at  any  moment  by  reason  of  the  expiration  of  the
period.  As  the  eventuality  of  the  plebiscite  and
the  expectations  of  Peru  may  not  be  disregarded,
it  is  deduced  that  Your  Excellency's  Government
ought  not  to  execute  a  measure  designed  to  pro-
duce its  effect  in  a  remote  future,  and  which,  sup-
posing the  indefinite  continuance  of  the  Chilean
administration,  might  be  interpreted  as  a  declara-
tion that  these  eventualities  had  disappeared."
(Appendix,  pp.  420-421.)

The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  these  quoted  para-
graphs is  that  Peru  had  come  to  the  point  of  condoning
the  occupation  of  Tacna-Arica  by  Chile  and  of  waiving
her  previously  asserted  rights  until  the  plebiscite
should  be  held,  for  no  protest  is  made  in  this  note  as
to  the  period  of  occupation  and  possession,  but  on  the
contrary  the  equal  application  of  the  Chilean  laws  re-
lating to  worship  is  demanded  in  Tacna-Arica.  In  later
notes,  however,  this  attitude  of  Peru  was  modified  and
she  revived  her  contention  that  the  period  of  occupa-
tion should  have  ended  in  1894.     (Appendix,  p.  434.)

In  the  autumn  of  1909  an  effort  was  made  by  Chile
to  reach  an  agreement  on  a  plebiscite  plan  modeled
upon  the  Billinghurst-Latorre  Protocol  in  which  cer-
tain changes  were  suggested  by  the  parties.  The  at-
tempt was  futile.
Both  before  and  after  this  attempt  the  correspon-
dence had  to  do  with  the  general  subject  of  the  alleged
efforts  at  Chileanization.  The  arguments  advanced  by
the  contending  parties  were  repetitions  of  those  made
before.
