conformity with our sentiment and with the rules of our public law for us to make any objections." Such, indeed, may have been its parentage, and yet the thought suggests itself that the vote of 1878 in St. Bartholomew, like the vote of 1868, in the Danish Islands, probably signifies the desire of a Power, recently bereft of its territory by Prussian aggression, to point out the weakness of the victor's title by insisting upon the validity of the principle of selfdetermination in international law.

It had been agreed that while the terms of the protocol which was to settle the several details of the transfer were being discussed the vote should be taken. This was done under universal manhood suffrage of the Swedish citizens of the island.1 Although they had been under Swedish sovereignty for a century, there had been practically no colonization and the people had retained their French customs and language. The result of the plebiscite, which gave three hundred and fifty votes for union and only one against, occasioned no surprise. The protocol, which was not concluded until after the plebiscite, contained a generous provision allowing those wishing to retain their Swedish citizenship to do so without leaving the island, unless they should become a menace to public order.

On January 22, 1878, the resolution approving the treaty was adopted by the French Chamber of Deputies. Deputy Lacascade in seconding it referred to the original autocratic cession to Sweden with the comment, "today, thank God, public European law is greatly changed in this respect; the retrocession

has not been submitted to you until after a solemn and free vote, a real plebiscite of the inhabitants." Another deputy, from his place, added, “We shall vote for it the more willingly as it recognizes the right of plebiscite in its full extent," and with a vote of 425 to 8, the Chamber adopted the resolution.

THE TACNA-ARICA QUESTION, 1883

The Tacna-Arica question dates from the War of the Pacific, which began in 1879, between Chile on the one part, and Bolivia and Peru on the other, and was terminated by the Treaty of Ancon, in 1883.

During the war Chile had occupied not only all the Bolivian littoral, but also the three southern Peruvian littoral provinces of Tarapacà, rich in nitrates

1 Victor M. Maurtua, The Question of the Pacific, translated by F. A. Pezet, p. 242, quotes extracts from correspondence between the Swedish and French Governments, showing that the latter had raised the question whether foreign residents might vote and that the Swedish Government had answered unequivocally in the negative.

2 The table given in Documents, post, p. 983, note, gives the number of males over 15 years of age as 617.

3 Translation from Annales du Sénat et de la Chambre des Députés, Session ordinaire de 1878, vol. 1, p. 151.

and guano, and the source of most of the revenue of Peru, and Tacna and Arica, which contained the important port of Arica. By the Treaty of Ancon, Peru ceded Tarapacà outright to Chile. She did not, however, cede the provinces of Tacna and Arica, but agreed that they should remain in the possession of Chile, and subject to Chilian laws and authority for ten years; at the expiration of this term a plebiscite was to decide whether or not the provinces should "remain finally under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile, or continue to form a part of Peruvian territory." The details of the plebiscite as well as of the payment of the ten million dollars which the winner was to make over to the loser, were to be established by a special protocol.1

As the subsequent controversy turns on the significance and interpretation of this article, it is interesting to trace its origin. Whoever had been the aggressor in the war,- and it is a point still in dispute,- it soon became evident that Chile would be the victor. In order to prevent an unnecessary prolongation of hostilities, President Hayes offered the mediation of the United States which was accepted in October, 1880, and the negotiations were held on board the U. S. S. Lackawanna. The mediation was unsuccessful. Chile, already in occupation of Tarapacà, Tacna, and Arica, insisted on absolute cession of the first province, and occupation of the others until peace should be signed, as security for indemnity, and Peru absolutely refused these conditions or any cession of territory whatever. When hostilities were resumed, Chile occupied Peru, arrested Calderon, the President, for alleged efforts to revive Peruvian resistance, and exiled him to Chile. President Arthur thereupon renewed the efforts of the United States to bring about an agreement. The Blaine-Trescot Mission was instructed to exert its efforts to induce Peru to concede a suitable monetary indemnity and to persuade Chile to be content with this and to relinquish her claim to any cession of territory. This effort at mediation being also unsuccessful, in June, 1883, a third attempt was made to end hostilities and the United States Ministers at Lima and at Santiago were instructed by Secretary Frelinghuysen 2 to save to Peru as much of her three provinces under occupation as was possible in the treaty of peace.3

Mr. Logan, United States Minister to Chile, proceeded accordingly to open negotiations with Señor Aldunate, Chilean Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and with the captive Peruvian President, Calderon. Logan submitted various formal propositions, some of his own devising, to both parties. Of these propositions, which included arbitration, limited occupation, sale, and division of the two provinces, one, which was of Chilean origin and which was put into 1 Treaty of Ancon, Article 3, Documents, post, p. 992.

2 Secretary of State under President Arthur.

3 Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Logan, June 26, 1882, Documents, post, p. 985.

formal shape by Logan, was in essence that adopted in the Treaty of Ancon, with the difference that the military occupation of Chile was to be for a five, and not a ten year period. This proposition, as well as the others, was refused by Calderon. Chile, finding it impossible to make an agreement with Calderon, then conceived the plan of supporting for the office of President of Peru, the Peruvian General Iglesias, who had a considerable backing in Peru from those who desired peace. Before supplying him with arms, however,1 the Chilean Government secured an agreement from him as to Tacna and Arica, on the lines of the one submitted by Logan to Calderon and which is substantially the same as that embodied later in the Treaty of Ancon.2

Iglesias formed his government in August, 1883, and it having been duly recognized by Chile, the Treaty of Ancon was signed at Lima on October 20, 1883, and ratifications were exchanged on March 28, 1884. From Bolivia, Chile obtained a truce agreement giving indefinite occupation of the Bolivian littoral, and thus acquired possession of a continuous coast line to the northern boundary of Arica.

The Treaty of Ancon, in stipulating a plebiscite at the end of the ten-year period, had stated that a special protocol should establish the form in which the plebiscite should take place and the conditions and periods of payment of the ten million dollars which was to be paid by the country remaining in possession of Tacna and Arica. The plebiscitary clause in the Treaty of Ancon was certainly not due to the idea that there was any appreciable desire for annexation latent in the inhabitants at that time. The provinces had never been Chilean, nor were the Chilean immigrants, though numerous, in sufficient numbers to suggest a close vote. The census of 1876, the last official census previous to the war, puts the Peruvian population at 17,013 while the Chilean residents numbered 9,664. The first negotiations, after the treaty was signed, were occupied with the Peruvian offer to hypothecate the Chilean claims by means of the customs receipts of the port of Arica. Chile, on the ground that she was unwilling to surrender her expectation of possession of the provinces, refused this.5 Thereupon a series of conferences, known as the Jiménez-Vial Solar negotiations, followed, for the drawing up of the spe1 Letter of the United States Minister to Peru, to Mr. Frelinghuysen, October 3, 1882. United States Foreign Relations, 1883, p. 720.

2 Documents, post, p. 991.

3 The treaty of truce with Bolivia was signed on April 4, 1884. State Papers, vol. 75, p. 367. The treaty of peace giving permanent possession, was signed May 18, 1895. Ibid., vol. 88, p. 755.

4 Victor Maurtua, The Question of the Pacific, English edition by F. A. Pezet, p. 148. For the negotiations from 1892-1900, see Ministerio de relaciones exteriores del Peru -Circular sobre la cuestión Tacna y Arica, also Egaña, The Tacna and Arica Question, pp. 82 et seq., and Maurtua, pp. 170 et seq., and Victor Andrés Belaunde, Nuestra cuestion con Chile.