Chargé Pierrepont to the Secretary of State.
Santiago, March 8, 1910.
Sir: Referring to my cable of March 6, 12 noon,1 in which I spoke of the order expelling the Peruvian curates from Tacna within 48 hours, I have the honor to inclose several newspaper clippings, with translations, from El Mercurio, the Government organ, explaining the action, and from the La Union, the Church paper, in which the action of the Government is attacked. Several other clippings on the same subject are included among the general clippings for which there is no covering dispatch.
The affair is arousing so much discussion that it seems proper for me to bring it to your attention in a dispatch, though the newspapers give a clear account.
According to the laws of Chile all priests throughout the Republic, upon being named to exercise their functions in a parish, must obtain the constitutional “pase” or permit from the President of the Republic, before proceeding to carry on their ministry. Some months ago the Chilean authorities, outraged because the Peruvian bishop of Arequipa, who still governs the Church in Tacna, would not recognize Chilean priests there, in spite of the fact that priests of other nationalities, in addition to the reruvian, were recognized, asked the Peruvian priests if they had ever sought the permit required by Chilean law. Upon receiving a negative reply the Chilean Government closed the parochial churches in Tacna, and forbade the said curates to continue in the exercise of their functions without the necessary constitutional “pase.” Nothing daunted, the Peruvian curates proceeded to minister the sacraments in private dwellings and other places, still unauthorized by the President and in direct opposition to the prohibition of the Chilean authorities; and still the Bishop of Arequipa refused to recognize the Chilean priests. Thus the order of March 3, issued by the intendente of Tacna, expelling the said curates within 48 hours was provoked.
The minister of foreign affairs says that in thus exercising their functions contrary to the law the priests, according to articles 213 [Page 440] and 214 of the Codigo de Procedimiento Civil, rendered themselves liable to imprisonment. “Not wishing to treat them too harshly” to quote his own words, “we are sending them back to their own country—certainly not a hardship—instead of putting them in prison.”
The day following the order the internuncio protested to the minister of foreign affairs. The outcome of their interview was an order extending the period 48 hours, in which time the internucio was to try to persuade the bishop of Arequipa to recognize the Chilean priests.
The view of the minister of foreign affairs is that as the treaty of Ancon put Tacna and Arica under the Chilean law and the constitution of Chile, it is the first duty of the Government to see that the constitution be not violated. He says also that Chile does not object so much to the Peruvian curates, but that she will not stand having them receive privileges in territory under Chilean control which are denied to the Chileans themselves. He added that if the bishop, should recognize the Chilean priests the Government would probably not insist on the expulsion of the Peruvians, but that if the internuncio should fail in this mission he also might have to leave. This last, of course, was in confidence, but it shows the extent to which his wrath has been aroused.
The extended period of time came to an end yesterday. As I am closing this dispatch I learn that the internuncio has failed; that the bishop of Arequipa still refuses to license Chilean priests in Tacna; and that, if the Chilean local authorities in that Province obeyed their orders, the Peruvian priests should have departed yesterday. As yet we have not heard of their actual departure, but judging from the firmness of the Government in this matter there is no doubt but that the order was strictly enforced.
You will of course hear from Peru how the affair is regarded there. Even here there is considerable comment, and I fear this aggressive policy on the part of Chile will not help to bring about a settlement of the long standing irritating question of Tacna and Arica.
I have, etc.,
- Not printed.↩