacific that still remains as a factor of disruption and concern in our international relations. Even though the problem has been untangled from other complications, it remains in a desperate state of the status quo.
During this long space of time, the work on the railway from Arica to La Paz was completed. The work began on 5 September 1906. After various delays resulting from difficulties with the companies successively responsible for performing the work contracted through public tenders, and from the change in the initial route by adopting the Molle-Pampa version indicated by the Administrator, Manuel Ossa, with savings estimated at $16,000,000 in 18 c gold, the proposal of the Sir John Jackson Company was ultimately accepted for a lump sum of 2,750,000 pounds sterling, not including branches and rolling stock.
In July 1909 the construction firm commenced work, and finally, the official inauguration of the railroad was held on 13 May 1913 with the Ministers of Bolivia and Chile in attendance, along with their respective diplomatic representatives and other officials from both countries.
Chile’s principal obligation to Bolivia was thus complied with. But wasn’t the construction of this railway in which three million pounds sterling was invested, the most effective way of resolving the problem of the plebiscite in Tacna and Arica, with Bolivia’s support and influence? Could it be believed in 1914 that our Government would carry out this plebiscite of the people in those territories in any way before the work on the railway was complete, i.e., when it would have in its favor all the people and all the interests in this work of civilization and progress, which Chilean domination carried out not only to benefit Bolivia’s commercial interests, but also to promote the development and wellbeing of those territories, which have prospered only thanks to the efforts and money from Chile?
302
Annex 115
Annex 115
303
Meanwhile, instead of coming close to seeing the expectations based on the Treaty of 1904 come true, the situation created by that Treaty is now debilitated. It no longer satisfies Bolivia’s aspirations to a direct communication with the Pacific through a railway that gives it an outlet that it can call its own. The old demand to acquire the coastal area granted to it by the Treaties of 1895 has been reborn. Can this destroy the edifice on which the peace and friendship that were solemnly and definitively agreed to in 1904 are built?
The dangerous doctrine that treaties are simply pieces of paper is not the view that prevails in the world today.
Therefore, we do not think that a complication that had disappeared from our difficulties with our neighboring countries 14 years ago can come back to life. On the contrary, it is important to make history, to recall the background, to clear up any doubts, in order to react against the Muslim calm that has been the keynote of our international policy and thereby contribute to escaping from the lack of activity in this country regarding these questions of vital importance for our future destiny.
We cannot nor should we call Bolivia’s friendship into doubt, its loyalty and consistency with the commitments that bind it to our country. We have always considered its aspiration to have a port of its own to be legitimate and respectable. Independent of the situation created by the Peace Treaty with Chile, why couldn’t this aspiration lead to future agreements based on sufficient and equitable compensation?
Meanwhile, in our opinion, we should carry out the entirety of the common objectives that were in view in 1904.
Let us make the railway and the port of Arica a true commercial and political link between Chile and Bolivia; let us take all actions so that Bolivia’s trade and its communication with the Pacific can flourish there, in order to satisfy its current and future needs—such was the spirit of the provisions of the Treaty of 1904 and the obligation that our country accepted, because it was required by our mutual interests
304
Annex 115
Annex 115
305
and the fundamental aspirations of both contracting parties.
Since then, it has logically been appropriate to concentrate our attention and our efforts on improving conditions in Arica, to constitute a first-rate port there in relation to the exceptional importance of the interests that it is called upon to serve.
It is inconceivable that we would voluntarily abandon our own work and fail to look after the important interests that we must protect in that region. How can we resign ourselves to the idea that the railway from Arica to La Paz, which is the shortest and most economic means of communication with Bolivia, must compete with the railway to Mollendo? Isn’t this the best proof of a culpable abandonment of those interests?
The policy, inspired by the objectives that caused the country to assume the obligations stipulated in the Treaty of 1904, could now provide a more definitive direction for the actions of our Government in the territories of Tacna and Arica, which could take the form of two measures which, in our humble opinion, fulfill the objectives that were announced. These measures would be to declare the port of Arica to be free and to make this city the capital of the province of Tacna.
[…]
306
Annex 116
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to the Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile, No 126,
24 May 1919
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 42 to its Memorial
307
308
Annex 116
Annex 116
309
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Worship
La Paz, 24 May 1919
DIPLOMATIC SECTION
No. 126
Re:
Sir,
I have had the pleasure of receiving your official letter No. 197 of 5 May, containing important reports regarding the Mission brought to Bolivia by Mr. Emilio Bello Codesido and the disagreement between Messrs. Eliodoro Yánez and Agustín Edwards due to their different interpretations of their role in the Missions that Chile has accredited to the United States of America.
With regard to the Minister of Chile before our Government, during the last visit he paid to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he confirmed my personal views in connection with the activities of the Chilean representatives close to the Government of the White House.
Intent on removing this matter from the knowledge of the League of Nations and certain of the impossibility of reaching an agreement with Peru, the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs would rather request suggestions or advice from the President of the United States regarding a solution to the problem of the Pacific.
Additionally, as can be inferred from the statements of Mr. Bello Codesido, the Chilean Government believes that the Bolivian longing to possess a
To Mr. Claudio Pinilla
Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile
310
Annex 116
Annex 116
311
port on the Pacific is legitimate and fair and it will seek to meet it through equitable compensation. As I understand it, he fears that, in the meantime, if a powerful international tribunal or an entity with prestige and influence are requested to solve the problem, Chile may be denied any right to compensation or indemnification. Chile senses that the territory will no longer belong to it and will use its best efforts to obtain, instead, the largest moral and material compensation.
If, as it seems, the three countries, Bolivia, Chile and Peru, are currently awaiting a statement by the President of the United States, and if this person is able to provide a harmonious solution, whose sense may be no other than the one he himself has held as to the need to complete nations with a maritime outlet of their own, we must not neglect for a split second our research and our constant and express efforts before the White House. We would be willing to submit the issue to the decision of President Wilson, for him to act as an arbitrator or mediator or simply to guide the three countries with an amicable suggestion, whose influence in these times would give his actions the nature of a final judgment.
The Chilean Minister has employed great efforts to show that Bolivian politics have been, for many years, aimed at supporting Chile’s acquisition of Arica, in order to achieve, through these means, its just aspiration. Has the continuation of Arica’s railroad, at the demand of the Bolivian Government, not been an act intended to diminish
312
Annex 116
Annex 116
313
Peru’s possibilities of recovering that territory? This question and many other reflections were aimed at stressing that Tacna and Arica had to come under Chilean sovereignty, to be transferred to Bolivia.
In turn, I have expressed to the Chilean Minister that any arrangement or negotiation over the territories of Tacna and Arica must be communicated to the Government of Peru or, if possible, through an agreement with it. He found this course of action correct and loyal, although he understands that Peru will raise all kinds of obstacles against a solution that does not entail the reincorporation of these provinces under Peruvian sovereignty.
We at the Ministry believe that the solution will come from Washington and we are encouraged because, if President Wilson has vigorously held a principle in Europe, he will move for it to be applied in the Americas. This principle consists, as you are aware, in granting sovereignty over a port to the country whose trade the port will help develop.
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you the assurance of my highest consideration.
[Illegible signature]
314
Annex 117
Chilean Memorandum of 9 September 1919
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 19 to its Memorial
315
316
Annex 117
Annex 117
317
LEGATION OF CHILE
IN BOLIVIA
MEMORANDUM
I.
The Treaty of Peace and Amity concluded between Chile and Bolivia on 20 October 1904 defines the political relations between the two countries definitively and put an end to all issues resulting from the war of 1879.
II.
Chile has complied with the obligations imposed on it by that Treaty, and it was of the essence of that negotiation to connect the territory of Tacna and Arica to the dominion of Chile, with Bolivia expressly agreeing to cooperate in that result.
III.
Bolivia’s aspiration to a port of its own was replaced by the construction of a railway between the port of Arica and La Paz and the other obligations assumed by Chile.
IV.
The situation created by the Treaty of 1904, the interests in that zone and the security of its northern border impose on Chile the need to retain the maritime coast that is indispensable to it; but, with the intention of laying a solid foundation for the future union of the two countries, Chile is willing to seek that Bolivia acquire its own outlet to the sea, ceding to it an important part of that area to the north of Arica and of the railway line within the territories submitted to the plebiscite stipulated in the Treaty of Ancón.
318
Annex 117
Annex 117
319
V.
Independently of what was established in the Peace Treaty of 1904, Chile accepts to initiate new negotiations aimed at satisfying the aspirations of the friendly country, subject to Chile’s triumph in the plebiscite.
VI.
It would be a matter of a prior agreement to determine the line to indicate the boundary between the areas of Arica and Tacna that would come under the dominion of Chile and Bolivia, respectively, as well as the other commercial compensation or compensation of another kind that would be the basis for the agreement.
VII.
To achieve these purposes, Bolivia would obviously unite its diplomatic action with Chile and would commit to cooperate effectively to ensure the favourable result for Chile in the plebiscite in the territory of Tacna and Arica.
La Paz, 9 September 1919.
320
Annex 118
Minutes of 10 January 1920
(Spanish transcription, English translation, original in Spanish)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 101 to its Memorial
321
322
Annex 118
Annex 118
323
Meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Bolivia, Messrs Emilio Bello Codesido, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Chile and Carlos Gutiérrez, Minister of Foreign Affairs, motivated by the desire to strengthen and make lasting the bonds of friendship between their respective countries through new agreements that encourage the greater development of their political and commercial relations, taking into account the harmony of their interests and reciprocal aspirations, have agreed to initiate these conferences with the aim to exchange general ideas on how to fulfil these high purposes.
The Minister of Chile stated that, as he had already had the opportunity to express to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia by fulfilling the agreeable and honourable mission that has been entrusted to him before this Government, there exists on the part of the Government of Chile the best wish to favour a policy of sincere and closer rapprochement with Bolivia; that for this purpose he reproduces the bases that he submitted, in general terms, to the Honourable Mr. Darío Gutiérrez last September, to search for an agreement that would allow Bolivia to satisfy its aspiration of obtaining its own outlet to the Pacific, independently of the definitive situation created by the provisions of the Treaty of Peace and Amity of 20 October 1904.
The fundamental ideas or points which, in deference to especially friendly feelings towards Bolivia, the representative of Chile, duly authorized by his Government, proposes as bases for an agreement between the two countries are as follows:
I. The Treaty of Peace and Amity celebrated between Chile and Bolivia on 20 October 1904 defines the political relations of the two countries in a definitive manner and put an end to all the questions derived from the war of 1879.
II. Chile has fulfilled the obligations that said Treaty imposed on it, and the essence of that negotiation was to link the territory of Tacna and Arica to Chile’s dominion, Bolivia expressly committing to cooperate to that result.
324
Annex 118
Annex 118
325
III. The Bolivian aspiration to its own port was replaced by the construction of the railway that connects the port of Arica with El Alto de la Paz and the rest of the obligations undertaken by Chile.
IV. The situation created by the Treaty of 1904, the interests located in that zone and the security of its northern frontier, require Chile to preserve the maritime coast that is indispensable to it; however, for the purpose of founding the future union of the two countries on solid ground, Chile is willing to seek that Bolivia acquire its own access to the sea, ceding to it an important part of that zone in the north of Arica and of the railway line which is within the territories subject to the plebiscite stipulated in the Treaty of Ancón.
V. Independently of what was established in the Treaty of Peace of 1904, Chile accepts to initiate new negotiations directed at satisfying the aspiration of the friendly country, subject to the victory of Chile in the plebiscite.
VI. A prior agreement would determine the line that must indicate the limit between the zones of Arica and Tacna that would pass to the dominion of Chile and Bolivia, respectively, as well as all other commercial compensations or compensations of another nature that are the basis of the agreement.
VII.- To achieve these objectives, Bolivia would of course coordinate its diplomatic action with that of Chile and would agree to cooperate effectively to secure a favourable result for Chile in the plebiscite over the territory of Tacna and Arica.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that the Government of Bolivia was very pleased that this welcome mission had been entrusted to one of the most eminent public figures in Chile, His Excellency Mister Emilio Bello Codesido, and receives with utmost pleasure the statement of the representative of the friendly country, in the sense that there exists on the part of his Government the best wish to promote a policy of sincere and closer rapprochement with Bolivia. To that effect, the Minister reproduces the bases which were submitted, in general terms, to the honourable Mr. Dario Gutiérrez when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs, last September, to search for an agreement that could allow Bolivia to obtain an outlet of its own to the sea.
326
Annex 118
Annex 118
327
Taking note of the fundamental ideas or points of the Chilean proposal, and being motivated by identical purposes of cordiality and political rapprochement, the Government of Bolivia expresses the following:
I.- The Treaty celebrated between Bolivia and Chile on 20 October 1904 re-establishes the relations of peace and amity between the two Republics, putting an end to the regime established by the Truce Pact; recognizes Chile’s dominion over the territories that the Truce Pact put under its administration; establishes the conditions of the construction of a railway from Arica to El Alto de la Paz, as well as the pecuniary indemnification and debt acknowledgment; and sets forth provisions of a commercial nature.
II.- Bolivia has formulated claims, which are still pending, regarding the execution of some of the commitments undertaken by Chile in the said Treaty of Peace and Amity.
Regarding the idea of Bolivia’s cooperation to bring Tacna and Arica under the sovereignty of Chile as a result of the negotiation of peace and amity concluded in 1904, this was only stated in recorded minutes which reflected the personal impression of a Bolivian diplomat, without receiving approval by either the Government or the Congress of this country, but rather adverse statements by public powers.
III.- Bolivia’s aspiration to its own port on the Pacific has not diminished at any time of its history and has reached greater intensity at the present time. The railway of Arica to El Alto de La Paz, which has facilitated Bolivian trade through that route, contributes to stimulate, for this circumstance, the legitimate aspiration of obtaining that that port be incorporated into Bolivia’s sovereignty. But that aspiration will not prompt Bolivia to commit any act contrary to the law.
IV.- The willingness shown by Chile to seek that Bolivia acquire its own outlet to the sea, ceding an important part of the zone to the north of Arica, and of the railway line that is within the territories submitted to the plebiscite stipulated in the Treaty of Ancón, opens the path to more friendly relations between the two countries, which are
328
Annex 118
Annex 118
329
very suitable for founding on solid ground, in accordance with the common purpose, the future union of the two peoples.
V.- Since, “independently of what was established in the Treaty of Peace of 1904, Chile accepts initiating new negotiations directed to satisfying the aspiration of the friendly country, subject to the victory of Chile in the plebiscite,” Bolivia, far from being insensitive to a statement as spontaneous as it is friendly, acknowledges the elevated spirit that informs it.
Bolivia, which as a consequence of the war of 1879 agreed, due to special circumstances, to sign the Treaty of 20 October of 1904, has been landlocked in the middle of its mountains and jungles, without its own outlet to the ocean; however, it considers that its right to free access to the sea has not expired, but rather is reinforced by evidence of its unavoidable need, which is not only recognized by universal diplomacy, but which experience makes particularly apparent.
It is by virtue of this that this country considers indispensable, to complete its geographical structure, the acquisition of a port capable of satisfying its commercial and political needs, as a sovereign nation with the same features found in all powers of America and the world as a whole.
Bolivia has expressed its wish to incorporate Arica to its territorial dominion, because such port, due to its situation in the planet, at a latitude which corresponds to that of important Bolivian centers and linked by a railway with the city of La Paz, will provide greater benefits to the Bolivian activity than to those of other nations.
The previous concept is perfectly confirmed by past and present facts, which will demonstrate what has been said. Suffice it to mention that the commercial activity in Arica has and continues to relate almost exclusively to merchandise imported into and exported from Bolivia.
Moreover, the necessity for Bolivia to have its own port has been recognized by Chile itself in several instances of its History. In the treaties of May 1895 it even offered to this country its expectation of future rights over the territories of Tacna and Arica.
330
Annex 118
Annex 118
331
At present, absolutely lacking its own outlet to the sea, it aspires to obtain Arica, not as a claim of this time, but as a traditional yearning, which dates back before its birth to an autonomous life.
In fact, when the Viceroy of Lima, don Francisco de Toledo, founded the port of Arica in the 16th century, he had essentially aimed to serve the commerce of the then Real Audiencia of Charcas, now Bolivia.
Subsequently, in the dawn of the Bolivian independence, the desire to incorporate Tacna and Arica to Alto Perú was expressed through requests presented to the founders of this nationality, Bolívar and Sucre, by the inhabitants of these districts, who requested its annexation to Bolivia as a logical continuation of the close and exclusive contact with the brand new political entity.
What arises from the above is the fact that, when aspiring to incorporate Tacna and Arica to its sovereignty, Bolivia is acting not only by virtue of having lost its rights over its former Coast, but also following a tradition that, in justice, must be considered as a right that it acquired over those territories, given that an agreement was already celebrated in 1826, assigning them to the Alto Perú, a pact that was not concluded for circumstances that do not diminish the legitimacy of that international act.
Now that the causes of those facts have not changed, and that they have become even stronger, Bolivia believes that, in light of the spontaneous friendly expression of Chile, it could expect from it an effective cooperation to acquire the port of Arica over which the neighbor country and friend has an expectation of a future right depending on the plebiscite agreed upon in the Treaty of Ancón.
The Minister of Chile, in turn, expressed that:
Notwithstanding the divergent aspirations that arise from the statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and referring only to the historical precedents and to the spirit that presided over the execution of the definitive Treaty of Peace and Amity between Chile and Bolivia, the discussion of which would be inopportune at this moment, he undoubtedly considers
332
Annex 118
Annex 118
333
that the idea of incorporating the territory of Tacna and Arica into Chile’s dominion was essential in the negotiations of the Treaty of 1904, both because of the great interests that by virtue of the same Treaty would link even more that territory to the Chilean dominion and because that same territory (in particular the city and port of Arica) constitutes the necessary limit for security and an indispensable complement of its northern frontier.
On the other hand, the cession of the port of Arica would entail the cession of all the territory of Tacna and Arica since the idea of interrupting the continuity of the Chilean territory in the north would not be admissible. And as this cession would, in any event, be subject to the condition that Chile acquire definitive sovereignty over the territories subject to the plebiscite established in the Treaty of Ancón, by winning in the election to take place there. Compliance with this condition would become practically impossible if Chile loses the expectation of incorporating into its sovereignty the territory in which its own effort and the vote of its nationals should decide the victory in its favour.
The cession would therefore be illusory, as the basis on which it rests would become, in such a case, a contingency which involves certain danger to the common interests that Bolivia and Chile have placed therein by their mutual agreement embodied in a solemn Treaty.
These considerations explain and justify the terms in which it has been necessary to frame the bases submitted by the representative of Chile as a practical means to offer Bolivia all that, within what is feasible, may signify effective cooperation for the achievement of its legitimate aspirations and a sincere and generous effort put to the service of a policy of close rapprochement and true solidarity.
Bolivia, which is not a direct party to the dispute of the Pacific, could, by means of an agreement with Chile, which would naturally and logically derive from the existing ties between the two countries, acquire the expectation of integrating to its territory an important and extensive maritime province, escaping its landlocked situation.
334
Annex 118
Annex 118
335
Chile would be willing to turn Arica into a free port and to offer Bolivia all the possible advantages in it for the needs of its transit trade, creating there a centre of common activities for the benefit of the common interests which tend to strengthen the friendship and the political and commercial union of both countries:
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, in turn, expressed.-
That the cession of Arica to Bolivia would not entail a unilateral advantage in favour of this country, but a concession that should be compensated for, taking into account the mutual interests and ensuring an even more stable situation of cordiality.
The reciprocity of concessions would be, without a doubt, taken into account by those participating in the plebiscite to be performed and hence the concerns raised by the Minister of Chile would disappear.
Bolivia holds on to the hope that whatever course international events may take to determine the ultimate fate of the Tacna and Arica provinces, the nation entitled to dispose of those territories shall recognize, as the others recognize, that the Arica port is meant to be Bolivian, because its situation in the continent, linked to interests of a superior order, favours this country in that fundamental desire of its autonomous life, added to the fact that the incorporation of Arica to the Bolivian sovereignty would not cause any notable disadvantage to other nations, while its stay under foreign power would only benefit Bolivia; although without the advantages of the absolute sovereignty that it seeks.
In effect, Chile and Peru, which, as signatories of the Treaty of Ancón, dispute the definitive dominion of Tacna and Arica, possess a very vast coast on the Pacific Ocean. It is not to be assumed that they aspire to enlarge their maritime dominions, even at the expense of the sacrifice of the legitimate longing of a brother country, which pursues the acquisition of a port that does not serve as an entry into or exit from either Chile or Peru.
As for foreign interests settled in this region, it is understood that they will, in any event, be recognized through the change of sovereignty, in accordance with the
336
Annex 118
Annex 118
337
principles of international law, therefore, the holders of estates and other rights will not suffer any prejudice.
The legal status that Bolivia intends to assume in the dispute regarding the fate of the Tacna and Arica provinces is based upon the already mentioned necessity for this country to acquire a port that complements its geographical structure as a sovereign entity. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia had already stated in a document that had been became public knowledge that:
“this anomalous and monstrous situation of a lush nation that possesses enormous natural resources, within an area of more than a million square kilometres, is good cause for restlessness and for danger for the peace of the continent.”
The incorporation of Arica under the sovereignty of Bolivia would constitute an act of plausible international equity and would put an end to an odious dispute maintained by two brother peoples which, as has been stated, do not benefit in any way from the dominion over this territory.
It is understood that Bolivia, faithful to its traditional policy of respect for the law, will not attempt to realize its aspiration of acquiring a maritime coast but within its sacred precepts.
Such is the way in which the Bolivian diplomacy perseveres before the entire world; and in view of the spontaneous and friendly manifestation on the part of Chile, the Government of Bolivia believes to be able to expect from the fellow country an effective collaboration for the accomplishment of its primordial desire of acquiring a port on the Pacific, both countries proceeding in the harmony of interests that should characterize international relations.
For this reason and despite the statement of His Excellency Minister of Chile, contrary to the wishes expressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, the Government of this country invites the sister nation to a calm examination of the facts, so that it can be decided by an agreement favourable to Bolivia’s wishes, in return for fair
338
Annex 118
Annex 118
339
compensation that guarantees closer ties and more stable cordiality.
Said compensation shall be the object of a previous agreement to avoid differences over details hindering the execution of what it is essential.
Given that the present declarations do not contain provisions that create rights or obligations for the States whose representatives make them, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia states that, maintaining the freedom of both Governments to direct their diplomatic efforts in a way which best takes into account their respective interests and addresses, if necessary, the powers or other entities that may cooperate most effectively in the achievement of their wishes, it is the duty of his country to reiterate to Chile what was previously stated, persuaded that in case Bolivia had the expectation of acquiring the Port of Arica an agreement could be executed that would take into account the common purpose of further consolidating the friendship between the two nations.
With the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and the Plenipotentiary Minister of Chile, in the name of their respective governments, it was agreed to declare this first conference finished and make a record of it in these minutes which are made in two copies in the city of La Paz, on ten January 1920
Carlos Gutiérrez
Emilio Bello C.
340
Annex 118
Annex 118
341
342
Annex 118
Annex 118
343
344
Annex 118
Annex 118
345
346
Annex 118
Annex 118
347
348
Annex 118
Annex 118
349
350
Annex 118
Annex 118
351
352
Annex 118
Annex 118
353
354
Annex 118
Annex 118
355
356
Annex 119
Statement by the Delegate of Chile, Augustín Edwards, during the Fifth Plenary Meeting of the League of Nations Assembly,
7 September 1921
(Original in French and English)
League of Nations, The Records of the Second Assembly, Plenary Meetings (1921), pp 44-54
357
358
Annex 119
Annex 119
359
360
Annex 119
Annex 119
361
362
Annex 119
Annex 119
363
364
Annex 119
Annex 119
365
366
Annex 119
Annex 119
367
368
Annex 119
Annex 120
Records of the Twenty-Second Plenary Meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations, 28 September 1921
(extract)
(Original in French and English)
League of Nations, The Records of the Second Assembly, Plenary Meetings (1921), pp 465-471
369
370
Annex 120
Annex 120
371
372
Annex 120
Annex 120
373
374
Annex 120
Annex 120
375
376
Annex 120
Annex 121
A. Arguedas, General History of Bolivia (1922), pp 259-261
(extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
377
378
Annex 121
HISTORIA GENERAL DE BOLIVIA 259Elegido diputado por La Paz no había querido Corral asistir a la cámara y prefirió quedar capitaneando la chusma dé su partido y seguir gozando de las fruiciones de su popularidad en su propia casa, convertiría en una especie de casa de gobierno, pues -había centinelas en la puerta y una consigna de entrada que sólo conocían sus íntimos y con los que ostensiblemente iba tramando la revolución. Hízose necesario tomar alguna medida, "y el prefecto hizo notificar al doctor Corral, en la noche del 7 de septiembre, que disolviera la gente que tenía reunida en su casa y entregar las armas; cumplió aquel lo primero, expresando que en cuanto a armas no !as tenía". Hubo que atacar la casa y obtener por la fuerza lo que de grado no pudo conseguirse reduciendo a prisión a Corral y varios de sus amigos. Al tener conocimiento de estos hechos, los partidarios de Corral en la cámara, aunque pocos, tomaron con bastante ardimiento la defensa de su jefe, quien tuvo el tacto político de enviar la renuncia de su cargo de diputado, que fue aceptada. La prensa toda de oposición se exasperó acusando de inconstitucionales los actos de las autorida-des paceñas; y era tal la excitación del público que muchos creían inevitable una revolución. Entonces el congreso autorizó al gobierno para hacer uso de las medidas de seguridad otorgadas por la Carta y luego se puso a discutir el complicado asunto de las comunidades indígenas dando al fin una ley, por la que dispuso que todo indio poseedor de terrenos bajo cualesquiera denominaciones, tenía dominio absoluto sobre ellos con todas las facultades amparadas por derecho; que una vez extendidos los títulos de propiedad ya la ley no reconocía comunidades, etc., etc. Por último, y ese fue el asunto más debatido en ese congreso, se pasó a considerar el tratado de límites con Chile. Se tiene dicho que los dos gobiernos habían encontrado insuperables dificultades para la ejecución del tratado concluido en tiempos de Melgarejo y que si bien respondía en parte a un espíritu de justificación al tratar de deslindar las posesiones territoriales, su aspecto odioso y aún depresivo para la dignidad nacional era el contrato absurdo de la participación de ambos gobiernos en los dere-chos sobre los impuestos a los minerales exportados. Puestos de acuerdo sobre este punto los dos gobiernos y reconocida la necesidad de ajustar otro convenio más ventajoso para ambos, se había firmado el 5 de diciembre de 1872 el pacto Corral-Lindsay que contenía esta explícita declaración: 
Annex 121
379
GENERAL
HISTORY OF
BOLIVIA
[…]
It has been said that both governments had found insurmountable obstacles in the execution of the treaty that was concluded in times of Melgarejo and that, while it responded in part to a spirit of justification by trying to define territorial possessions, its hateful and even depressing aspect for national dignity was the absurd agreement on participation by both governments in the rights over exported mineral taxes.
Once both governments were able to agree on this point and the need to create a more advantageous agreement for both of them was acknowledged, the Corral-Lindsay Agreement was signed on 5 December 1872 and included this express statement:
380
Annex 121
ARCHIVO Y BIBLIOTECA NACIONALES DE BOLIVIA 260"Los dos gobiernos convienen en seguir negociando pacífica y amigablemente con el objeto de revisar o abrogar el tratado del 10 de agosto de 1866, sustituyéndolo con otro que consulte mejor los recíprocos intereses de las dos repúblicas hermanas, a fin de quitar todo motivo de cuestiones futuras y bajo la base inamovible del grado 24 y de las altas cumbres de la gran Cordillera de los Andes". Últimamente, entre el ministro de negocios extranjeros de Frías, don Mariano Baptista y el encargado de negocios de Chile, don Carlos Walker Martínez, se había concluido otro tratado de límites, conteniendo dos puntos esenciales: primero, que "el paralelo del grado 24 desde el mar hasta la cordillera de los Andes en el divorcia aquarum es el límite entre las repúblicas de Bolivia y Chile", y, segundo, que "los depósitos de huano existentes o que en adelante se descubran en- el perímetro de que habla el artículo anterior, serán partibles por mitad entre Bolivia y Chile". La discusión de este grave asunto se inició el 14 de octubre y duró hasta el 5 de noviembre por los largos y vehementes debates a que dio lugar; pero el tratado hubo de ser aprobado no obstante de que no faltaron representantes a quienes fue fácil demostrar, acaso con el asentimiento del mismo ejecutivo, que dicho pacto, en lo con-cerniente a los límites, era, "inexacto, oscuro, peligroso". Pero la cuestión de tratados más o menos equitables, más o menos liberales, más o menos legítimos, en suma, sobre este punto, apenas era un frágil escollo para detener por corto tiempo el empuje avasallador de la política chilena que perseguía como un objetivo no sólo de gran trascendencia, sino de importancia vital, el entrar en posesión de esos territorios cuyas ingentes riquezas podían edificar la grandeza de cualquier otra nación menos imprevisora que la, boliviana. Capitalistas e industriales chilenos se habían posesionado de la zona privilegiada, y, en su empuje, fundaba el gobierno de Chile un título para mantener su vigilancia sobre el litoral de la nación desquiciada y revoltosa cuya única preocupación excluyente era improvisar y demoler caudillos, ajena casi del todo a emprender obra constructiva en el gobierno. Porque ya la composición misma de los principales centros poblados del Litoral, como Antofagasta, v. gr., hacía ver la diferencia sin límites entre las políticas de ambos países, pues esa ciudad, según cómputos que la prensa chilena se placía en divulgar, contaba a mediados de ese año de 1874 con 6,000 almas con un porcentaje de nacionalidad bastante significativo:
Annex 121
381
“Both governments agree that they will pursue peaceful and amicable negotiations with the aim to review or repeal the Treaty of 10 August 1866, replacing it with another treaty that better satisfies the reciprocal interests of these sister republics in order to remove any element that may cause future issues and upon the immovable base of the 24th parallel and the high summits of the Andes.”
Ultimately, the Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Frías administration, Mr. Mariano Baptista, and the chargé d’affaires of Chile, Mr. Carlos Walker Martínez, concluded another boundary treaty that covered two essential points: First, that the “24th parallel from the ocean to the Andes in the water boundary is the boundary between the republics of Bolivia and Chile,” and second, that “existing or future guano deposits found in the perimeter defined in the previous section shall be divided in half between Bolivia and Chile.”
The discussion over this serious issue started on 14 October and lasted until 5 November on account of the long and vehement debates that followed; however, the treaty was approved even though there was no lack of representatives who easily proved, perhaps even with the consent of the Executive itself, that such agreement was “inaccurate, dark, dangerous” as far as boundaries were concerned.
However, the issue of more or less equitable, more or less conservative, more or less legitimate treaties was, on this point, merely a fragile hurdle to briefly stop the overwhelming drive of Chilean politics for which the fundamental and vital purpose was to gain possession of those territories whose enormous wealth could build the greatness of any other nation less short-sighted than Bolivia.
Chilean capitalists and industrialists were in possession of this privileged area, and it was from their encouragement that the government of Chile based its title to maintain surveillance over the coastal area of a deranged and rebellious nation, whose only concern was to improvise and bring down leaders [caudillos], almost totally foreign to constructive work undertaken in the government.
Even the composition of the largest cities in Littoral, like Antofagasta, for e.g., emphasized the dramatic difference between the politics of both countries because in that there were 6,000 souls in mid-1874 with a quite meaningful nationality percentage city according to the estimations the Chilean press would proudly publish:
382
Annex 121
HISTORIA GENERAL DE BOLIVIA 261Chilenos ...................................................93 % Bolivianos ...................................................2 “ Europeos ....................................................11/2 “ Americanos del Norte y Sur………………… 1 “ Asiáticos y otros .........................................1 “ Todavía la asamblea entró a ocuparse de otros asuntos no menos graves, como el relativo al ferrocarril Madera-Mamoré. Al fin la convicción se había-hecho en algunos diputados de que en el fondo de ese asunto sólo se dejaban ver las maniobras hábiles e interesadas de un hombre astuto y despreocupado como el coronel Church, de quien ya se pudo saber, casi con certeza, de que no contaba con los capitales suficientes para emprender la obra; pero la mayoría de la cámara, torpemente seducida por las engañosas alucinaciones del patriotismo verboso, no quiso rendirse a la evidencia y confirmó en todos sus puntos el contrato antes estipulado. Cerró sus puertas el congreso el 25 de noviembre, y el 30 un batallón se amotinaba en Cochabamba bajo el pretexto de que no estaba pagado al día, y proclamaba jefe superior al general Quevedo, y, dos días después, presidente de la república, al general Daza. Inmediatamente el gobierno, al primer aviso, envió al mismo Daza, ministro de la guerra, a sofocar la revuelta con su batallón; y Daza tuvo el buen sentido de desaprobar la revuelta, bien que íntimamente se sintiese halagado en su amor propio de caudillo militar. Los partidarios dé Quevedo secundaron en La Paz el movimiento de Cochabamba, y al saberlo el general emprendió precipitado viaje de Sucre e hizo su entrada en la ciudad el 5 de enero de 1875 en medio de la gozosa aclamación de sus parciales, que eran dueños, de La Paz y habían constituido sus propias autoridades. Distinta en sus fines era entretanto la conducta del caudillo Corral, que, refugiado en Puno, esperaba allí el desarrollo de los acontecimientos, seguro de jugar en ellos rol preponderante. En su retiro supo, mediante cartas de sus partidarios, los movimientos de Cochabamba y la Paz, concibiendo entonces el proyecto de someterse y apoyar al gobierno para después arreglar los hechos de manera que redundasen en su propio beneficio. Sus cálculos eran lógicos y sencillos. El no podía ponerse de acuerdo con el general Quevedo, implacable enemigo suyo y con quien había sostenido la más ardiente lucha de su vida no sólo en el terreno de las ideas sino aún en los campos de batalla. Los dos habían estado colocados siempre en campos antagónicos: el uno,
Annex 121
383
Chilean……………………………………
93%
Bolivian……………………………………
2 “
European…………………………………
11/2 “
North and South Americans………………
1 “
Asian and other…………………………….
1 “
384
Annex 122
Letter from A. Gutierrez, Bolivian Delegate to the General Assembly of the League of Nations, to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, 8 September 1922
(Original in French and English)
Archives of the United Nations
385
386
Annex 122
Annex 122
387
388
Annex 123
Letter from Manuel Rivas-Vicuña, Chilean Delegate to the General Assembly of the League of Nations, to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, 19 September 1922
(Original in French and English)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
389
390
Annex 123
Annex 123
391
392
Annex 124
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 27 January 1923
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 47 to its Memorial
393
394
Annex 124
Annex 124
395
Bolivian Delegation (copy)
Santiago, 27 January 1923.
Minister,
When the
Delegates of most of the civilized nations met for the first time in Geneva, to deal with the world affairs, Bolivia believed that it was an act of good international policy, framed in the spirit of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, to bring to the attention of friendly countries the dangerous and difficult situation that the Treaty of 20 October 1904 had created. In consequence, it requested the revision of that pact, which had been complied with most faithfully by my country, which has devoted, and devotes, undeniable compliance with its international commitments.
The purpose of the Bolivian
Government was limited to obtaining the moral support of the nations represented there for the realization of a longing of my country, latent and unwavering from the day following the signature of said Peace Treaty: its maritime reintegration through the revision of the pact that had deprived it of that essential condition for its free development of the nationality, for the
To His Excellency
Luis Izquierdo,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile.
Hand delivered.–
396
Annex 124
Annex 124
397
legitimate expansion of its material progress and for the necessary exploitation of the riches of its privileged soil.
Your Excellency’s Government, by opposing the Bolivian claim – which did not go any further, I insist upon saying it, than to obtain the recommendation to revise this Treaty, and, therefore, to give more prestige to the amicable negotiations that would follow – stated by way of the president of its Delegation, that Chile was disposed to enter into direct negotiations aimed at satisfying Bolivia’s aspirations. In an identical and similar manner, but on different occasions, statements have also been made by some of the most representative personalities of this Nation; and recently, His Excellency the President of the Republic has delivered, in his Address to the Congress, the following words: “For this purpose to be able to have its natural use, it is necessary that the conviction takes hold in Bolivia that, in an environment of brotherhood and harmony, a cordial desire will only be found in our country to seek solutions, that, with reference to our legitimate rights, satisfy its aspirations in as much as possible”.
398
Annex 124
Annex 124
399
Thus, based in these reiterated declarations, and not entertaining the slightest doubt about his sincerity, His Excellency the President of the Republic of Bolivia has instructed me to propose to the Your Excellency’s President the revision of the Treaty of 20 October 1904 in order to open the doors to a new international situation that would allow Bolivia to live in full possession of its sovereignty, with its own access to the sea, and where it could have, as well as free trade with all people of the globe, the attributes by which the responsibilities of its global commitments in the increasing development of moral and economic activities are given effect.
I am particularly pleased to express to Your Excellency my confidence that this invitation will be greeted with the sympathy it deserves, as it is aimed merely at strengthening the relations of friendship that my country wants to maintain at all times with the Republic of Chile and providing, on the other hand, Your Excellency’s Government with a happy occasion to demonstrate the noble spirit that animates it to harmonize the high interests of our respective nations.
I offer Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and distinguished consideration.
Signed: Ricardo Jaimes Freyre.
True copy of the [Signed]
original note
400
Annex 125
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Special Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile, 6 February 1923
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 48 to its Memorial
401
402
Annex 125
Annex 125
403
[Seal]
Republic of Chile
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Sec. Da. No 20
Santiago, 6 February 1923,
Minister,
I was pleased to receive the note from Your Excellency, dated 27 January, in which Your Excellency states that the Honourable President of Bolivia has instructed Your Excellency to propose to the Government of Chile the revision of the Treaty of 20 October 1904 in order to open the door to a new international scenario that allows Bolivia to obtain full possession of its sovereignty, with its own access to the sea.
Your Excellency considers it worth recalling that your Government believed that submitting to the General Assembly in Geneva the dangerous and complicated situation created by this Treaty – which has been most faithfully applied by Bolivia with the utmost compliance, at all times, of its international commitments – was, in accordance with the spirit of the stipulations of the Pact of Versailles, an act of positive international policy. Your Excellency further states that the sole objective of the Bolivian Government was to
TO: HIS EXCELLENCY MR RICARDO JAIMES FREYRE, SPECIAL ENVOY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF BOLIVIA.—
404
Annex 125
Annex 125
405
obtain moral support from the nations represented in Geneva for this achievement fulfilling a long-awaited dream for its country, since the day the Peace Treaty was signed, and the Bolivian claim was not far from obtaining a recommendation for the revision of this Treaty, and as such, assign greater recognition to the amicable proceedings arising out of it.
The Government of Chile is pleased to take note of Your Excellency’s statements and, in accordance with the stance it has taken each time that Your Excellency’s Government has considered timely to request or propose the revision of the Peace Treaty, it now insists that it shall not accept, not even in principle, the revision of a Pact that was freely entered into, twenty years after the Truce Agreement, and at a time when both Parties could easily assess the sacrifices they were making and the compensations received in exchange. The Peace Treaty is not revisable; it is by its very nature definitive and my Government has complied with it with the same loyalty and acceptance of international commitments that your Excellency invokes in favour of Bolivia.
Nonetheless, and in accordance with the declarations made by our Representatives to the League of Nations and the words of His Excellency the President of the Republic that Your Excellency refers to, my Government maintains its purpose to listen, with the utmost spirit of conciliation and equity, to the proposals that Your Excellency’s Government wishes to submit in order to celebrate a new Pact regarding Bolivia’s situation, but without modifying the Peace Treaty and without interrupting the continuity of the Chilean territory.
I have the honour to inform Your Excellency, with the strongest and most sincere desire to strengthen the
406
Annex 125
Annex 125
407
friendship with the country Your Excellency represents with such dignity and by express mandate of His Excellency the President of the Republic, that the Government of Chile will devote great efforts to consult Your Excellency, in light of the concrete proposals that Bolivia submits and when appropriate, the bases of direct negotiations leading, through mutual compensation and without detriment to inalienable rights, to the fulfilment of this longing.
Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurance of my most sincere and highest consideration.
[Signed L Izquierdo]
408
Annex 126
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Special Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile, 22 February 1923
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 50 to its Memorial
409
410
Annex 126
Annex 126
411
[Seal]
Republic of Chile
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
SEC. Da. No 435
Santiago, 22 February 1923.
Dear Minister:
In accordance with instructions from His Excellency the President of the Republic, I have the honor of answering the notes that Your Excellency has addressed to me on the 12th and 15th of this month.
In the first of these, Your Excellency laments that my government has not recognized the revision of the Treaty of 20 October 1904 as a principle for the negotiations aimed at satisfying Bolivia’s legitimate aspirations, and feels that Bolivia’s maritime claim cannot be situated outside the legal background of the Treaty. Your Excellency adds that international pacts, including ones of peace, may be modified and are modified by the will of the parties jointly, and recalls that the Treaty of Versailles, signed by Bolivia and Chile, includes the principle that the League of Nations may from time to time reexamine treaties that have become inapplicable.
In spite of the intentions that encourage it to consider Bolivia’s aspirations with the fullest spirit of equity and harmony, the Chilean Government must maintain its resistance to accepting the revision of the Treaty of 1904, which put an end to the state of truce that existed between our two countries and settled the war that, unfortunately, had separated them. I do not need to add that my government’s decision results from its firm intention scrupulously to maintain the respect
TO HIS EXC. MR. RICARDO JAIMES FREYRE,
Special Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia in Chile.
412
Annex 126
Annex 126
413
that is required for international treaties, which is the fundamental basis for the Treaty of Versailles, invoked by Your Excellency.
Your Excellency will permit me to remind you that when the Chilean Government recognized the current Bolivian Government, our Delegation in La Paz expressly confirmed the trust that the solemn declarations, made to the Diplomatic Corps, in a note dated 19 July 1920, deserved, according to which Bolivia would faithfully respect all the treaties and contracts signed by the prior governments, once the faith of the Republic is committed in them, and governments, regardless of the form in which they are constituted, are nothing more than the interpreters of the honor and faith of a nation. It would be useless to discuss in the abstract whether peace treaties are by nature permanent and inviolable as long as the force of the historical events that gave rise to them subsists. The revision of our treaty, furthermore, is not a necessary legal condition for entering into negotiations to realise Bolivia’s desires: that Treaty does not contain any other territorial stipulation than the one declaring Chile’s absolute and perpetual dominion of the area of the former Littoral included in the Atacama Desert, which had been the subject of a long dispute between the two countries. For obvious and incontrovertible reasons, on which there is no need to insist and which cannot but sway the judgment of Your Excellency’s Government, Chile will never recognize the obligation to give a port to Bolivia within that zone, because it was ceded to us definitively and unconditionally in 1904, and also, because, as I said in my note of the 6th of this month, such recognition would interrupt the continuity of its own territory; however, without
414
Annex 126
Annex 126
415
modifying the Treaty and leaving its provisions intact and in full force and effect, there is no reason to fear that the well intentioned efforts of the two Governments would not find a way to satisfy Bolivia’s aspirations, provided that they are limited to seeking free access to the sea and do not take the form of the maritime vindication that Your Excellency’s note suggests. I would like to take this opportunity to state, once again, my Government’s willingness to discuss the proposals that the Bolivian Government wishes to present in this regard.
Your Excellency stated that it could be demonstrated that the Peace Treaty was not a completely voluntary act by Bolivia, even though it was signed twenty years after the Truce, and that it could also be proven that the treaty has not been duly complied with by Chile, with respect to arbitration and the nitrate deposits in the Toco. You declined to discuss that matter, and for my part I will follow your lead, and merely state that the opinions of Your Excellency cannot be reconciled with those in the book “The Peace Treaty with Chile” written by Mr. Gutiérrez, negotiator of the Treaty and Bolivia’s authorised foreign policy representative, nor can it be reconciled with the conclusions of the notes exchanged between the Delegation of Bolivia in Santiago and the Government of Chile in 1910.
At the end of Your Excellency’s note, you state that the Government of Bolivia, in view of the fact that you proposal did not receive the response that your country expected, prefers to terminate the negotiations initiated by Your Excellency. My Government can only respect that resolution, although it regrets that the negotiations have been terminated, since their aim was, as Your Excellency well stated, to seek a firm and secure basis on which Bolivia’s aspirations could be reconciled with Chile’s interests.
416
Annex 126
Annex 126
417
The purpose of the second note from Your Excellency is to inform me that Your Excellency’s Government has found it appropriate to change its decision to be represented at the Pan-American Conference, which has been adopted. The Government of Bolivia now considers it preferable not to attend, although as Your Excellency put it, this does not constitute a hostile act towards the Government of Chile, with which that of Bolivia desires to cultivate good and cordial relations.
His Excellency the President of the Republic has asked me to inform Your Excellency that he laments Bolivia’s absence and thanks you for the declaration that I have just reproduced. I can assure Your Excellency, and I am pleased to do so, that my Government duly appreciates this declaration and takes note of it with particular satisfaction.
I reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration.
[Signed L Izquierdo.]
418
Annex 127
“President Alessandri explains the guidelines of Chile’s foreign policy”, El Mercurio (Chile), 4 April 1923
(extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 125 to its Memorial
419
420
Annex 127
Annex 127
421
President Alessandri explains the guidelines of Chile’s Foreign Policy
Profile of the Head of State. His career and his unfailing optimism.
Sincerity and concision when he states his point of view.
First outcomes of the Pan-American alliance. Possibilities of cooperation
between the League of Nations and the Pan-American Union
THE FEELING OF THE COUNTRIES OF THE AMERICAS ON THE MONROE DOCTRINE
Chile confidently awaits the arbitral award of Washington and shows support to Bolivia’s port aspirations
THE PRESIDENT LONGS TO COOPERATE TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION OF LOW-INCOME CLASSES
[…]
422
Annex 127
Annex 127
423
–
Would the President be willing to consider and satisfy Bolivia’s port aspirations?
–
Absolutely. If the arbitral award, which will naturally be based in law and the principle of justice, so provides, I will generously consider Bolivia’s aspirations in the manner and under the terms that have been clearly and previously established in the note of the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, addressed to the Minister of Bolivia in Chile on 6 February: “This will be the new and valuable contribution of my country to the harmony of America since, legally, we have no commitment towards Bolivia. We have had our relations completely and definitively settled by the solemn faith undertaken when both countries signed the Treaty of Peace and Amity on 20 October 1904. The war with Bolivia ended upon the signing of the Truce Pact of 4 April 1884 after lengthy and peaceful negotiations. This treaty, which was temporary in nature, was replaced by the aforementioned final treaty, which reestablished peaceful and friendly relations between both Republics, acknowledged Chile’s absolute and perpetual dominion over the occupied territories by virtue of the Truce Pact, outlined the boundaries between the two countries, and set out the procedure to be followed by the commission in charge of demarcating the new boundaries.
Chile agreed to build, at its own expense, a railway that would link the port of Arica with El Alto de La Paz, having agreed that half of that railway would, after a few years, become the property of Bolivia. Chile agreed to guarantee up to 5 percent of interest on the capital that would be invested by Bolivia in the following railways, the construction of which should begin within a period of 30 years: Oyuní to Potosí; Oruro to La Paz; Oruro to La Paz, via Cochabamba to Santa Cruz; from La Paz to the Beni region, and from Potosí via Sucre and Lagunillas to Santa Cruz. Bolivia was given 300,000 pounds sterling. Chile agreed to pay and acknowledge the debts owed to Bolivia, which amounted to 6,000,000 pesos in gold of 18 pence; Chile further recognised in favor of Bolivia the fullest and most unrestricted right of commercial transit in its territory and its Pacific ports in perpetuity; establishing customs agencies was also authorised in the ports which it may designate for its commerce, and several commercial licenses were granted.
This Treaty, which was highly beneficial to Bolivia and gave it free and perpetual access to the Pacific Ocean, was established on the condition that such country renounce its right to any port claims in the Pacific and Chile, the victorious country, fully paid for the territory that was ceded, since the pecuniary obligations imposed on Chile, which have been religiously performed, represent for Chile an approximate cost of around eight million pounds sterling.
424
Annex 127
Annex 127
425
Therefore, this is a case in which the victorious country, expressing its brotherly desire, seeks a strong and honest friendship with the defeated country. In doing so, it did not claim any price for its victory and just limits itself [illegible] and to pay for the territory that is ceded.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, I repeat that, in case the arbitral award of Washington allows it, Chile, who insists on its longing to contribute all its resources to the tranquility of America, will generously consider the port aspirations of Bolivia in the form and terms clearly and frequently posed in the Note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, addressed to the Bolivian Minister in Chile, on 6 February.
The aspirations in question are not as much driven by need as they are spurred by Bolivia’s sentiment. Indeed, we have seen that the Treaty of 1904 guaranteed Bolivia in perpetuity its free trade through our ports, a right it currently exercises freely and unrestrictedly through Arica, Antofagasta and also through the Peruvian port of Moilendo, and warning that due to Bolivia’s topography and geography, these ports can only serve the Bolivian departments of Potosí, Oruro and La Paz, which represent only 20 percent of the Bolivian territory and production. The rest of the territory and its production, located east of the enormous Los Andes massif, naturally resorts to the Atlantic through the Amazonas and the La Plata River. Mr. Alessandri has conducted a thorough study of the current labor situation and opines that a promising future is ahead if workers are offered equitable labor conditions.
[…]
426
Annex 128
Memorandum on Tacna-Arica delivered by the Secretary
of State of the United States to the Governments of
Chile and Peru, 30 November 1926
(Original in English)
(1927) 21 American Journal of International Law Supplement, pp 11-15
427
428
Annex 128
Annex 128
429
430
Annex 128
Annex 128
431
432
Annex 128
Annex 129
Memorandum of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile Delivered to the Secretary of State of the United States regarding Tacna-Arica, 4 December 1926
(Original in English)
(1927) 21 American Journal of International Law Supplement, pp 38-42
433
434
Annex 129
Annex 129
435
436
Annex 129
Annex 129
437
438
Annex 129
Annex 130
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to the Special Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile in Bolivia, 7 December 1926
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 53 to its Memorial
439
440
Annex 130
Annex 130
441
K-10
1079/2
D3416.
THE PROBLEM OF THE PACIFIC
AND THE SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
OF THE UNITED STATES
Official Documents published
by the Bolivian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs
LA PAZ, BOLIVIA
IMPRENTA "RENACIMIENTO" - YANACOCHA
1927
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND WORSHIP.
N° 1497. —
La Paz. 7 December 1926.
Minister:
I have the honor of acknowledging Your Excellency’s note of the 5th of this month, which was delivered to me on the evening of that day, and along with which I have received the Memorandum that His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile has drawn up in response to the document issued by the Secretary of State of the United States on the 1st of this month.
My Government has been informed with great interest of the summary that the Memorandum contains of the longstanding dispute for many years between the Governments of Chile and Peru on the rights and the possession of the territory of Tacna and Arica. This Ministry will refrain from any comments on this matter; but it believes it is essential to clarify the notion set forth in that document that Bolivia voluntarily waived its right to a maritime coastline in the Treaty of 1904. Surely Your Excellency’s Government will recall that certain provisions of the Truce Pact of 1884 made it impossible for Bolivia to manage its customs system freely, which at that time was its primary source of tax revenues, and was thus deprived of the majority of its public revenue. Under the pressure of those well-known events and obvious circumstances, the Bolivian Government resigned itself to abandon the rights that it had to the maritime coastline, which was occupied by Chile. But it could not renounce other legitimate recourses to recover the elements of its maritime sovereignty, through diplomatic pacts or agreements or conventions freely entered into with its neighboring countries. Along these line, its policy has been sufficiently open and explicit and its sincerity has convinced the other nations that it was impossible for the country
442
Annex 130
Annex 130
443
to exist autonomously, since it had been deprived of any way to communicate with the rest of the world. The right to existence and life is the basis for any political and international organization. From observing and becoming aware of those circumstances, the friendly disposition from the Government of Chile has arisen to meet those needs and aspirations. Moreover, they had been expressly recognized by the eminent statements that governed this Republic in 1884 and even before that historic moment.
Moreover, no one has discussed the fact that Tacna and Arica have always lived pursuant to Bolivian commerce and traffic and that their prosperity and decline followed the fluctuations in the existence of this Republic. The vibrations of the commercial and industrial activity in Chile or Peru did not reach those regions. By virtue of that set of principles and positive events, this Government has always claimed the right to participate in the dispute that was to establish the fate of those provinces, which are closely tied to their social activity and where thousands of Bolivian citizens work for the common good.
The Government of Bolivia acknowledges the American spirit of unity with which the Government of Chile receives the proposal by the Secretary of State of the United States and accepts it as the basis for a solution to this problem, which, as the Government of the Union has pointed out, is not only of interest to the countries in dispute, but also to the Americas as a whole. I can state that in discussing and examining the details of the transfer, the Government of Bolivia will proceed with the same open mind and spirit of friendship that currently characterize Your Excellency’s Government.
The contracting of a commercial agreement with Chile, Peru and Bolivia is an evident need, particularly in view of the ties of friendship and work that the basic agreement will create or effectively stimulate.
If the Government of Bolivia acquires sovereignty over the territory, it is understood that it will comply with all duties incumbent on it with respect to the defense and complete maintenance of these dominions. This territory cannot be traded or transferred, just as no particle of national soil will be transferred.
444
Annex 130
Annex 130
445
Bolivia does not propose to install military or naval bases there, because the nature of the country and its national sentiment keep it far from any idea of threat or aggression, and they always will. It will only require the elements indispensable for safeguarding people and property and protecting the free conduct of all lawful activities.
The idea of creating a free port in Arica, in the sense of granting special tax relief for trade and industry in the three countries for the development of this location is warmly received in the Bolivian spirit, which aspires to convert a region that has long been a center of disputes into a nucleus of activity and progress that recalls its years of greater prosperity.
In informing you of the positive impression that the Government of Chile’s conciliatory attitude has made on the Government of Bolivia, thereby contributing to the reestablishment of international friendship and harmony in the Americas, I have the honor of reiterating the friendly willingness of my country to welcome any suggestion of neighbor and friendly countries by the Governments that it within its economic possibilities and within the precepts of honor and national dignity.
Please pass these comments along to your Government. I avail myself of this opportunity to renew the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration.
A. GUTIERREZ.
To His Excellency Manuel Barros Castaño, E.E. and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile. — Hand Delivery.
446
Annex 131
Memorandum of the Government of Peru Delivered to the Secretary of State of the United States regarding Tacna-Arica, 12 January 1927
(Original in English)
(1927) 21 American Journal of International Law Supplement, pp 43-52
447
448
Annex 131
Annex 131
449
450
Annex 131
Annex 131
451
452
Annex 131
Annex 131
453
454
Annex 131
Annex 131
455
456
Annex 131
Annex 131
457
458
Annex 132
Protocol on the Management of the Chilean and Bolivian Sections of the Railway from Arica to La Paz, signed at La Paz on 29 August 1928
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 158-159
459
460
Annex 132
Annex 132
461
IV.—Protocol on the Management of the Chilean and Bolivia n Sections of the Rai lway from Arica to La Paz – (Blanco Viel-Iturralde)
Signed in La Paz, on 29 August 1928.
“His Excellency Oscar Blanco Viel, Chargé d’Affaires – ad interim – in Chile and His Excellency Abel Iturralde, the competent Minister, gathered in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia to determine the basis on which the Administration of each of the two Sections of the Railway from Arica to Alto de La Paz will be developed, in relation to international traffic, and in the reciprocal interests of both countries; considering that the Government of Bolivia, following a thorough study, has opted to lease, for six years, the Bolivian Section of the said Railway to a private Company comprised of national stock holders only, charging them with the administration, management, and technical operation of the Railway; duly authorized by their Governments, have agreed the following:
First.– The Bolivian Company lessee of the Bolivian Section, between Charaña and Alto de La Paz, as well as the Chilean administration of the section lying between Arica and the border with Bolivia, shall manage the railway line in their respective sections, in accordance with the objectives set forth in article three of the Peace Treaty of twentieth of October one thousand nine hundred and four.
Second.– In consideration of article seven of the Protocol on railway securities of twenty-sixth of May one thousand nine hundred and eight, both Governments agree that, for the purposes of distributing the gross products of international traffic proportionally to the exploitation cost of each section, the rates and tariffs for international freight and passengers – by ton-kilometre and passengers-kilometre – of the Bolivian and Chilean sections, shall have between them a ratio of sixty and forty.
This distribution shall apply for a period of six years, at the end of which it may be modified by common agreement.
Third.– The rates and tariffs for international freight and passengers shall be determined by mutual agreement between both railway administrations, with the approval of the respective Governments.
Each section or stretch shall collect, as its own income, from international freight or passengers, the product of the rates and tariffs applicable to each section, the distribution of which is specified in the second article of this Protocol.
The Bolivian and Chilean administrations may be authorized by their respective governments to grant special competition rates, whenever other lines establish the intention of subtracting traffic from the Arica line. Such special rates shall be divided according to the proportion set forth in the second article.
Fourth.– The Bolivian and Chilean administrations shall directly cooperate to foster the development of the Railway from Arica to Alto de La Paz; and, with the objective that its current traffic does not decrease but rather increases, the Governments of Bolivia and Chile commit to give all necessary facilities and guarantees to the passengers and freight using this line, as well as not to establish any obstacle that would put this line in an inferior situation than other railway lines, or that would reduce the volumes it normally transports; all of the above shall be in accordance with the current legislation of both countries and in respect of the concessions currently granted.
462
Annex 132
Fifth.– In order to maintain the unity of action in relation to international traffic and to allow the control of a section over the other, for the best service of the railway in its international aspect, the two administrations may agree to maintain the said service in the best suitable way and to appoint Commissioners or Delegates to the Administration of each section, to ensure cooperation for the good organization of international traffic and the proper development of passengers and freight’s services, for the benefit of the commerce of both countries.
Sixth.– All the provisions of the conventions and protocols in relation to the Arica-La Paz Railway, signed prior to this date, shall remain valid whenever they are not contradictory to this Protocol.
For the record they sign and stamp, in duplicate, in the city of La Paz, on the twenty-ninth of August one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight.
[Signed].—Oscar Blanco Viel.
[Signed].—Abel Iturralde.
Annex 133
Convention on Passports between Bolivia and Chile, signed at La Paz on 18 September 1937
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 182-183
463
464
Annex 133
Annex 133
465
CONVENTION ON PASSPORTS
Signed in La Paz on 18 September 1937.
The Governments of Chile and Bolivia, having regard to the recommendation contained in Agreement No. 8 in the Final Minutes of the First Meeting of the Chile-Bolivia Mixed Commission commissioned to study the Economic Relations between the two Republics and created by the Act signed at the Embassy of Chile in Buenos Aires on 23 December 1936, taking into consideration the reasons that suggest maintaining good neighborly relations, and wishing to facilitate a rapprochement between the two countries, have agreed to enter into a Convention on Passports, and, to that end, have appointed their Plenipotentiaries, as follows:
H.E. President of the Republic of Chile has appointed His Excellency Jorge Silva Yoacham, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Chile in Bolivia;
H.E. President of the Council of the Government of Bolivia has appointed HE Fabián Vaca Chávez, Minister of State at the Office of Foreign Affairs;
Who, after exchanging their respective Full Powers, and finding them in good and due form, have agreed as follows:
Article I
Visa stamping of passports in transit through Chilean territories or ports shall be free for Bolivians and foreigners going to or coming from Bolivia. This shall similarly be free for Chileans or foreigners through Bolivian territories going to or coming from Chile.
It is hereby understood that in both cases the provisions of the respective passport regulations must be complied with and that the maximum period of stay in a transit country shall not exceed 15 days.
Article II
Visa stamping for Chileans and Bolivians studying in Chile and Bolivia, respectively, shall be valid for the duration of their studies. Student status must be proven with documents deemed to be satisfactory by the Consul granting the visa. A special set of regulations shall establish the applicable visa stamping procedure.
Article III
The fee for the visa stamping for passports of professors, students, and journalists included in the Chile-Bolivia Convention on Intellectual Cooperation shall be equivalent to one dollar.
These professors, students, and journalists must be provided with a certificate by the appropriate education authorities or others that attests to their status and that the trip is being made in compliance with the provisions of the Chile-Bolivia Convention referred to in the first paragraph of this Article.
466
Annex 133
Annex 133
467
Article IV
Certificates of Good Health shall be granted by the physicians appointed by the respective Consuls for a maximum fee of $20, in the legal tender of either country.
Article V
Individuals traveling between Bolivia and Arica through the international border must be provided with a safe conduct in printed form that proves their respective personal identity and authorization to travel.
Article VI
The safe conduct shall be issued in Bolivia by the relevant local authority and shall be visa-stamped at no cost by a Consul of Chile. In Arica, it shall be issued by the Head of the Identification Office, with the approval of the Governor, and visa-stamped at no cost by the Consul of Bolivia in such port, exclusively for Arica residents having resided for a minimum period of one year.
Article VII
The safe conduct shall additionally contain the order number, name, nationality, occupation, home address, and fingerprint of the individual to whom the safe conduct is issued. The safe conduct shall be valid for one year in Bolivia and throughout the Arica Department.
Article VIII
An amount not exceeding three bolivianos, legal tender, or its equivalent in Chilean currency, shall be charged in Bolivia and Chile, respectively, as the only tax on such safe conduct.
Article IX
The cost for visa stamping shall be converted for collection purposes at the exchange rate at which it can be more easily converted in the free export market or bank market.
Article X
Both Governments undertake to provide the greatest advantages possible to citizens from the other country who wish to have their passports visa-stamped.
Article XI
This Convention shall become effective as soon as possible and shall remain in full force and effect for up to three months after either Government concerned notifies the other of its desire to put an end to it.
In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed and sealed this instrument, issued in two copies, in the city of La Paz, on this eighteenth day of September 1937.
(Signed) F. Vaca Chávez
__________ (Signed) Jorge Silva Yoacham
468
Annex 134
Explanatory Notes to the Convention on Passports between Bolivia and Chile, agreed by exchange of notes on 20 March 1940
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 185-186
469
470
Annex 134
Annex 134
471
EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE CONVENTION ON PASSPORTS
REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND WORSHIP
No. 182.–La Paz, 20 March 1940.
Ambassador:
As regards the exchange of notes of this date, whereby the provisional validity was agreed on for, inter alia, the Convention on Passports, signed on 18 September 1937, I must make some clarifications.
By means of the diplomatic notes exchanged on 30 November 1937, an agreement was reached for Articles 5 to 8 of said Convention to enter into force. The experience gathered through its application, as well as new circumstances arising from immigration movement to Bolivia and Chile, make it necessary to clarify and specify the scope of the provisions with regard to safe conducts as follows:
1. My Government understands that safe conducts, which were established for the exclusive aim of facilitating transit and reciprocal trade between Bolivia and Arica, despite being valid for a term of one year, merely grant permission to stay for not more than twenty days in Bolivia or in Arica, and may be extended briefly by the competent local authorities if the circumstances so justify.
2. For trips of a longer duration, the traveler is subject to the applicable laws on passports.
3. Any safe conduct granted to Chileans, Bolivians or foreigners involves the prohibition for the holder to look for a job or work for profit in the country to which he/she travels.
4. Foreigners shall have the right to use safe conducts only if they have been based in Bolivia or Arica for more than three years.
My Government concurs with the foregoing clarifications and shall deem them as an integral part of the Convention on Passports signed on 18 September 1937 beginning the 1st of April of this year.
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed): Alberto Ostria Gutiérrez.
To H.E., Mr. Benjamín Cohen, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Chile.- Hand delivered.
472
Annex 134
Annex 134
473
EMBASSY OF CHILE
No. 129/29.–La Paz, 20 March 1940.
Minister,
As regards the exchange of notes of this date, whereby the provisional validity was agreed on for, inter alia, the Convention on Passports, signed on 18 September 1937, I must make some clarifications.
By means of the diplomatic notes exchanged on 30 November 1937, an agreement was reached for Articles 5 to 8 of said Convention to enter into force. The experience gathered through its application, as well as new circumstances arising from immigration movement to Bolivia and Chile, make it necessary to clarify and specify the scope of the provisions with regard to safe conducts as follows:
1. My Government understands that safe conducts, which were established for the exclusive aim of facilitating transit and reciprocal trade between Bolivia and Arica, despite being valid for a term of one year, merely grant permission to stay for not more than twenty days in Bolivia or in Arica, and may be extended briefly by the competent local authorities if the circumstances so justify.
2. For trips of a longer duration, the traveler is subject to the applicable laws on passports.
3. Any safe conduct granted to Chileans, Bolivians or foreigners involves the prohibition for the holder to look for a job or work for profit in the country to which he/she travels.
4. Foreigners shall have the right to use safe conducts only if they have been based in Bolivia or Arica for more than three years.
If H.E. concurs with the foregoing explanations, they shall be deemed an integral part of the Convention on Passports signed on 18 September 1937 beginning the 1st of April of this year.
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed): Benjamín Cohen.
To H.E., Mr. Alberto Ostria Gutiérrez, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Religion. Hand delivered.
474
Annex 135
Note from the Embassy of Bolivia in Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 242/44, 29 December 1944
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 55 to its Memorial
475
476
Annex 135
Annex 135
477
EMBASSY OF BOLIVIA
CONFIDENTIAL.
No. 242/44.
RE: Meeting with
President Rios.
Santiago, 29 December 1944.
Dear Minister:
Reiterating the content of my encrypted cablegram number 304, of the 26th of this month, I am pleased to describe the scope of the conversation that I held with the President of the Republic, Juan Antonio Ríos.
First, let me point out that this interview does not appear to correspond exactly to the audience that I requested. Indeed, although it is true that after I presented my credentials to Vice-President Quintana Burgos, I told the Foreign Minister that I would like to greet His Excellency in person, I was given an opportunity to do so in late November, on the occasion of the audience granted by the President to the resident Diplomatic Corps, when it became time to resume their duties. Thus, the meeting on 26 December, i.e., a month later, was not exactly in response to any action on my part.
At this meeting, which lasted for three quarters of an hour, the President received me with obvious cordiality, and stated that he regretted not having personally received the credentials that accredited me as the Bolivian Ambassador, due to his precarious health.
To Mr. Gustavo Chacón,
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship.
La Paz, Bolivia.
478
Annex 135
Annex 135
479
He told me how glad he was that we have resumed our diplomatic relations, which had been interrupted as a result of non-recognition, and that he hoped that my mission would produce positive reciprocal benefits for both peoples. Using the sincere, frank language that is his custom, he mentioned the negative atmosphere that apparently exists in Bolivia with respect to Chile, according to the news that he has received, and this atmosphere has been spread through the press and other types of manifestations.
I answered the President’s greeting in the same manner, pointing out the intention of the Bolivian Government and the Bolivian people to strengthen the ties of friendship and exchange between our countries, and indicating that I was certain that we would achieve this goal with the cooperation provided to me by his Government. With respect to the supposed hostility towards Chile that exists in Bolivia, I rejected said presumption and told him that although Ambassador Cohen had certainly not managed to gain the sympathy of Bolivian public opinion, the statements he was referring to reflected the state of play, which was limited to that diplomat alone and did not undermine the friendship with Chile; therefore, the President should not be swayed by biased information from Mr. Cohen. I also told him of my concern about the
480
Annex 135
Annex 135
481
unfriendly publications lately in the Chilean press, and he told me that he would take appropriate action to avoid them in the future.
After both of us expressed our appreciation in this way, when I got ready to say goodbye thinking that the meeting was over, Mr. Ríos spontaneously detained me to refer to the port issue.
Commenting on the change of government in Bolivia, the conversation then turned to address this aspect, and he expressed to me more or less the following: “I was the first to lament the erroneous procedure followed by the Peñaranda Government to satisfy Bolivia’s aspiration to its own outlet to the sea, in taking the matter to other Foreign Ministries for their consideration without first trying to discuss the matter directly with Chile. In this way, it looked as if Bolivia was preparing an ambush against Chile, which could occur at any international conference or meeting”. He continued: “in this regard, I want to tell you that my Government is willing to consider any direct proposal of your country, aiming at the solution of this problem”. “The Chilean point of view is obvious”, he added, “because clearly if I were interested in purchasing the house opposite mine, then the owner is the person I should turn to, and not the neighbors, since if we reach an understanding, I will have achieved my purpose through mutual consent, and not by the influence or pressure of third parties”. The President then said, “I repeat, Ambassador, that my Government is willing to attempt any direct negotiation made by Bolivia,
482
Annex 135
Annex 135
483
contemplating the reciprocal interests and mutual convenience of both countries.”
As for me, I did no more than tell President Ríos how pleased I was to hear his statements and the conciliatory terms of the Chilean Government to consider the solution to such a fundamental problem in the Americas, based on Bolivia’s legitimate aspiration to have its own outlet to the sea, indicating that I would be more than pleased to convey his authorized, auspicious opinion to my Government, as it shared similar criteria in facing, when the appropriate time comes, the solution to this problem, through direct negotiations on the basis of economic or commercial compensation.
This is a summary of the scope of the meeting that I held with President Ríos. It shows that Chile already has an opinion on the matter and has duly studied the conditions that will be demanded when the time comes. There is no other way to explain the fact that the President would do so explicitly and spontaneously express his willingness to face the study and consideration of our fundamental problem.
I deliberately refused to provide any further opinions or evaluations of the matter, much less did I venture to come up with a proposal revealing the Bolivian point of view, due to the following considerations:
a) – Because I understand that the way to solve this problem based on a rational study of the possibilities has not yet been formulated in our country, in terms of precisely delineating the coastline or port area that
484
Annex 135
Annex 135
485
Bolivia would like to add to its sovereignty, as well as the compensation or advantages of an economic nature that it would be able to offer to Chile in exchange for such territory;
b) – Because the instability of the current Government –due to the precarious health of President Ríos, which might force him to resign from office – makes it inadvisable to open negotiations, the interruption of which could detriment their success. Moreover, there is no doubt that the elections to be held next March will substantially change the form and composition of the current Government, which will surely make our prospects more favorable.
c) – Because the current situation is not the right atmosphere due to actions by the press, international political incidents and other factors that would conspire against the success of the negotiations. I think that creating an adequate atmosphere , both inside and outside our country, through systematic, persevering action, is urgent and even indispensable for the best solution to a problem that is both delicate and fundamental, because of its political and international implications, and given the idiosyncratic nature of the Chilean people.
Offering to keep you updated on anything that happens in connection with the subject matter of this report, I am honored to reiterate to you the assurances of my most distinguished consideration.
[Signed]
486
Annex 136
Republic of Bolivia, Political Constitution of 1947, 26 November 1947
(extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
<http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/constitucion-politica-de-la-…;, Article 58(13)
487
488
Annex 136
Constitución política de 1947(26 de noviembre de 1947)Enrique Hertzog G. Presidente Constitucional de la República de BoliviaPor cuanto: el Congreso Nacional ha sancionado y proclamado la siguiente ConstituciónPolítica del Estado.Sección primera. La NaciónArtículo 1.- Bolivia, libre, independiente y soberana, constituida en República unitaria,adopta para su gobierno la forma democrática representativa.Artículo 2.- La soberanía reside en el pueblo; es inalienable e imprescriptible; suejercicio está delegado a los Poderes Legislativo, Ejecutivo y Judicial. La independenciay coordinación de estos Poderes es la base del gobierno.Artículo 3.- El Estado reconoce y sostiene la religión católica, apostólica y romana,garantizando el ejercicio público de todo otro culto.Artículo 4.- El pueblo no delibera ni gobierna sino por medio de sus representantes y delas autoridades creadas por ley.Toda fuerza armada o reunión de personas que se atribuye los derechos del pueblo,comete delito de sedición.Sección segunda. Derechos y garantíasArtículo 5.- La esclavitud no existe en Bolivia. No se reconoce ningún género deservidumbre y nadie podrá ser obligado a prestar trabajos personales sin la justaretribución y sin su pleno consentimiento.Los servicios personales sólo podrán ser exigibles cuando así lo establezcan las leyes.Artículo 6.- Toda persona tiene los siguientes derechos fundamentales, conforme a lasleyes que reglamentan su ejercicio:a) De ingresar, permanecer, transitar y salir del territorio nacional.b) De dedicarse al trabajo, comercio o industria, en condiciones que noperjudiquen al bien colectivo.c) De emitir libremente sus ideas y opiniones, por cualquier medio dedifusión.d) De reunirse y asociarse para los distintos fines de la actividad, que nosean contrarios a la seguridad del Estado.
Annex 136
489
La contravención de estos preceptos importa pérdida del mandato popular, medianteresolución de la respectiva Cámara, conforme al Articulo 59, atribución 4, de estaConstitución.Artículo 54.- Durante el periodo constitucional de su mandato, podrán dirigirrepresentaciones a los funcionarios del Poder Ejecutivo para el cumplimiento de lasdisposiciones legales; podrán también representar las necesidades y medios de mejorade sus distritos electorales.Artículo 55.- Cuando un mismo ciudadano fuere elegido Senador y Diputado, aceptará,el mandato que él prefiera. Si fuere elegido Senador o Diputado por dos distritos odepartamentos, lo será por el distrito que él escoja.Artículo 56.- Los Senadores y Diputados pueden ser reelectos y sus mandatos sonrenunciables.Artículo 57.- Las sesiones del Congreso y de ambas Cámaras serán públicas, y sólopodrán ser secretas cuando dos tercios de sus miembros así lo determinen.Artículo 58.- Son atribuciones del Poder Legislativo:1. Dictar leyes, abrogarlas, modificarlas e interpretarlas.2. Imponer contribuciones de cualquiera clase o naturaleza, suprimir lasexistentes, determinar su carácter nacional, departamental o municipal yfijar los gastos fiscales. Las contribuciones se decretarán por tiempoindefinido, salvo que las leyes respectivas señalen un plazo determinadopara su vigencia.3. Fijar para cada gestión financiera los gastos de la AdministraciónPública, previa presentación del proyecto de Presupuesto por el PoderEjecutivo.4. Fijar, igualmente, en cada legislatura, la fuerza militar que ha demantenerse en tiempo de paz.6. Crear nuevos departamentos o provincias, fijar sus límites; habilitarpuertos mayores y establecer aduanas.7. Fijar el peso, ley,valor, tipo y denominación de las monedas; autorizar laemisión y circulación de billetes de banco y arreglar el sistema de pesas ymedidas.8. Conceder subvenciones o garantías de interés para la construcción deferrocarriles, canales, carreteras y demás empresas de vialidad.9. Permitir el tránsito de tropas extranjeras por el territorio de la República,determinando el tiempo de su permanencia.
“Article 58: The powers of the Legislative Branch are:
[…]
490
Annex 136
10. Autorizar la salida de tropas nacionales fuera del territorio de laRepública, señalando el tiempo de su regreso.11. Crear y suprimir empleos públicos, fijar sus emolumentos, determinar omodificar sus atribuciones.12. Decretar amnistía por delitos políticos; conceder indulto, previoinforme de la Corte Suprema.13. Aprobar o desechar los tratados y convenciones internacionales de todaespecie.14. Autorizar la enajenación de bienes nacionales, departamentales,municipales, universitarios y de todos los que sean de dominio público.15. Autorizar al Ejecutivo la adquisición de bienes inmuebles y aprobar lascompras efectuadas.16. Ejercer el derecho de influencia diplomática sobre actos no consumadoso compromisos internacionales del Poder Ejecutivo.17. Aprobar o reprobar anualmente la cuenta de la inversión de los fondosdestinados a los gastos de la Administración Pública, que debe presentar elGobierno en la primera sesión de cada Legislatura.18. Nombrar a los Ministros de la Corte Suprema de Justicia.19. Autorizar a las Universidades la contratación de empréstitos.Sección sexta. El CongresoArtículo 59.- Son atribuciones de cada Cámara:1. Calificar las credenciales de sus respectivos miembros.La invalidez de las credenciales de Senadores y Diputados sólo podrá serdemandada ante la Corte Suprema, cuyo fallo será irrevisable por lasCámaras. Si al calificar credenciales no demandadas ante la Corte Suprema,la Cámara encontrase motivos de nulidad, remitirá el caso por resolución dedos tercios de votos, a conocimiento de dicho tribunal.2. Organizar su Mesa Directiva.3. Dictar su reglamento y corregir sus infracciones.4. Separar temporal o definitivamente a cualesquiera de sus miembros porgraves faltas en el ejercicio de sus funciones, con el acuerdo de dos terciosde votos.
13. To approve or dismiss international treaties and conventions of any
kind”
Annex 137
Note from the Embassy of Bolivia in Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 211 MRE/47, 4 April 1947
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 57 to its Memorial
491
492
Annex 137
Annex 137
493
211 MRE/47. Santiago, 4 April 1947.
Interview with the President of the Republic.
CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Minister:
In confirmation of my cablegram No 117, I am pleased to inform you that although I was unable to meet with the President of the Republic Gabriel González Videla immediately upon my arrival, because he was ill, I was received at a special audience the day before yesterday, to deliver to him the handwritten letter from the President of Bolivia, Dr. Enrique Hertzog.
On that occasion, I had a very cordial interview with the Chilean President.
Naturally, Mr. González Videla told me how pleased he was with the terms of the letter from His Excellency President Hertzog, and that the letter had made a favorable impression on him, even though it was not consistent with the customary rules of protocol, and that it would undoubtedly be equally favorably received among by the Chilean public opinion, to which end he would instruct its publication, which he effectively did, as you can see from the enclosed press clipping.
Moreover, the Chilean President asked me to convey his most cordial greetings to His Excellency Dr. Hertzog, adding that he would immediately send an answer to the handwritten letter that he had just received.
Mr. González Videla then referred to my mission in Chile, honoring me with effusive praise, and told me that his desire is for genuine rapprochement with Bolivia. In that regard, he reiterated what he had already said on other occasions, to the effect that he would study a gradual solution to the Bolivian port issue, and was pleased that any direct negotiations would be held in Santiago. Lastly, he referred to the question of the warehouses, railway and wharf in Arica, which could constitute the first stage of those negotiations, and asked me to deliver a special Memorandum to him, containing Bolivia’s proposals.
Since I did not yet have the instructions that I had asked our Foreign Ministry for before I left La Paz and then requested later in several telegrams, I believe that it is extremely urgent that those instructions be sent, so that I can deal with the Chilean President’s request as soon as possible, for reasons of courtesy, and I am taking the liberty of again asking you to send them to me immediately because I cannot move ahead with such a delicate issue without knowing what you and His Excellency the President of the Republic have decided on this issue, also taking into account the Memorandum that I submitted for your consideration.
Allow me to take this opportunity to reiterate my highest and distinguished regards.
To: Mr. Mamerto Urriolagoitia [Signed]
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship.
La Paz, Bolivia.
494
Annex 138
Note from the Embassy of Bolivia in Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 725/526, 18 July 1947
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 58 to its Memorial
495
496
Annex 138
Annex 138
497
725/526 Santiago, 18 July 1947.
RE: Interview with Chilean President
CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Minister:
Given that I will be holding a reception for the government, diplomatic corps and the Chilean society on 6 August, in addition to another reception that I will hold that same day for Bolivian residents, I found out discreetly, in the Protocol, whether the President of the Republic would attend or not, because it is not the custom here for the Head of State to go to the Embassies and Delegations for national holidays, and I wanted to make sure of the result of my invitation before I made it official.
Later, the Director of Protocol told me that the President of the Republic would not only accept the invitation, but that he had also granted me a special audience during which I would be able to extend this invitation.
Thus, today I met with Mr. González Videla, who received me very cordially, and first talked about his plan to travel to Bolivia.
In this regard he told me that he thought it would be possible to come at the end of December, but that he wanted his visit to be the culmination of a process of rapprochement between the two countries. “I am a committed friend of Bolivia”, he told me, “and I wish to do something for your country.” “Admittedly” he added, “I hope my visit does not cause any adverse reactions, because if that were to happen, it would frustrate my sincere intentions, and I would prefer not to make it.”
Naturally, I told him that the very fact that the Bolivian President had invited him to come for a visit demonstrated the fraternal disposition with which he would be received by the Bolivian Government and the Bolivian people.
President González Videla then referred to his idea of gradually facilitating the outlet of our country through Arica and declared to me, with greater candor than ever, his intention to have Bolivia operate the railway from Arica to La Paz and a sector of the wharf in that port, transferring also the respective warehouses.
In that connection, he asked me to let him know the Bolivian Government’s opinion, but since I have not been able to obtain it despite my repeated requests, I told him that the matter was still under study by the experts and that was why I had not brought him the Memorandum
To Mr. Luis Fernando Guachalla
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship.
La Paz, Bolivia.
498
Annex 138
Annex 138
499
that he had asked me for several months ago.
We then agreed, with respect to his trip, that I would ask the Bolivian Government for the suggestions that it deems appropriate. Lastly, President González Videla told me that he would be honored to attend the reception at the Embassy, on the 6th, accompanied by his wife and daughter.
From this conversation we can again conclude that our Foreign Ministry must adopt a position about the convenience or inconvenience of negotiating a gradual solution to our port problem, in a way that the current Chilean Government would accept and would be consistent with what the Bolivian Foreign Ministry proposed in 1941, during the administration of President Aguirre Cerda, without obtaining a favorable result.
In my opinion, it is time to decide whether we should propose direct negotiations with Chile, on the bases indicated, or on different bases, or whether on the contrary it would be preferable to do nothing in this regard and assume the responsibility for not having attempted a solution, even a partial one, to the most important of our country’s problems, leaving another generation to resolve it under other circumstances.
In any event, I again ask you to send me instructions from His Excellency the President of the Republic and from you, and inform you that from what I have been able to observe, the treaty signed by Bolivia with Argentina has not caused the distrust that people think in our country and to which you referred in your note No. P and D. 175, of the 1st of this month.
I reiterate to you the assurances of my highest regard.
[Signed]
500
Annex 139
Note from the Embassy of Bolivia in Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 22/13, 6 January 1948
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 59 to its Memorial
501
502
Annex 139
Annex 139
503
EMBASSY OF BOLIVIA
Santiago, 6 January 1948.
No. 22/13
RE: Meeting with Chilean President.
CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Minister:
Before traveling to Bolivia, in accordance with the authorisation that you had given me, I paid a courtesy visit to the President of the Republic, Mr. Gabriel González Videla, in order to say goodbye.
On that occasion, the Chilean President asked me first of all to convey his most affectionate and cordial regards to the President of Bolivia. He then asked me to tell Dr. Hertzog again of his intention to visit our country during the course of this year. To that end, he also told me that his visit would be preceded by an understanding between the two countries, and concretely referred to the matter concerning the transfer of the Chilean section of the Arica-La Paz railway as well as of a section of the wharf of Arica.
“A year ago, I told your country’s Foreign Minister of my desire to reach an agreement that would gradually please Bolivia’s aspirations.” Those were his words. “I maintain that disposition”, he added, “I think that you could have your railway and your wharf (verbatim) and I am not afraid of the criticisms that might be made against me to the effect that I was compromising Chile’s sovereignty, because I know that Bolivia is not an imperialist nation.” “To be sure”, he concluded, “since the plan for Chilean railways is gradually being reorganized, I would like to know specifically whether Bolivia is or is not interested in moving forward with those negotiations. I would urge, hence, that when you return, you give me a definitive answer.”
In addition, Mr. González Videla told me that the new Chilean Ambassador, Mr. Saavedra Agüero, had been given instructions along the same lines already expressed by him, and that after analyzing Chile’s Americanist policy, he showed himself definitely in favor of connecting the countries in the southern Pacific in this new era in the history of the Americas.
Once again, I had a very favorable impression of the Chilean President’s willingness with respect to our country, which I have recorded in this note.
I reiterate to you the assurances of my highest regards.
To Mr. Tomás Manuel Elío,
Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Signed]
La Paz
504
Annex 140
Minutes of Meeting between the Chilean President and the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile, 1 June 1948
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
505
506
Annex 140
Annex 140
507
[Handwritten:]
Conversations between His Excellency the President of Chile and the
Ambassador of Bolivia, Ostria G.
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS 00014
At the meeting held on Tuesday, 1 June 1948, Ambassador Ostria Gutiérrez requested authorization from His Excellency the President of Chile, González Videla, to declare open the negotiations aimed at satisfying the Bolivian port aspirations.
Ambassador Ostria referred to informal talks he had held with His Excellency the President of Chile, who had shown willingness to address Bolivia’s aspirations. The President replied that he had dismissed outright the idea of ceding Arica to Bolivia during such informal talks, but that he had not refused to consider the possibility to reach an agreement with that country to cede to Bolivia, in exchange for compensation, a strip of land north of Arica that would allow Bolivia’s outlet to the sea.
Regarding the official initiation of formal talks mentioned by Ambassador Ostria, the President pointed out that he could not deem such talks officially initiated since the Government of Bolivia had not submitted a concrete and precise proposal to be used as a basis for analysis by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile and for future reference by the National Congress.
The President of the Republic further stated that the informal conversations held with Ambassador Ostria, and to which he referred, were aimed exactly at preventing the Government of Bolivia from making port petitions on the basis of cession of Arica, which would have been rejected by Chile outright because of historical and patriotic reasons,
508
Annex 140
Annex 140
509
the fact that this territory has a special value for Chileans and that it has never belonged to Bolivia. The President added that under no circumstance could these informal talks be relied on as bases for any discussion since the very idea of granting a strip of land north of Arica had merely been the subject of a conversation and the President may not take initiatives on a problem that concerns Bolivia, not Chile.
Finally, His Excellency added that any negotiations that could be initiated on or possible solutions to the problem could never affect the commitments undertaken by Chile with Peru under the Treaty of 1929.
Ambassador Ostria promised to convey this discussion to the Government of Bolivia and soon propose a concrete proposal that would allow negotiations to be declared officially open.
510
Annex 141
Cable from the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 116, 1 June 1948
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 60 to its Memorial
511
512
Annex 141
Santiago, 1 June 1948.
AFFAIRS. LA PAZ.
116. To be decrypted by the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs. Strictly confidential. Stop. Meeting today with President Republic, he first asked me to specify Bolivia’s thinking. Stop. I told him Bolivia wants to obtain its own outlet to the sea. Paragraph. When I told him that this aspiration deserved his sympathy, he told me that his government was willing: first, to cede strip of territory north Arica, where according to his technical
Annex 141
513
information, a port could be built; second, to accept rerouting the railway to the Bolivian port; third, to negotiate transfer of section of railway from Arica-La Paz. Stop. Moreover, he is willing to formalize this agreement in writing and wants to know whether the Bolivian government is in agreement with the solution, or if not, what its counterproposal would be. Paragraph. He also recommends strict confidentiality in this preliminary stage of direct negotiations, which are therefore officially initiated.
OSTRIA
514
Annex 142
Note from the Embassy of Bolivia in Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 455/325, 2 June 1948
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 61 to its Memorial
515
516
Annex 142
Annex 142
517
EMBASSY OF BOLIVIA CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
No. 455/325
Santiago, 2 June 1948
RE: Port negotiations with the Government of Chile
Minister,
I have received Note No. G.S.6 of 19 April 1948 containing the instructions from His Excellency the President of Bolivia and from you to begin a direct negotiation with the Chilean Government, aimed at solving Bolivia’s port problem.
Although I will not analyse those instructions, which open a new era in the history of our diplomatic relations with Chile, as I already discussed them in the personal letter I sent to you on 30 April, I am pleased to inform you of the talk I had yesterday in connection with those negotiations with the Chilean President, Gabriel González Videla, a summary of which I sent you in my strictly confidential cablegram No. 116.
Of course, Mr. González Vidala asked me whether I had already received instructions from the Bolivian Government related to the talks that we had held previously.
When I told him that I had, the Chilean President asked me to clarify Bolivia’s thinking, in a clear and frank manner.
- Bolivia needs to have its own outlet to the sea, I told him frankly. I then told him that the port ideal was rooted in the deepest part of the Bolivian national conscience, and that until the problem is resolved, it would remain so as long as the nation lasts, and that if every Bolivian except for one were to disappear, that one Bolivian would never stop claiming an outlet to the sea for his country. I also told him that even though there had been some differences of an internal nature in the way the port problem had been raised, deep down the Bolivian people remained firm and united around their port ideal. In addition, I emphasized that until this question of vital importance to Bolivia is resolved satisfactorily, nothing could be built between the two countries, and being a neighbour of Chile would make no sense, leading Bolivia work with its other neighbours as it already has done with Argentina.
With great dignity, President González Videla then told me that not only did he understand the significance of our problem, but that he was deeply sympathetic to it, and that if he had been a Bolivian, he would have
To Mr Adolfo Costa du Rels,
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship.
La Paz, Bolivia.
518
Annex 142
Annex 142
519
thought and felt just as we do. “We must acknowledge that it is a legitimate aspiration, and all the more so, if we consider that Bolivia once had an outlet to the sea” he concluded.
Mr. González Videla then proposed that we discuss the matter from a concrete and realistic point of view and insisted that I make a proposal based on the instructions I had received.
- Now that we know Bolivia’s basic thoughts about obtaining its own outlet to the sea, that proposal will necessarily depend on the extent to which Chile is willing to satisfy Bolivia’s port ideal, I said.
Then, continuing the conversation with great candour, the President of the Republic told me that his administration was willing:
1. to cede to Bolivia a strip of land approximately five km north of Arica;
2. to accept that Bolivia construct an addition to the railway line from Arica to La Paz, taking it all the way to the Bolivian port;
3. to negotiate with Bolivia to rent or transfer the Chilean section of that railway.
With regard to the area located north of Arica, he told me that the Chilean navy had conducted studies, and based on the information he had, they had concluded that it would be possible to build a port there. He also said that once the work was complete, it would not be difficult to obtain a loan from the Government of the United States and build an addition to that railway, and that Chile would cooperate with Bolivia to obtain such a loan.
He then mentioned Bolivia’s aspiration to obtain Arica, and told me that he did not think that there was anyone in Chile who would agree to that.
“There are many eminent Chileans who agree to it”, I interrupted him, citing the opinion of Mr. Juvenal Hernández. Moreover, I pointed out that as the Bolivian writer Sánchez Bustamante once said, “Arica cannot be the subject of a lawsuit, but it can be the subject of negotiations.”
Mr. Gonzales Videla answered that Arica was a sanctuary of the warlike glories of Chile, and that in his opinion, the army would not agree to it being ceded to another country. In that regard, he mentioned how the nationalist feelings in Chile had increased as a result of the incorporation of the Antarctic, and told me that just as the Chilean people had given all their support to that issue, they could also refuse to the transfer of that port.
520
Annex 142
Annex 142
521
“The situation with a strip of land north of Arica would be different” he told me. “The army would not oppose it, because it would mean eliminating a border. In addition, I am willing to go to battle and win it during my administration, not only because it is an act of justice with Bolivia, but also because it is in the interest of the future of our two countries.”
When he mentioned the point about the railway from Arica to La Paz, he asked me if it was really in our interest for us to take over that railway line, as part of a gradual solution, and by means of mutual compensation.
I told him that its isolated cession was not in our interest, because it would only create economic and even social problems (in Arica) for Bolivia; but I added that we would agree to consider it as part of an overall solution, i.e., as an integral part of the outlet to the sea for Bolivia. As for compensation, I told him outright that regarding the aspects to be negotiated, Bolivia would not agree to give anything of a territorial nature, and only agree to compensation deemed fair, such as compensation for the railway or the rolling stock, for example, and solely of an economic or commercial nature.
The Chilean President also told me about Peru’s position and the possibility that there could be an unjustified opposition, given the complications of Peruvian internal politics. He also told me that in his opinion, we should inform Peru in due course about the negotiations with Bolivia, as required by the Treaty of 1929 between Chile and Peru, but he agreed with me that it would be a good idea to keep them confidential at this preliminary stage of our talks. Finally, on the bases he had indicated, he asked me to have the Bolivian government make a statement or make a counterproposal so that it could be studied in detail.
As for the possibility of formalizing the negotiations in writing, Mr. González Videla told me that he was not opposed to that, but that we would do so when I received the answer from the Bolivian Government.
He concluded our meeting, which was characterized by a high degree of cordiality and mutual trust, and suggested that I visit him again once I received an answer from La Paz.
Today I also visited the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Germán Vergara Donoso, who proved to be very interested in the result of my talk with the Chilean President, whom he had not yet had an opportunity to see.
I faithfully told Mr. Vergara Donoso the most important part of my talk with President González Videla.
After listening to me, Mr. Vergara Donoso asked
522
Annex 142
Annex 142
523
me whether we had really discussed gradual aspect of the negotiations, with their first stage being focused on the railway from Arica to La Paz.
I then took the opportunity to tell him what I had already told the Chilean President, i.e., the railway, when considered alone, was of no interest to Bolivia. Furthermore, I told him that there were two different aspects of the issue we had discussed: the transit aspect, which is of secondary importance, and the aspect of an outlet to the sea for Bolivia, which was the fundamental one, the one that President González Videla had addressed and which we must resolve on the basis of a great work of rapprochement between our two countries.
Mr. Vergara Donoso was especially concerned about the need to inform Peru about the negotiations with Bolivia and asked me if I had polled that country’s government, and how I thought President Bustamante y Rivero would react.
Truthfully, I told him that years ago, in 1936, when I held the post of Minister in Lima, I had obtained the Peruvian government’s consent to a transfer of a Chilean port to Bolivia, and that Foreign Minister Ulloa had not rejected the idea, but merely considered that the proposal was premature and that agreement to it at that time would mean putting pressure on Chile. I also told him that these negotiations had not been repeated since then, and that it was not up to Bolivia to inform Peru about any territorial arrangement in the Arica area, but up to Chile, which had an express agreement with Peru to that effect. With respect to President Bastamente y Ribero’s opinion, I said that I did not have enough information to say anything about it, but that I considered him to be a true statesman and a noble friend of Bolivia, who is therefore capable of completely understanding Bolivia’s port problem, just as President González Videla does.
The Chilean Foreign Minister pointed out that the negotiations with Bolivia would at some point have to be discussed with the diplomatic committee of the Senate, and that as is natural, the confidentiality could disappear; therefore, in his opinion, Peru ought be to be informed as soon as the negotiations are formalized, after an answer is received from the Bolivian government.
Mr. Vergara Donoso also insisted that the negotiations would be long and that we would encounter serious obstacles.
“These obstacles can be overcome when there is a desire to resolve the fundamental problem” I told him.
“It is obvious, but so that the solution will be successful, we must go slowly, very slowly,” he answered, repeating what he had already told Foreign Minister Luis Fernando Guachalla in Rio de Janeiro.
524
Annex 142
Annex 142
525
With regard to formalizing the negotiations, opening that stage by exchanging notes, for example, Mr. Vergara Donoso also said that he fully agreed.
In short, although the Chilean Foreign Minister was not as expressive as President González Videla, on the contrary he was extremely cautious, he did not rule out negotiations on the fundamental aspect of the Bolivian problem, i.e., an outlet to the sea for our country, stating his desire and hope to reach an understanding and to carry out constructive work between the two nations.
---
Before returning to La Paz, Jorge Saavedra Agüero, the Chilean Ambassador to Bolivia, told me in turn, confidentially, that if Peru’s position on Chile’s negotiations with Bolivia was negative, it would reveal to Chile that Peru was planning to reclaim Arica, and that on the other hand, it could attempt to obtain advantages from Bolivia and refuse to give its consent until it obtained them. In any event, the Chilean Ambassador said that Peru’s opposition would be overcome with the cooperation of the United States, which could say to Peru, with complete authority: “Do not bother opposing a cession of territory that does not belong to you”. (sic)
Now that I have finished this strictly confidential information, which I ask you to share with His Excellency President Hertzog of Bolivia, please note that now that the negotiation on Bolivia’s port question with the President of Chile have begun, even if only orally, we have specifically addressed our country’s fundamental problem for the first time since Peru and Chile resolved the dispute over Tacna and Arica. With respect to this problem, we had on some occasions encountered an angry rejection in Chile, and at other times a discreet evasion.
It is now up to the Bolivian government to assume its historical responsibility to study the bases indicated by the Chilean President and to consider the compensation that it deems appropriate in our national interest.
As far as I am concerned, if the bases specified by President Gonzalez Videla are considered acceptable, in principle, I would recommend that Bolivia’s counterproposal should suggest expanding the strip to be ceded by Chile to include the railway line, from the region before Arica; in other words, to include the place from where the line would be extended to the Bolivian port, and that the solution itself, namely, Bolivia’s own outlet, should be subject to the possibility of building a real port in the ceded territory.
I reiterate to you the assurances of my highest consideration.
[Signed]
526
Annex 143
Note from the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 529/21, 1 June 1950
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 109A to its Memorial
527
528
Annex 143
Annex 143
529
COPY
Embassy of Bolivia
No 529/21. Santiago, 1 June 1950
Minister:
The Republic of Chile, on different occasions and specifically in the Treaty of 18 May 1895 and in the Minutes of 10 January 1920 entered into with Bolivia, although not ratified by the respective Legislative Powers, accepted the cession to my country of its own outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
Subsequently, on the occasion of the claim presented by Bolivia on 1 November 1920, at the First Assembly of the League of Nations, the Delegate of Chile, His Excellency Agustín Edwards, stated as follows:
“Bolivia can find satisfaction in direct and freely consented negotiations. Chile has never closed this door to Bolivia, and I am able to declare that nothing would please us more than to discuss directly with Bolivia the best means to help its development. What Chile wants is its friendship; our burning desire is for it to be happy and prosperous. It is also in our own interest, since it is our neighbour and its prosperity will reflect on ours.”
Later on, His Excellency the President of Chile, Mr Arturo Alessandri, in a Message addressed to the Chilean Congress of 1922, declared as follows:
“In Bolivia the conviction should grow stronger that, in an environment of fraternity and harmony, they will only find in our country a warm desire to look for proposals that, taking into account our legitimate rights, can satisfy as far as possible their aspirations.”
In turn, on 6 February 1923, His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Mr Luis Izquierdo, stated in a note addressed to the Minister of Bolivia,
To His Excellency Mister Horacio Walker Larraín
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Hand delivered.
530
Annex 143
Annex 143
531
Mr Ricardo Jaimes Freyre, that the Government of Chile “keeps the purpose of hearing with the highest spirit of conciliation and equity, the proposals that the Government of Bolivia might submit to it to conclude a new Pact that considers the situation of Bolivia, without modifying the Treaty of Peace and without interrupting the continuity of Chilean territory.”
On the other hand, concerning the proposal of the Secretary of State of the United States, His Excellency Mr Frank B. Kellogg, for Chile and Peru to cede to Bolivia “any right, title and interest which either may have in the provinces of Tacna and Arica”, His Excellency Mr Jorge Matte, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, stated that “the Government of Chile has not rejected the idea of granting a strip of territory and a port to the Bolivian Nation” and that it accepts “to consider, in principle, the proposal.”
At the start of his Government, His Excellency the President of the Republic, Mr Gabriel González Videla, demonstrated a similar disposition during his conversations with the Member of the Junta of the Government of Bolivia and Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Mr Aniceto Solares, who attended the presidential inauguration, in November 1946; subsequently during his interviews with the former President of Bolivia and current Ambassador in Spain, His Excellency Mr Enrique Hertzog, during his stay in Santiago, in December 1949; and, finally, during the numerous meetings that were held with the undersigned to deal with this issue.
532
Annex 143
Annex 143
533
With such an important background that reveals a clear orientation in the international policy followed by the Chilean Republic, I have the honour of proposing to Your Excellency that the governments of Bolivia and Chile formally enter into a direct negotiation to satisfy the fundamental need of Bolivia to obtain its own sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, thus solving the problem of the landlocked situation of Bolivia on bases that take into account the mutual benefits and genuine interests of both peoples.
Certain of being able to rely upon the acceptance of the Government of Your Excellency, thus beginning a work of great future possibilities for Bolivia as well as for Chile, I reiterate the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration.
(Signed) Alberto Ostria Gutiérrez
534
Annex 144
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile, No 9, 20 June 1950
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 109B to its Memorial
535
536
Annex 144
Annex 144
537
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
DIPLOMATIC DEPARTMENT
Nº 9
CONFIDENTIAL
Santiago, 20 June 1950
Mr. Ambassador
I have had the honour of receiving the note of Your Excellency dated on the 1st of the current month.
Your Excellency refers therein to the orientation of the international policy followed by Chile with respect to the aspirations of Bolivia to obtain its own access to the Pacific Ocean and recalls the terms of the Treaty and the Minutes, signed, but not ratified by the Legislative Powers, on May 18th 1895 and January 10th 1920, respectively. Likewise, Your Excellency recalls the expressions uttered by the Delegate of Chile to the League of Nations, Mr. Agustín Edwards, in 1920; by the President of the Republic, Mr. Arturo Alessandri, two years later; and by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Luis Izquierdo, in 1923. Your Excellency immediately refers to the answer given by Mr. Jorge Matte to the proposal of the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mr. Kellog (sic), in the sense that Chile and Peru cede to Bolivia their titles and rights over the provinces of Tacna and Arica; and finally, to the good disposition that Your Excellency and the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Aniceto Solares, found in His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Chile, Mr. Gabriel Gonzalez Videla to consider
Mister
Ostria Gutiérrez, Ambassador of Bolivia.-
538
Annex 144
Annex 144
539
the Bolivian aspirations.
With this background, Your Excellency proposes to me that “the Governments of Bolivia and Chile formally enter into a direct negotiation to satisfy the fundamental need of Bolivia to obtain its own sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, solving the problem of the landlocked situation of Bolivia on bases that take into account the mutual conveniences and true interests of both peoples”.
From the quotes contained in the note I answer, it flows that the Government of Chile, together with safeguarding the de jure situation established in the Treaty of Peace of 1904, has been willing to study through direct efforts with Bolivia the possibility of satisfying the aspirations of the Government of Your Excellency and the interests of Chile.
At the present opportunity, I have the honour of expressing to Your Excellency that my Government will be consistent with that position and that, motivated by a fraternal spirit of friendship towards Bolivia, is open formally to enter into a direct negotiation aimed at searching for a formula that would make it possible to give Bolivia its own sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, and for Chile to obtain compensation of a non-territorial character which effectively takes into account its interests.
I am fully confident that in this way our respective governments will be able to unite more tightly the destinies of our two Republics and give a high
540
Annex 144
example of true American spirit in the Continent.
Finally, I have to add that, opportunely, my Government will have to consult Peru, in compliance with the Treaties celebrated with this country.
I reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and distinguished consideration.
[Signed]
Horacio W
alker Larraín
Annex 145
Note from the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 645/432, 11 July 1950
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 66 to its Memorial
541
542
Annex 145
Annex 145
543
CONFIDENTIAL COPY
SANTIAGO, 11 July 1950.
645/432.
Port Negotiations.
Two press clippings
(via airmail).
Dear Minister:
The magazine “Estanquero”, of a totalitarian and ultranationalist tendency, has published an article, in its issue dated the 8th of this month, by Mario Montero Schmidt, a lawyer known for his pacifist ideas who sponsored an appeal for constitutional relief to the Chilean courts, which was submitted by Senator Juan Lechín several months ago.
That article, which is not only contrary to Bolivia’s port ideal but also contains statements that are insulting to our country, reveals the moral and intellectual character of its author, who, as a member of a Lions Club delegation, was recently in La Paz, where he received the most effusive courtesies.
In spite of that, I believe that the publication does not warrant a reply and that we would be giving it value by starting a controversy with its author, either here or in Bolivia. Undoubtedly, the best thing to do is to let fall into the void.
In addition, the magazine “Ercilla” in today’s issue, published a sensationalist article about the port negotiations with Bolivia, under the following headlines: “Chile accepts in principle to cede an outlet to the sea to Bolivia.—In exchange for a 32 km long corridor from Arica, it will receive water from the lakes in the Altiplano for irrigation and energy in the northern pampas. A plan of historic and continental scope. Etc.”
The author of this publication, which is not signed, is the Chilean journalist Luis Hernández Parker, who is known for his worth in the field of internal politics and whose goal was to benefit the magazine “Ercilla” – of which he is one of the main editors – with the indiscretions he has collected from certain official spheres in Chile about the Bolivian port issue.
However, the revelation in “Ercilla”, which contains several mistakes, does not refer to the notes recently exchanged between the Foreign Minister of Chile and this Embassy.
To Mr Pedro Zilveti Arce,
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship.
La Paz.– Bolivia.
544
Annex 145
Annex 145
545
This is undoubtedly because the journalist is unaware of these notes– and he presents the issue as a being in a state of “crisis” to the Chilean people whose reaction can now be seen, as some support the understanding with Bolivia while others oppose it. In addition, it has already provoked an immediate statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Horacio Walker Larraín, which he delivered to me before it was published in the afternoon newspapers, and which reads as follows:
“Chile has expressed on different occasions, and even at the meeting of the League of Nations, its willingness to give an ear, in direct contacts with Bolivia, to proposals from this country aimed at satisfying its aspiration to have its own outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
This traditional policy of our Foreign Ministry in no way diminishes the rights conferred on Chile by the treaties in force.
The current government is consistent with the diplomatic precedents recalled here and, therefore, is open to enter into conversations with Bolivia about the problem referred to.
However, the publication alluded to assumes and sets forth the bases of an agreement, which have not been formulated and, therefore, cannot have been discussed.”
It can be noted, from the text of this official statement, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken a frank and definite stance—although he refuses to say anything about the details—on the willingness of the Foreign Ministry of la Moneda to come to an understanding with Bolivia, while admitting that the Chilean government is willing to enter into conversations on the port problem of our country.
One cannot deny the importance of that statement, which would have been impossible to obtain in another era, and in which the Chilean Foreign Minister—in terms that he dictated to the journalists, as he told me—refers to Bolivia’s own outlet to the Pacific Ocean, and also establishes that there is a problem. Until today Bolivia was the only one to point this out, contrary to Chile’s traditional stance of denying at congresses and conferences the existence of Bolivia’s port problem and considering that this problem had ended with the Treaty of 1904.
In light of the publicity that this matter has acquired, I would take the liberty of suggesting, in confirmation of the confidential cablegrams that I sent to you today, that it would be convenient to orient the Bolivian public opinion and particularly the press so that they treat the matter with serenity and nobility, rejecting the adverse comments that could be published here and maintaining the climate of cordiality that currently exists between Bolivia and Chile.
546
Annex 145
Annex 145
547
Moreover, I think that it is urgent to inform the government of the United States, as we were asked to do by the Chilean Foreign Ministry, about the negotiations that have been initiated and our country’s willingness to reach the understanding of which President González Videla informed President Truman.
Finally, it is indispensable that this Foreign Ministry send me the authorization I mentioned in my Cablegram No. 152, of 28 June, almost 20 days ago, to enter the second stage of negotiations that has currently been paralyzed by the answer contained in your cablegram No. 91, of 24 June.
I ask that this note and the corresponding attachments be conveyed to His Excellency the President of the Republic and I take this opportunity to reiterate to you the assurances of my highest consideration.
[Signed]
548
Annex 145
Annex 145
549
LA NACIÓN, 12-VII-50
CHILE'S WILLINGNESS FOR A BOLIVIAN INITIATIVE
When he was asked about a publication that appeared in a magazine on issues of interest to Chile and Bolivia, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made the following statement:
"Chile has expressed on different occasions, and even at the meeting of the League of Nations, its good disposition to give an ear, in direct contacts with Bolivia, to proposals from this country aimed at satisfying its aspiration to have its own outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
This traditional policy of our Foreign Ministry in no way diminishes the rights conferred on Chile by the treaties in force.
The current government is consistent with the recalled diplomatic background and, therefore, is willing to enter into conversations with Bolivia about the referred problem.
However, the publication alluded to assumes and sets forth the bases of an agreement, which have not been formulated and, therefore, cannot have been discussed."
550
Annex 146
Note from the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 668/444, 19 July 1950
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 67 to its Memorial
551
552
Annex 146
Annex 146
553
EMBASSY OF BOLIVIA COPY
Santiago, 19 July 1950.
CONFIDENTIAL.
No. 668/444. [Seal:] CONFIDENTIAL
RE: Port Negotiations.
Annexes: Several paper clips.
(By air mail).
Minister,
The public opinion in Chile is still in a state of agitation over the Bolivian port issue and the stance adopted by the Government of this country to negotiate with ours a solution to this problem.
The Senate Commission on Foreign Affairs held a confidential session yesterday, and, after adjournment, it disclosed the following official press release to the press:
“The Senate Commission on Foreign Affairs convened at 5:30 PM, Mr. José Maza presiding over, with all its members in attendance: Mr. Ulises Correa, Mr. Angel Faivovich, Mr. Sergio Fernández and Mr. Raúl Marín. Also in attendance were several Senators and Representatives.--- The President stated that, agreeing to a petition submitted to him last Wednesday by all Commission members, he had addressed the Minister of Foreign Affairs immediately, requesting that he set a date and time for him to go to the Commission so that the Commission could understand what is true in the Bolivian request for Chile to cede a corridor to Bolivia that would allow it to gain an outlet to the sea at the northern limit.--- The Minister replied that he wished in the first instance to have a conversation with him on that issue.--- He talked to the Minister the next day, who stated that, among other things, Bolivia had not to date specified its petitions, and that, as soon as it did so, the Government would disclose them to the Commissions on Foreign Affairs of both Houses of Congress and to the heads of political parties.---- Under the circumstances, the Minister did not see fit to come to the Commission yet to give an account of the background.--- Whereupon, all Commission members and other Senators took the floor.---- As the president of the Commission was asked direct questions about the conversations allegedly held in Washington, Mr Maza answered that as of the day on which he held conversations with the Minister, Mr. Truman’s press conference had not been published yet, and further added that he had seen fit to let the Minister know of the bad impression by the press to
To Mr. Pedro Zilveti Arce
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
LA PAZ
554
Annex 146
Annex 146
555
date that had been left on the members of Congress that had talked with him.--- The Commission agreed that its president, Mr. Maza, request that the Minister attend a Commission session whenever he saw fit.---- (Signed by) Enrique Ortúzar Escobar, Secretary of the Commission on Foreign Affairs.”
In turn, the El Diario Ilustrado newspaper today published the following statements made by the president of the Commission on Foreign Affairs, Mr. José Maza:
“I think it inappropriate for Chile to take responsibility for reviving an issue such as the Bolivian maritime outlet issue, which does not relate to a genuine Bolivian aspiration, but to a retrogressive stance, fueled by Bolivian politicians that stir it up from time to time for entirely selfish purposes. This situation is quite similar to the one that occurred over so many years between Chilean and Peruvian politicians, before the Tacna-Arica dispute was resolved.--- I state that having a port on the Pacific does not relate to a genuine Bolivian aspiration or need because that country conducts three fourths of its foreign trade through the Atlantic Ocean, and only the remaining quarter through the Pacific Ocean.--- Aside from that, I believe that the fair claim by Bolivia to increase its trade relations should be based on grounds stronger than the sole aspiration to have a port of its own, such as, for example, reaching an agreement with neighbouring countries to obtain from them ample exemptions to trade through their ports.”
Communist Senator Salvador Ocampo, who a few years ago voiced his support for a favorable solution to the Bolivian port issue, expressed during the last Senate session his opposition to any negotiation with the current Governments of Bolivia and Peru, which he criticised harshly.
On the other hand, Representative Undurraga gave a speech at the House of Representatives, condemning President González Videla’s stance on the port negotiations with Bolivia. Today’s press published the following version of this speech:
“Mr. Undurraga, as Representative of the Province of Tarapacá, cannot afford to be indifferent to certain international news. He refers to the information that part of the national territory would be ceded to give an outlet to the sea to Bolivia. Such information, which seemed a product of the reporter’s imagination, has been confirmed, and, oddly enough, while the Government had adopted a stance on this issue, the Congress had been completely ignored. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has not been courteous enough to consult with the Congress. In sum, this negotiation would consist of the President of the Republic proposing, before the President of the United States, the cession of an outlet to the sea by Chile to Bolivia. It should be
556
Annex 146
Annex 146
557
emphasized that Chile has fulfilled all obligations owed to Bolivia, so no vindication-related but a mere sentiment-related problem exists, in addition to negotiating a part of the Chilean territory.---- He further adds that the President of the United States stated in a press conference that the United States would not intervene in these negotiations; however, personally, he was in favor of the cession of territories about which he had talked with the Chilean President during his visit to the United States. He believes that Mr. González Videla has gone too far and, although he is respectful of the privileges of every Branch of Government, he believes that the Minister of Foreign Affairs should have come to the Congress to explain this issue. This cession means the death of Arica and Antofagasta, and the Liberal Party Committee has submitted a draft agreement for the House to hold a special session to hear what the Minister of Foreign Affairs has to say.”
The President of the Republic gave an interview to Vea magazine (19-7-1950), which is transcribed below:
“We have to make things clear. The Government has not resolved anything concerning this issue. The only truth is that, in keeping with the traditions of the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and ratifying my profound American spirit, I have never refused to hold conversations on Bolivia’s port aspirations. That is how I expressed it in San Francisco on behalf of the Chilean Government when I was governmental delegate to that Conference. As he took office in 1946, Bolivian President Hertzog reminded me of the promise, and, I, in accordance with a rule never denied by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic, replied to the Bolivian President that I agreed to initiate conversations on the proposed issue. This is all there is to it so far.--- However, it is my duty to inform my peoples that the Chilean President is open to initiate conversations on two irrevocable conditions: 1. Such conversations shall not revolve around treaty revision because we have no unresolved issues with Bolivia in that respect. All treaties signed have already been performed over time, and, nowadays, they are just part of history. Consequently, no revision of any kind may be admitted. So I stated while acting as delegate in San Francisco, and all Chileans will surely remember that this battle against treaty revision was won by our delegation from start to finish. The Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations reads as follows: “We, the peoples of the United Nations, [are] determined to ESTABLISH CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH JUSTICE AND RESPECT FOR THE OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM TREATIES and other sources of international law can be maintained.” Thus, the tone of the conversations with Bolivia will be none other than that of friendly, amiable dealings, based on providing compensation to Chile.--- 2. The second important condition is that all possible conferences in which the problem of Bolivia’s landlocked situation is studied shall count on Peru’s prior agreement, as provided by the supplementary protocol to the Chile-Peru Treaty signed in Lima on 3 July 1929.--- Finally, I state that, as President of the Republic, I will keep the port of Arica safe in all conversations that the discussion of the subject issue
558
Annex 146
Annex 146
559
may lead to. However, it is rather premature to talk about this right now, for we do not know what proposals the Bolivian Government -- which is to initiate the conversations -- will put forward… (–However, you talked with Mr. Truman about this subject)… –We touched on this issue by chance; and for an obvious reason. We reviewed the entire Latin American landscape, and, when I touched on the Bolivian aspirations issue, I insisted before the President that we did not have any pending territorial issues with any of our neighboring countries. I further told President Truman that, in connection with Bolivia’s port aspirations, I, in keeping with my American spirit, and, above all, with the traditional standards upheld by the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was willing to hold friendly talks with the Bolivian Government… That is all there is to it so far. Anything that can be added will be untrue. As you may realize, the most important thing is missing and this is only the beginning of the conversations.--- (However -- we add--, information has been furnished to the press…)… Yes, and a 32-km strip of land has been mentioned, while our strip to the north of Arica is only 10 kilometers long. The remaining territory belongs to Peru. As you see, many assertions by the press have been belied by those assertions themselves. Apart from that, such issue was disclosed by me in my Address to the Congress in May this year. With reference to the visit I paid to Mr. Truman, there is a paragraph that reads as follows: “This visit yields positive results of great significance, concerning not only the relations between two nations driven by the same democratic passion and governed by similar republican institutions, BUT ALSO THE CONSOLIDATION OF OUR RELATIONS WITH OUR SISTER NATIONS IN THE AMERICAS.”
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Horacio Walker Larraín, made the following statements to the same magazine:
“I will repeat what the President must have already told you. There is nothing official or real behind the alleged news that Chile will cede a port to Bolivia in the north. I do state, however, that it has been an invariable standard upheld by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to declare that although we do not have any pending issues with Bolivia, we are open to hold friendly conversations about their port aspirations. These words are not mine. These statements belong to all my predecessors: Mr. Luis Izquierdo, Mr. Jorge Matte, President Alessandri, and Mr. Agustín Edwards. The Chilean thesis can be fairly summarized as follows: “Chile will not accept that Bolivia’s aspirations concerning a port in the Pacific be raised in International Conferences and Congresses.. However, Chile is open to studying in direct, friendly conversations with that country the possibility of satisfying its longings through compensation to Chile.”---This has been the essence of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ policy. I may have made some mistake in the word-for-word quotation, but that is the spirit of it.”--- (However, from then to today, some progress must have been made… we say).--- Yes. We have agreed to open conversations. But nothing more. No Bolivian proposal on this issue has been received by our Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
560
Annex 146
Annex 146
561
If and when such proposal is received, we will study it. We will reject it, accept it, amend it, etc. Nothing can be said about things that are to occur in the future.--- (However, a corridor to the north of Arica has been mentioned)--- Yes, but much of the talk takes place outside this office, unofficially. I understand that the mention you make relates to an old study conducted 20 years ago by Engineer Luis Lagarrigue. But, as you see, they are mere personal interpretations. I understand that there is even a book on an irrigation project in the north, fed by the waters of the Titicaca Lake. But no official decision by the Government can be found there.--- Forgive me if I insist that there is nothing to be revealed on this issue. Apart from that, any solution that we may attempt to reach in the future with the Bolivian Government will be subject to approval by Peru, to which we are bound under the Treaty of 1929.”
Mr. Conrado Ríos Gallardo, a long-time enemy of our country, published an article in El Mercurio newspaper (16 July 1950) entitled “Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in Arica,” in which Mr. Ríos Gallardo defends Peru’s interests rather than Chile’s interests, by claiming -- on behalf of Peru, allegedly -- that several unfulfilled provisions of the Lima Treaty of 1929 should be complied with, including the construction of a berthing seawall in Arica and the erection of a symbolic monument on Morro de Arica. Mr. Ríos Gallardo has adopted a similar stance in an interview that will be published by Zig-Zag magazine next Friday, a copy of which I have enclosed with this letter. A noble friend of our motherland and former Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. José Ramón Gutiérrez Allende, has promised that he will refute Ríos Gallardo’s statements in a subsequent Zig-Zag issue.
Breaking the silence maintained thus far by Chile’s major newspapers, i.e. La Nación, El Diario Ilustrado, La Hora and El Mercurio, the latter has issued an opinion reflecting its reluctance, and, actually, its opposition, to the port negotiations with Bolivia, which the newspaper has labeled as untimely by referring to “difficult, somber times charged with premonitions for all nations,” in which “neither historical precedents nor world events may advise Bolivia and Chile to break this state of harmony and good understanding in which they live to initiate agreements out of laborious creation.”
In view of all these adverse statements, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Horacio Walter Larraín, said to me today that he intends to go to the Senate to explain the true stance adopted by the Government on this issue, thus allowing the prevailing atmosphere to become calmer and port negotiations with our country to proceed. I know that the Chilean President, too, has firmly maintained his long-time decision on that issue and is determined to face any criticism that may be made against him, counting on, in reality, solid support from the Congress.
As regards the Peruvian stance, the Secretary of the Peruvian Embassy, Mr. Wagner de Reina, has informed the First Secretary of the Bolivian Embassy, Mr. Julio Valdés Hertzog, that he did not believe that such stance was contrary to any territorial cession that Chile
562
Annex 146
Annex 146
563
may plan to make in favor of Bolivia, but that he would demand that the provisions of the Chile-Peru Treaty of 1929 referred to in Mr. Ríos Gallardo’s article be complied with…
For my part, despite the state of agitation prevailing here and the many requests from the press for me to make statements, I have remained unshakably calm and maintained a cautious silence.
I would like to reiterate once more that I find it appropriate for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be the one that furnishes the Bolivian press with the publications I send, mentioning also the patriotism of Bolivian journalists, so that in reproducing such publications they may maintain the highest level of professionalism, avoiding aggressive arguments that might not only cause port negotiations to fail but also bring about a grave estrangement between the Bolivian democracy and the Chilean democracy, which have hitherto maintained the most sincere, moral cooperation in view of the common peril posed by either the Brown or Red totalitarianism.
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.
[Signed]
564
Annex 147
Note from the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, No 737/472, 3 August 1950
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 68 to its Memorial
565
566
Annex 147
Annex 147
567
EMBASSY OF BOLIVIA CONFIDENTIAL
No 737 / 472 Santiago, 3 August 1950.
RE: Port Negotiations. [Seal:] First copy by airmail.
Annexes: Several paper clippings. [Seal:] CONFIDENTIAL
(By airmail).
Minister,
First of all, I hereby confirm the following telegram I sent to you the day before yesterday:
“[Chile-Bolivia] Relations.--- La Paz.---- Unfortunately, despite my repeated requests that guidance be provided to the Bolivian public with regard to the port issue, nothing has been done and both imagination and bad faith have been allowed to mislead the nation, while a high, national aspiration has been used as a political weapon. Once more, I believe it is urgent and essential to establish the truth. No one has ever thought of giving up the waters of the Titicaca Lake, which barely constitutes a remote hypothesis, and not a single word has been officially disclosed as regards the territorial issue. We have just entered a preliminary stage in direct negotiations, wherein Bolivia has submitted a proposal for a free, sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean and Chile has agreed to discuss such issue. Due to a lack of instructions, no progress has been made in this preliminary stage.---------------------------------I beg you to make this telegram known to the President of the Republic.” --- Ostria.” (No. 1 --VIII-50).
Indeed, when reading newspapers from La Paz, I have been able to confirm that the press has been totally misled with regard to the port negotiations with Chile. Moreover: due to a lack of information, eminent public men of the country, such as Mr. Luis Fernando Guachalla, have declared that it is for the Chilean Foreign Ministry to initiate such negotiations -- which would suggest that our Foreign Ministry has refrained from taking any action, as, since the day following the day on which it lost its coastline, Bolivia has not ceased claiming its maritime reintegration. Other men, including Mr. Franz Tamayo, have considered that even the waters of the Titicaca Lake are in danger.… On the other hand, our nation’s high aspiration has begun to be used as a political weapon, while other elements have emerged not to stir patriotism, which is the noblest of all sentiments, but jingoism, which, on an international level, can be somewhat likened to demagogy on a social level, and which can only lead our people to defiant show-offs followed by painful humiliation.
In view of the above, I believe it is urgent to reestablish the truth and explain to our country that:
To Mr. Pedro Zilveti Arce
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
LA PAZ.-- BOLIVIA
568
Annex 147
Annex 147
569
1) Our dream for a port is sacred to our nation and Bolivia will uphold it for as long as it lives and while such aspiration has not been achieved.
2) In that regard, Bolivia has expressed the need for securing a sovereign outlet of its own to the Pacific Ocean and Chile has agreed to enter into negotiations in that respect.
3) The only thing that has been officially agreed with Chile is direct negotiations, on which the Bolivian people expressed their opinion when the candidates for the Presidency of the Republic, Messrs. Guachalla and Hertzog, included such topic in their electoral platforms in 1947.
4) With regard to the geographic aspect, neither Bolivia nor Chile has submitted a concrete proposal yet, and, in that respect, we have not moved on from the conversations or the exchange of preliminary ideas stage.
5) The use of the Titicaca and Poopó Lakes to irrigate the north of Chile constitutes an issue that lies in the sphere of hypothesis and in respect of which no official steps have been taken. Therefore, Bolivia has not even made the slightest commitment in that regard.
6) Any final agreement that may lead to settling the Bolivian port problem must be tripartite in nature, as provided by the Chile-Peru Supplementary Protocol of 1929.
------
For his part, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Horacio Walker Larraín, has just made an official statement, which reads as follows:
“News articles have been published in a number of Bolivian and Chilean newspapers to the effect that the conversations leading to direct contacts on the port issue are presumed to be the result of an initiative from our country.--- In that regard, he stated: it is not an initiative from the Government of Chile but from the Government of Bolivia.--- Indeed, for some while, the Honorable Bolivian Ambassador to Chile, pursuing a well-known, long-standing objective of his Government, has met with several of my predecessors to propose initiating the negotiations referred to. A similar attitude has been observed from the current Minister.--- I can further add, as I mentioned in my statement of the 11th of last month, that no proposal has been formulated with regard to the subject matter. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate what Chile has expressed on different occasions: that it is willing to consider, through direct contacts, any proposals that Bolivia may submit to it.”
570
Annex 147
Annex 147
571
In his last meeting with me, the Chilean Foreign Minister also stated that:
1) Despite adverse reactions from a number of sectors of opinion, above all for reasons of domestic policy, he is determined to carry on negotiations with Bolivia.
2) Although his predecessor, Mr. Germán Riesco, has held that Chile should consult with Peru before entering into any conversations with Bolivia, he thinks and holds otherwise: namely, that Chile, as owner of the Department of Arica, can and must talk with Bolivia first and consult with Peru only in the event that, pursuant to Article 1 of the Supplementary Protocol of 1929, Chile having decided to transfer to Bolivia the territory that was the subject matter of such Protocol.
----------
The Chilean press continues addressing the matter, as you will see from the attached press clippings. But the main stir has taken place in the Congress, for lawmakers have not been promptly consulted by the President of the Republic or by the Foreign Minister about the conversations held with Bolivia. Diplomatic committees at both the Senate and the House of Representatives have discussed this issue at length amid intense criticism against the Chilean Government, and have also relied on Bolivian press articles in order to present them as a hostile reaction from our country against Chile.
The stances adopted by the different political parties on this issue can be summarized as follows:
1) Radical party. It has agreed to endorse the policies adopted by the President of the Republic, acknowledging also that, in accordance with the Constitution, the responsibility for conducting international relations rests with the President.
2) Liberal Party. The matter has been secretly debated. There are a number of opinions in favor of negotiating with Bolivia, including that of former Foreign Minister Barros Jarpa, and others against such negotiations, including those of Senator José Maza and Representatives Raúl Aldunate and Luis Undurraga.
3) Agrarian Labor Party. It is one of the fiercest opponents of the Government’s policy on the Bolivian port issue.
4) Conservative Social Christian Party. It supports the Government’s policy in all its respects.
5) Traditionalist Conservative Party. It has adopted no official position. However, because it is an opposition party, it has voiced its opposition to the stance adopted by the Government.
572
Annex 147
Annex 147
573
6) Popular Socialist Party. Although it is an opponent of the Government, it is in favor of reaching an agreement with Bolivia on the port issue. Its three senators and six representatives will endorse such agreement.
7) Socialist Party. It has taken no stance on the issue yet.
8) Communist Party. It is totally opposed to Bolivia’s dream for a Bolivian port, although it has endorsed such aspiration in the past. It is only driven by its opposition to the United States, which, according to the Communists, is presumably attempting to obtain a strategic barrier through the Bolivian maritime access.
9) Nazi Party. Violently opposed to any solution in favor of Bolivia.
----------
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.
[Signed]
574
Annex 147
Annex 147
575
LA
NACIÓN FRIDAY, 4 AUGUST 1950.
SANTIAGO DE CHILE
Foreign Ministry Reasserts Chile’s Willingness to Listen to Bolivia
through Direct Contacts
THE BOLIVIAN GOVERNMENT TAKES THE INITIATIVE IN RESPONSE TO THE CHILEAN GOVERNMENT
Other Ministries of Foreign Affairs also learned about the neighbouring country’s claims.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Horacio Walker Larraín reasserted yesterday Chile’s willingness to hear any proposals that Bolivia may submit to it in direct contacts. He stated that holding contacts for an agreement with the neighboring Republic is not an initiative from the Government of Chile but from the Government of Bolivia.
Mr. Walker Larraín’s statement is transcribed below:
“News articles have been published in a number of Bolivian and Chilean newspapers to the effect that the conversations leading to direct contacts on the port issue are presumed to be the result of an initiative from our country.
In that regard, I say that it is not an initiative from the Government of Chile, but from the Government of Bolivia.
Indeed, for some while, the Honorable Bolivian Ambassador to Chile, pursuing a well-known, long-standing objective of his Government, has met with several of my predecessors to propose initiating the negotiations referred to. A similar attitude has been observed from the current Minister.
I can further add that, as I mentioned in my statement of the 11th of last month, no proposal has been formulated with regard to the subject matter.
Furthermore, I would like to reiterate what Chile has expressed on different occasions: that it is willing to hear, through direct contacts, any proposals that Bolivia may submit to it.”
576
Annex 147
Annex 148
Letter from Víctor Paz Estenssoro to Siles Suazo dated
25 September 1950, published in El Diario (Bolivia),
19 June 1964
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
El Diario (Bolivia)
577
578
Annex 148
Annex 148
579
Dr. Víctor Paz responds to citizens in exile in Lima on this subject
(Reply of Mr. Víctor Paz Estenssoro (relevant portion) to the letter of 12 August 1950 from Messrs. Hernán Siles Zuazo, Alvaro Pérez del Castillo, Luis Peláez Rioja, Humberto del Villar, and Carlos Montellano).
“Montevideo, 25 September 1950.
As regards the port issue, please allow me, with the honesty that should always be the norm between us, to tell you that I do not find your statement entirely correct, explaining your formulation to myself more as a ploy, even though its purpose as such was easily discernible.
On the face of it, we should already distrust a negotiation between the administrations of Urriolagoitia and Gonzales Videla, given the former’s state of dependence, as it is widely known. It must be added, as a further element of distrust, the involvement of Ostria Gutierrez, that well-known dispenser of the country’s riches by way of international conventions and treaties. Finally, there is the fundamentally anti-national character of the ruling clique that today has the Bolivian government in its hands.
The argument of not missing out on the opportunity that presents itself of obtaining an outlet to the sea, based on the cordial status of the relations between the two governments, has no true value. In addition to the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, based on which it can be assumed that any negotiations under the current circumstances would necessarily be unfavorable to Bolivia, there are others that are permanent in nature. As far as we are concerned, the port problem is not among the priority issues Bolivia is facing. The frequent statement
580
Annex 148
that our underdevelopment results from our lack of an outlet to the sea is not just infantile but biased as well, as it seeks to divert the public attention from the true causes of Bolivia’s stagnation. From a national-interest perspective, it is more urgent and convenient for us to focus our capacity, energy and resources on developing the major potential elements, both at the economic and human levels, that Bolivia contains. Thus, over the course of some fifteen or twenty years, we will have turned our Homeland into a nation much more powerful than it is today. Then, the relationship of force currently in place between Chile and Bolivia, which necessarily must translate into negotiation, even assuming Urriolagoitia’s submission to Gonzales Videla’s designs, would shift in favour of Bolivia. We will then be able to approach negotiations with Chile in a peaceful and cordial manner but on an equal footing and for our mutual benefit. Paradoxically, it is not in our best interest to have the port issue immediately resolved but, rather, postpone it to some future point in time.
Also objectionable is that portion of your statement in which you propose that we let up in our fight against the government, as it could be wielded as a confession that we are the ones who are intentionally keeping up the state of unrest the country is currently living in. It would have been better to propose that the government let up in its systematic and merciless persecution to which we are subjected, and which obliges us to rebel, as each and every legal avenue is shut off to us, as per the explanation that has been offered of the party’s conspiratorial attitude.
Annex 148
581
In spite of the express official denials by both Bolivia and Chile, the general bases of the negotiation are, quite obviously, the ones published by “Ercilla.” On the other hand, these are not new, since, back when we were in office, the then-President of Chile, José Antonio Ríos, proposed to President Villarroel the possibility of ceding a port to Bolivia in exchange for water from the high plateau region to be used to irrigate the Tamarugal pampas; this proposal did not succeed, as it was deemed to be unfavorable to national interests. In his book “A work and a destiny,” published in early 1946, Ostria Gutiérrez already referred to irrigation of the northern area of Chile using water from the Titicaca as the basis for an “integral solution” for which awareness was being built in Chile. Lastly, denying the official denials, President Gonzales Videla confirmed that those are the bases of the negotiation in his speech at the Santiago Rotary Club (cable from Santiago UP, 13 September 1950): “Undoubtedly, when the Chilean people become aware of the reality of the decline prevailing in the Provinces of Tarapacá and Antofagasta and the importance of the solution that is sought to such decline via the cession to Bolivia of a strip of land north of the port of Arica in exchange for irrigation using water from Bolivian lakes, simultaneously with the use of such water to generate power, and so on…”
Following this line of thinking, on 31 July I made the statements, attached in full to this letter, to the press agencies.
Please accept my assurances of my unshakable faith in the victory of our national revolution,
Víctor Paz Estenssoro.
582
Annex 149
“Bolivia does not wish to raise the problem of the port, but to ensure the free transit of goods to La Paz”, El Mercurio (Chile), 25 January 1953
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
El Mercurio (Chile)
583
584
Annex 149
Annex 149
585
El Mercurio, Santiago, Chile, Sunday 25 January 1953
“Bolivia does not wish to raise the problem of the port, but
to ensure the free transit of goods to La Paz”
“Now– the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Walter Guevara expressed–the Government has too many internal affairs to solve”
“The people–he added–will not allow revolutionary attempts to prosper.”
LAST NIGHT IN ARICA PRELIMINARY MEETINGS BEGAN BETWEEN THE FOREIGN MINISTERS OF CHILE AND OF THE ALTIPLANO
586
Annex 149
Annex 149
587
IQUIQUE.- The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Arturo Olavarría, during his passage through this port on board the steamer “Antonioto Usodimare”, travelling to Arica to meet the Bolivian Foreign Minister, Mr. Walter Guevara, made the following statements:
“In a statement I made before the Senate, I mentioned that Latin American countries’ greatest desire of reaching economic unification was perfectly possible. Such thing can be done –he continued– through the convergence of the economies of all of the underdeveloped countries.
To make this desire come true, that is to say, to obtain the formation of a block or association of Latin American countries, it is necessary to begin with the removal of all those small pending problems among them. In our case, there are those related to determined commitments in treaties and conventions with bordering countries which have not been fulfilled due to indolence or lack of interest.
Knowing that, regarding our Bolivian and Peruvian neighbors, there are some provisions of said treaties that have not been complied with, or have not been fully accomplished, I have endeavored to come to the land to study the solutions, as well as to get to know the needs of the region in order to inform the President of the Republic, who is determined to give a comprehensive solution to their old problems to the people of the north and to provide them with all the royalties of general progress that has been achieved by other cities in the territory, for which advancement has not stopped.
When preparing my trip, I was informed that His Excellency Mr. Walter Guevara, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, wanted to meet me in Arica. I communicated to the Government of the Altiplano that that meeting would be a great pleasure for me, that I could only expect to reach agreements that meet the interests and equally compensate these two brotherly countries.”
How many days Mister Olavarría will stay in Arica is disregarded, but he stated that it is possible that he may return to Iquique by land in order to learn about the interior of Tarapacá and the rural zones of Quebradas de Azapa and Lluta. In Iquique, he will study the background information of the projected International Road to Oruro, and will determine which of the three routes proposed by the Chilean and Bolivian engineers’ commission
is the best. He will then continue to Antofagasta, where he will stay for two days. --SEPULVEDA, correspondent.
THE ARRIVAL OF BOLIVIA’S FOREIGN MINISTER TO ARICA
ARICA.- Aboard the Presidential aircraft, yesterday at 16:05, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Mister Walter Guevara Arze and his delegation arrived at the airport of Arica.
The airport was adorned with flags of both countries. The representative of the Government of Altiplano was welcomed by authorities and journalists. The first to embrace him was the Chargé d’Affaires of Bolivia in Santiago, Mr. Alipaz; afterwards, the staff of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Huidobro presented him the greetings of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Olavarría, and next, the Mayor of Arica welcomed him on behalf of the city.-
The Minister of Foreign Affairs posed for photographers and cordially greeted the Commander of the Garrison, the Prefect of the Police and other civil servants that attended to salute him, among them the Ambassador of Chile to La Paz, Mr. Luis Rau.
The visitor stated that the flight had been excellent and was thankful for the provisions made by the Chief of the Airport, Commander Mr. Horacio Diaz Garces.
A delegation of workers of the Railway from Arica to La Paz and representatives of the trade unions were present at the reception and shook hands with the Minister Mr. Guevara, who expressed his appreciation for this democratic gesture, which he interpreted as a demonstration of affection to the people of his nation.
After, at 16:15, Mr. Guevara, the Governor of the Department, the Chargé d’Affaires of Bolivia and the Commander of the Garrison, got into a car,
588
Annex 149
Annex 149
589
while the rest of the delegation and their companions got into other vehicles, all of them arriving to the Pacific Hotel twenty minutes later.
A large number of people gathered on front of the Hotel, waiting for the Bolivian delegation. In the lobby, a brief tertulia with other representatives took place, while the delegation was accommodated. CARLOS ANFRUNS, Special Envoy.
THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, MR OLAVARRÍA
ARICA.- At 16:30, the steamer “Antoniotto Usodimare” anchored in the port, onboard of which the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Arturo Olavarría Bravo and part of his delegation arrived. Local authorities boarded it to receive them. Shortly after, he got off and went to the Pacific Hotel, where the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Mr. Guevara, was waiting. They warmly hugged each other and exchanged the customary greetings.
The Bolivian Minister, interviewed by journalists, declared that the main issue in the conversations with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile would be to find an efficient formula to definitively ensure that the free transit contemplated in the Treaty be effectively “free transit” and that there be no Chilean authority empowered to interfere with said system, as had recently occurred in Antofagasta, wherein the judicial power created a serious problem for his country through the interception of materials essential for the activation of mining production. He added, happily, that Bolivia has in Chile a
very friendly Government, which quickly solved the situation, but whatever the conditions of the relationship between both Governments may be, Bolivia must be guaranteed that the free transit will suffer no kind of difficulties.
He reiterated that there was a misunderstanding by an information agency when communicating that the Government of Bolivia would have declared that the Government of Chile would empathize with certain exiled elements of his country and enemies of his Nation. In that respect, he declared that he had referred exclusively to the judicial authorities of Antofagasta.
Asked if he would raise the claim of the port in his conversations with Olavarría, the Minister Mr. Guevara declared that his Government had no intention to do it as long as the principle of free transit was conveniently solved in favour of Bolivia, as this was of vital importance for his country. He added that it was undoubted that all Bolivians kept the latent aspiration of having a port of their own, but that now there were many and very important problems to be solved within their borders, especially those related to the nationalisation of the mines and the internal economy, which had inflicted severe hardship.
When remembering the subversive attempt of 6 January, he declared that some people had been effectively detained as a safeguard measure, but that currently no attempt to overthrow the government will be allowed because the Bolivian people will rise to defend the current state of affairs “with tooth and nail”. He also assured that thousands of people are armed, lined up to fight the Government at any time; but that in the Altiplano they are tired of the shedding of blood. Finally, he asked to offer his greetings to the Chilean Government and people. ARAYA, correspondent.
ARICA.- Shortly after the meeting of the two Ministers in the Pacific Hotel, both retired to their private rooms to rest. Later, it was reported that Messrs Olavarría and Guevara would hold a preliminary meeting in order to exchange ideas on the work to be done; but it was put forward that, in any case, there would be no news until Sunday.
The Ambassador, Mr. Luis Rau, used his time in this port to visit the city of Tacna, showing admiration for the progress reached by that border city and of the great amount of public works made by the Peruvian Government. In that regard, he said that there is a sharp contrast with the state of the population of Arica.- ANFRUNS, Special Envoy.
590
Annex 150
Declaration of Arica by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and Chile, signed at Arica on 25 January 1953
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), p 222
591
592
Annex 150
Annex 150
593
DECLARATION OF ARICA
Signed in Arica, 25 January 1953.
The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Chile and Bolivia, Mr. Arturo Olavarría Bravo and Mr. Walter Guevara Arze, met in the city of Arica in order to further strengthen the cordial relations which fortunately exist between both peoples and their governments and, after reviewing various aspects related to a better implementation of the international agreements in force between their countries, hereby make the following
DECLARATIONS:
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile affirmed that his Government reiterates its willingness to comply, faithfully and loyally at all times, with the Treaties and Conventions on free transit in favor of Bolivia. In consequence of the foregoing, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Chile and Bolivia declare that the 1937 Convention on Transit enshrines the following principles:
1. – All types of freight, without any exception, in transit through Chilean territory, from or to Bolivia, shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction and competence of the Bolivian customs authorities, represented by the respective customs agents duly empowered by the Government of Bolivia, from the moment when the Chilean authorities deliver the freight to the Bolivian customs agents. This delivery, pursuant to the letter and the spirit of the Convention, must be made at the very moment the freight arrives in a Chilean port, and no authority may interfere therewith. Regardless of the place where the freight is left, it shall also be deemed a Bolivian customs area.
2. – Therefore, issues of any kind arising from such freight can only be known and resolved by Bolivian authorities, without any administrative, customs or legal authorities of the Republic of Chile having jurisdiction or being competent to hear such matters.
3. – Intervention by the customs or other authorities of the Republic of Chile in transit operations with respect to import or export to or from Bolivia, and the formalities to which such transactions are subject by virtue of the international agreements in force, is only intended as external surveillance for the purpose of preventing such freight from illegally reaching local consumers and bypassing the respective customs clearance, and also to prevent the commission of criminal acts.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia affirmed that the legal actions which took place in Antofagasta with regard to goods in transit to his country gave rise to the Government of Chile’s demonstration of its willingness to faithfully and loyally comply with the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Friendship and the 1937 Convention on Transit, which attitude is highly appreciated by the people and the Government of Bolivia.
Arica, 25 January 1953.
(Signed).—Arturo Olavarría B.
(Signed).—Walter Guevara A.
594
Annex 151
Chile-Bolivia Treaty of Economic Complementation, signed at Arica on 31 January 1955
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 223-225
595
596
Annex 151
Annex 151
597
CHILE-BOLIVIA TREATY OF ECONOMIC COMPLEMENTATION
Signed in Arica, on 31 January 1955.
The governments of Chile and of Bolivia, driven by the American ideal of continental economic integration, have resolved to pool their efforts to develop coordinated action in order to achieve, in successive stages, economic complementation and to contribute to the strengthening of the economic independence of their people.
To achieve these ends, they shall promote economic development of the two countries, mobilizing their comparatively more efficient industries and shall increase production on all fronts to achieve, with joint action, greater exchange in both directions, increase of national income and improvement in the living standards of the people of both countries.
Taking into account these general principles of international economic policy, they agree to enter into this Treaty of Economic Complementation, for which purpose they have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:
His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chile; his Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Mr. Ovsaldo Krefft Koch, and his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Government of Bolivia, His Excellency Mr. Alejandro Hales Jamarne, and
His Excellency the President of the Republic of Bolivia; his Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, His Excellency Mr. Walter Guevara Arze, and his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Government of Chile, His Excellency Mr. Fernando Iturralde Chinel.
Who, after having exchanged their Full Powers, and having found them in good and due form, agreed as follows:
Article 1
The Chilean-Bolivian economic complementation shall be carried out in accordance with the fundamental rules included in this Treaty and specific agreements to be signed later.
Article 2
The fundamental rules referred to in the preceding Article are the following:
a) The agreement on economic plans to engage in a broadly balanced exchange of trade, the coordination of their respective productions, the increase of exportable surpluses of such productions, the development of industrialization in both countries through reciprocal capital investments and all other means available to the contracting governments.
598
Annex 151
Annex 151
599
b) The revision of customs duties, taxes, excessive fees and any other measure that taxes or restricts imports between the two countries. The reforms shall be carried out gradually and in a coordinated manner, taking into account, where appropriate, the treatment applicable to third countries.
c) The coordination of existing schemes on the transfer of funds, exchange rates, and exchange permits to achieve the fullest and most fluid exchange.
d) The conclusion of special arrangements for the reciprocal supply of the main domestic products on stable grounds, to ensure the supply of the two countries.
e) The concession of adequate and well-timed financial advantages to enable the purchase of the products being traded.
f) The agreement on a system that expands and facilitates the current free transit regime of goods originating in one of the two countries through the territory of the other, for their export to third countries. Such system shall also include the necessary arrangements to allow the import by one of the two countries through the territory of the other, of goods originating in third countries.
g) The expansion and improvement of current means of communication and transport between the two countries. To that effect, the traffic shall be increased in the Chilean-Bolivian state railway from Arica to La Paz and an appropriate income distribution system in relation to such an increase shall be agreed upon. Additionally, a Commission of Chilean and Bolivian engineers appointed to consider the most appropriate line for a road link between Oruro and Iquique shall be constituted.
For the importance to the economy of the two countries and in accordance with Treaties on free transit currently in force, both Governments agree to provide all facilities necessary for the construction and operation by Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos of a pipeline between Oruro and Arica, designed to allow the supply of oil for Chilean consumption and for the outlet of this product to other markets.
h) To facilitate the transit of persons between either country, as well as to facilitate tourism in all its forms, by entering into new special conventions.
i) The adoption of necessary measures to encourage the mutual investment of capital for the development of large-scale production of food supplies destined for the other country.
Article 3
Both governments shall create a permanent body in each country, which shall be named the Chilean-Bolivian National Commission on Economic Complementation, composed of five members and five alternates. These National Commissions together shall form the Chile-Bolivia Mixed Commission on Economic Complementation.
600
Annex 151
Annex 151
601
Article 4
The National Commissions on Economic Complementation shall be in charge of studying, promoting, and advising their respective governments and the Mixed Commission of appropriate plans and projects to put the rules set out in this Treaty and other supplementary agreements into practice.
Article 5
It is a task of the Mixed Commission to study matters brought before the National Commissions, to approve them or reject them, to modify or coordinate them and refer them to the decision of the contracting governments.
The Mixed Commission may demand reports from the National Commissions on matters that it considers relevant for a better complementation of the economies of both countries and may give preference to the study and resolution of problems relating to them.
It will be a special task of the Mixed Commission to assess the state of progress of the resolutions adopted by the governments and to suggest measures for its major development and application.
Article 6
The Mixed Commission shall meet once a year for the purposes indicated in the preceding Article. It will meet in a special extraordinary session, upon request of either of the two governments, for a specific purpose; in this case, the Mixed Commission shall only address the subjects included in the request.
The meetings of the Mixed Commission, whether ordinary or extraordinary, shall be held in Santiago, Chile, and La Paz on an alternate basis, and shall be chaired by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the country where they take place or, failing that, by the person he designates.
Witnessing the aforementioned, they sign the act, in two equally valid copies, in the city of Arica on the thirty-first day of January one thousand nine hundred and fifty-five.—(Signed.): Walter Guevera Arze, Fernando Iturralde Chinel.—(Signed): Oswaldo Koch K., Alejandro Hales J.
602
Annex 152
“There is no case on the topic of the port to Bolivia, opines Koch”, La Tercera de la Hora (Chile), 19 August 1955
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
La Tercera de la Hora (Chile)
603
604
Annex 152
Annex 152
605
THERE IS NO CASE ON
THE TOPIC OF THE PORT
TO BOLIVIA
OPINES KOCH
The declarations of the President of the Republic to Bolivian journalists on an outlet to the sea for that country and the announcement by “La Tercera de La Hora” of a conference between Chile, Peru and Bolivia organized by Chile to address that same matter have been a topic of discussion at all levels. Motivated to obtain an authoritative opinion, we approached the Minister of Interior, Osvaldo Koch, and asked him for his thoughts on this issue. This was his immediate reply:
- I think this is just a storm in a teacup. Bolivia has no interest at all in obtaining a Chilean port, and so I was told in Arica by President Victor Paz Estenssoro himself,
who also told me that Bolivia’s interest lies exclusively in maintaining good relations with Chile.
- Legally, there is a law by agreement of the parties that doesn’t even allow a revision of the 1904 Treaty and the Lima Treaty; this is an issue which has been definitively settled, and there is no point in discussing any other position. I believe the President of the Republic was right in submitting that the issue of a Bolivian port could also be resolved by Argentina, Brazil or Peru.”
Ever the skilled politician, the Minister then digressed and mentioned some “magnificent” Bolivian indigenous ladies he had met, adding:
- Please do not report that, or you’ll get me slapped with a divorce suit.
606
Annex 153
Supplementary Protocol to the Treaty of Economic Complementation on Facilities for the Construction of the Oil Pipeline, signed at La Paz on 14 October 1955
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Treaties, Conventions and International Arrangements of Chile 1810-1976, Vol. II (1977), pp 226-227
607
608
Annex 153
Annex 153
609
SUPPLEMENTARY PROTOCOL TO THE TREATY OF ECONOMIC COMPLEMENTATION ON FACILITIES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OIL PIPELINE
Signed in La Paz, on 14 October 1955.
Meeting in the city of La Paz, at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Alejandro Hales Jamarne and Mr. Walter Guevara Arze, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Chile and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Bolivia, respectively, considering the importance to both countries of constructing an oil pipeline from Bolivian territory to the port of Arica or other Chilean ports, agree, with the respective authorization of their governments, to extend paragraph 2, subparagraph g) of Article Two of the Chile-Bolivia Treaty of Economic Complementation to include a new subparagraph that reads as follows:
Second Article.—The fundamental rules referred to in the previous Article are the following:
Subparagraph g), (Second Paragraph).—Due to their importance for the economies of the two countries and in accordance with the treaties on Free Transit currently in force, both governments agree to provide all facilities necessary for Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos or any private company authorized by the Government of Bolivia to construct, maintain, and operate oil pipelines from Bolivian territory to the port of Arica or any other Chilean port.
The details of the study, construction, maintenance and operation of the oil pipelines in Chilean territory envisaged in the preceding paragraph shall, in every case, be established by both governments through an exchange of notes which shall include aspects such as: the layout; terms of the easements that will need to be established; the system for temporary import into Chile of the machinery, vehicles, and equipment required for the study and construction; facilities for foreign personnel performing the work; free admission of the elements needed for the ongoing maintenance and operation of the pipelines and, in general, all the details related to these purposes.
h) The Republic of Chile shall be given preference to purchase the petroleum that reaches its ports via the pipelines referred to in the previous paragraph, under the following terms:
1.—Petroleum owned by Y.P.F.B. and transported by a pipeline of this Institution or that of another private company may be purchased by the Chilean market within the commercial exchange system provided for by this Treaty, up to a volume of one thousand barrels a day, for a minimum of three years, from the date of the first commercial export. Upon expiry of this three-year period, a new agreement on the petroleum owned by Y.P.F.B. shall be studied with a view to increasing
610
Annex 153
Annex 153
611
the volumes that Chile may purchase within the commercial exchange system established by this Treaty.
If the Republic of Chile wishes to purchase a greater volume of petroleum, it will be given preference to do so, up to an additional three thousand barrels a day, in U.S. dollars, and at prices to be agreed upon, taking international market prices for crude oil with similar characteristics as a basis.
2.—This agreement on petroleum owned by Y.P.F.B. and transported via its Villa Aroma (Sicasica) – Arica pipeline may be revised with a view to increasing the amounts mentioned above when the Government of Bolivia is in a position to construct Y.P.F.B.’s export pipeline, which will run from Camiri through Sucre or a point near that city and then connect with the Villa Aroma (Sicasica) – Arica pipeline.
3.—The petroleum that belongs to the Government of Bolivia, in order for royalties to be paid by private petroleum companies operating in its territory, and that is transported via the pipelines to Chilean ports, shall be sold on a preferential basis to Chile for up to 10% of the volume of those royalties within the system of commercial exchange provided for by this Treaty, provided that the balance of that exchange is unfavorable to Bolivia.
Chile will also been given preference to purchase the balance of these royalties, in U.S. dollars and at prices to be agreed upon, taking international market prices for crude oil with similar characteristics as a basis.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Considering the fact that this Protocol adds a new subparagraph (h) to the Chile-Bolivia Treaty of Economic Complementation, the order of the provisions of the subparagraphs of Article Two of that Treaty is amended accordingly.
This Protocol is an integral part of the Treaty of Economic Complementation signed in Arica, on 31 January 1955, which must be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional provisions. The ratifications will be exchanged in the city of La Paz as soon as possible.
The Plenipotentiaries named above sign this Supplementary Protocol, in two copies, on the fourteenth day of the month of October one thousand nine hundred and fifty-five.— (Signed): Walter Guevara Arze.— (Signed): Alejandro Hales Jamarne.
612