Who Shall Have the Desert?

Who Shall Have the Desert? Origin of the Controversy over South American Nitrate Lands By J. M. Jensen, A. M. Comparatively recent press dispatches tell us that Bolivia has a grievance against Chile, and also that Peru has a contro- versy with the shoe string country. It has been proposed that the first of these difficulties be adjudicated by the League of Nations Council, and now comes the suggestion that the sec- ond be submitted to arbitration at Washington. But the exact nature of the controversies is not made clear; in fact the parties thereto, themselves, appear to be at divergence as to what shall be arbitrated. This much, however, is apparent that both dis- putes involve the rights of the respective countries in the prov- inces of Tacua and Arica and the Desert of Atacama, and are of long standing. If you will look at a map of South America of the seventies or early eighties of the Nineteenth Century, you will see that Peru has a tail hanging down the Pacific coast to 22 degrees south latitude, and that Bolivia has a coast line from the tip of the Peruvian tail to 24 degrees south latitude, through which, of course, passes the Tropic of Capricorn. South of the Bolivian coast territory comes Chile. Now, if you will glance at a map of South America of the present time, you will find that the Bolivian coast line has dis- appeared, that the Peruvian tail has been amputated, and that the Chilean shoe string has been stretched to the north more than four hundred miles. The change involves a story of national greed, cruel war- fare, and consequent misery and suffering. Before 1840, the region in question was looked upon as a stretch of worthless desert, but the discovery, in that year, of guano and nitrate deposits in southern Peru brought wealth to that country, and helped Ramon Castilla, the Porfirio Diaz of Peru, to restore the bankrupt nation to solvency. Steam ves- sels were added to the navy; and improvements were made at Lima and other parts of the country. The new prosperity brought immigrants, among them a number of Basques from Spain. In some trouble that ensued in the early sixties, a number of these people were killed, and

678 IMPROVEMENT ERA somehow the criminals managed to escape punishment. Spain demanded $3,000,000 indemnity for her murdered subjects, which was refused, and the Chincha guano islands were seized by her. Peru, alone, was unable successfully to cope with Spain, and, after some delay, Chile, realizing a common danger, temporarily set aside the covetous feeling she had had for the nitrate and guano fields of the desert and came to the rescue. In 1866 the two countries gained a victory over Spain. With Spain driven back and the danger over the cupidity of the Chileans became manifest. Of the 350 miles of nitrate coast, Peru had the northern 150 miles. Prior to 1866 Bolivia claimed the remainder. The boundary line between Bolivia and Chile, however, was not definite. There had been no urgent necessity for making it so before the discovery of nitrate. After the finding of the mineral and the development of the great demand for it as a fertilizer, the energetic Chileans crowded up the coast. In 1866 a treaty was effected between Chile and Bolivia, fixing the 24th degree of latitude as the boundary between the two countries, but Chilean miners were allowed to continue operations north of that line. Taxes were paid to Bolivia for the privilege, but it was agreed that Bolivia should not raise these taxes without Chile's consent. As nitrate, silver and copper mining became more profitable, the Bolivian government pressed harder for larger revenue. Peru had planned to secure control by state purchase and operation of the nitrate properties within her borders, and by monopolistic methods, acquire great wealth therefrom. In this scheme Peru desired the aid of Bolivia, for the monopoly could hardly be made successful without her help inasmuch as she had such a large section of nitrate country. To ac- complish the purpose, it would be necessary for Bolivia to have a free hand in taxing the Chilean operating companies. In 1873 Peru and Bolivia entered into a secret alliance with monopolistic intent in the nitrate fields. The treaty soon be- came public and Chile naturally believed it was aimed at her miners. She began purchasing iron clads. But Peru had had several corrupt administrations, and had squandered too much money; she was too poor to buy iron clads. Hostilities commenced in 1879. On account of the deep ravines running at right angles to the coast and the general rough character of the country, Peru could be attacked only from the sea. The first conflicts were therefore on the water. The new ships purchased by Chile gave her an advantage, but Peru made a stubborn and heroic resistance, and it took some

WHO SHALL HAVE THE DESERT? 679 time to destroy the Peruvian vessels. The whole world was greatly interested, not alone as to the results of the struggle, but as to the effectiveness of the ships of war; it was the first naval engagement between modern iron clads. After the destruction of the Peruvian naval power, Chile determined to make an attack on the nitrate fields of southern Peru. They were courageously defended by the Peruvians, but the superior guns and abundance of munitions of the Chileans told in their favor, and the fields were captured. The Peruvian president, Prado, sailed for Europe stating that he was going to buy war ships, but the ships never came. After he had gone the seriousness of the situation was made greater for the Peru- vians by revolution. An effort was made by the United States to bring about peace. Representatives of Peru, Bolivia, and Chile were brought aboard the American corvette, Lackawanna^ for conference. The Chilean demand was heavy: retention of Tarapaca (which had been captured) ; a payment to Chile of twenty million dollars; abrogation of the treaty of 1873; new fortification by Peru of Arica ; and the retention of Tacna, Arica, and Moquegua, pending settlement. The Peruvians met these demands by showing that they rested on the right of annexation by con- quest without regard to equity, a principle foreign to Spanish America. As a counter proposal arbitration was suggested. This was refused. Hostilities were resumed. Callao was taken, and Lima was compelled to surrender. The Peruvians still kept three small armies in the field. They were in the interior, one in the north, one in the center, and the third in the south, but all were ineffective. The Chileans were charged with great cruelties against the people, among their practices being that of quintar, or lining up a large number of men and killing every fifth one. After more than two years of desultory warfare, General Iglesias, in command of one of the three armies, concluded that the only course was to surrender and accede to the Chilean terms. He was opposed by the other generals, but their op- position was crushed. The treaty of peace was signed October 20, 1883, after more than four years of warfare. Tarapaca and its nitrates were ceded unconditionally and permanently to Chile. Tacna and Arica were to be held by Chile for ten years, at the end of which period a popular vote should de- termine to which country the provinces should permanently be- long, a payment of ten million dollars to be made by the country which should retain them. This last question has never

680 IMPROVEMENT ERA been solved, the two countries being unable to agree on the terms of the proposed plebiscite. Should the case of the contending countries be heard at Washington, Chile will probably insist that there is nothing to discuss except the terms of the plebiscite, while Peru will ask that the treaty of 1883 be set aside as unjust. Bolivia is de- sirous of having an access to the sea and some other concessions, not clearly defined. In these controversies, Chile, having the prestige of pos- session, and being the stronger military and naval power, bids fair, in one or another, to maintain both her position and her possessions. Provo, Utah, Brigliam Young University. The Shield "We have three new arrivals." It was the Mission Secretary who spoke. He led the way into the parlor of the mission home where I was introduced to three young men whost bright eyes, ruddy cheeks, and healthy bodies, gave eloquent witness of wholesome living and upright lives. After I had become acquainted, I commenced to quiz them in a kindly and confidential way about their knowledge of the gospel, Church experience, and general education. Finally, I came to their personal habits. I turned to one whose clear, pink skin was proof positive of clean blood underneath, and asked : "Did you ever smoke cigarettes?" "I never tasted tobacco," came the manly reply. I paused for a moment to soliloquize. Is it possible, I thought, that a young man has actually grown to maturity in this age of drugs and narcotics without trying to smoke? I looked at him with the eager interest of one who beholds for the first time an extraordinary person. And he is an extraordinary person. By living faith in God's solemn declaration, "Tobacco is not good for man," he had attained to manhood's full estate with strong sinews, clean blood, steady nerves, clean mind, and splendid Godlike will- power.— Nephi Jensen, President of the Canadian Mission.