ARGENTINE-CHILE BOUNDARY DISPUTE 



IN 1881, after years of bitter dis- 

 pute, Argentine and Chile signed 

 a treaty defining, as the}' sup- 

 posed, the boundary between the two 

 republics. They also agreed to appoint 

 an expert from each government to sur- 

 vey the line according to the definition of 

 this treat}', and to submit any points 

 of difference which might arise between 

 the two experts to a third part}' for 

 final decision. Apparently this dispute, 

 which had dragged on for forty years 

 and more than once threatened war, 

 was at last settled. 



In due time, in 1888, the experts were 

 appointed by each government and set 

 to work surveying and locating the 

 boundary. Immediately, however, the 

 Chilean expert began to interpret the 

 wording of the treaty differently from 

 his Argentine associate In the words 

 of the treaty, the boundary was defined 

 as follows: ' ' The boundary between the 

 Argentine Republic and Chile from 

 north to south as far as the parallel of 

 52 ° south is the Cordillera de los Andes. 

 The frontier line shall run in that ex- 

 tent along the most elevated crests of 

 said Cordilleras that may divide the 

 waters, and shall pass between the slopes 

 which descend one side and the other." 

 The Chilean expert proceeded to include 

 within his line, as far as its source, every 

 stream whose waters flowed westward. 

 The Argentine expert, on the other 

 hand, drew his line from summit to 

 summit of the highest crests of the 

 mountain range. 



In other words, the Chilean expert re- 

 garded the water divide as the boundary, 

 and the Argentine expert the line join- 

 ing the highest crests of the Andes. It 

 may be that the persons who drew up 

 the treaty of 1881 believed that the 

 water divide and the highest crests were 

 synonymous, but such is often not the 

 case. Repeatedly the Andes are cut by 



gorges, through which flow rivers rising 

 from 25 to 100 miles east of the Andes. 

 Chile asserts that these rivers and all the 

 territory drained by them belongs to her, 

 and the line as traced by her expert is 

 most carefully drawn to include every 

 spring or stream whose waters flow into 

 these rivers. Argentine, on the other 

 hand, asserts that only the territory to 

 the west of the line drawn connecting 

 the highest peaks belongs to Chile. In 

 long stretches, of course, the crest of the 

 range and the water divide is identical, 

 but then the range will be cut by a river 

 gorge. While the Argentine line skips 

 to the next crest, the Chilean line will 

 dip down to the valleys and often runs 

 in between swamps, and then after a 

 circuit of perhaps a hundred miles, more 

 or less, will come back to the mountain 

 crest. 



The differences between the two ex- 

 perts were thus so great that the ques- 

 tion was, in 1896, submitted to the 

 British Government for arbitration. It 

 was agreed by each government that 

 until a decision was rendered neither 

 country should take possession of the 

 disputed territory. Great Britain ap- 

 pointed arbitrators, but the years have 

 dragged on and no decision has been 

 rendered. During the past year the 

 Argentine Government claims that Chile 

 has been pushing roads across the moun- 

 tains, building forts at strategic points, 

 and so intrenching herself as to make 

 her possession of the disputed territory 

 certain in case hostilities should arise. 

 The energetic protests of the Argentine 

 Republic against Chile's action is the 

 cause of the present rupture between 

 the two governments. 



To better understand the dispute be- 

 tween Chile and Argentine, we may 

 instance the Alaska boundary dispute 

 between Great Britain and the United 

 States. For years the Alaska boundary 



