BOUNDARY LINE IN THE ANDES.
The smaller question—the Atacama territory—was referred to the United States. Mr. Buchanan was appointed arbiter, and he was assisted by one Chilian and one Argentine Commissioner. Mr. Buchanan drew a boundary line which he considered to be just, and by an ingenious device contrived that both the agreement and the disagreement of the Commissioners should preserve its integrity.[58] The dispute was thus happily settled, and not long afterwards Roca met the Chilian President at Punta Arenas, and an agreement to restrict armaments was made.
But the Patagonian boundary was a matter of much greater difficulty. It was referred to Great Britain, and in December, 1899, the Commission in London issued a most exhaustive report. It was necessary to proceed very slowly in such a perplexing matter, and public feeling was greatly excited, both countries appearing to be eager for war. Such a catastrophe seemed to be probable, for Señor Alcorta, the Argentine War Minister, was extremely bellicose, but on January 31, 1902, Sir Thomas Holdich was sent with a small Commission to endeavour to determine the boundary line, and it was intimated to both Governments that if hostile preparations continued King Edward VII. would be compelled to withdraw from his position as arbiter. The tension was somewhat relieved by the sudden death of Señor Alcorta, and Roca acted a statesmanlike part in working for peace, and it was largely through his exertions that in June, 1902, a Treaty was signed to restrict armaments. When Sir Thomas Holdich's Commission gave its decision a few months later, the award was loyally accepted.
This settlement of a great question is one of the most signal triumphs for the principle of arbitration, for on this occasion neither party was willing to make concessions and the disposition of both was rather to war than to peace. The benefit of the settlement was incalculable, for it preserved the two most flourishing States in South America from a war which would have gone far towards ruining both.[59] This example has been of the utmost value to South America, and arbitration is undoubtedly beginning to replace the appeal to arms.
With this triumph of peace this modern history of Argentina may fitly be closed. President Roca, who had deserved so well of his country, was succeeded in 1904 by Dr. Manuel Quintana, who still holds that post, and his term of office has been one of great material prosperity for the Republic.
CHAPTER X
THE CONSTITUTION—THE ARMY AND NAVY—GENERAL POLITICAL CONDITIONS
Argentina is nominally a Federal Republic and her Constitution closely resembles that of the United States. But, in fact, the federal element is much fainter in the southern Republic, for, as has been shown, the struggles between the two great parties eventually led to the attainment by the central Government at Buenos Aires of that preponderance which was inevitable in view of the vast superiority of the capital to the Provinces in population, civilisation, and geographical position. But the Spanish distaste for centralised administration shows itself in the reluctance to admit the facts, and of this the town of La Plata is an almost comic instance. When, in 1882, it was decided to make this place, which is distant about thirty-five miles from Buenos Aires, the capital of the Province, the authorities spared no effort in planning and building a magnificent city which should be an effectual counterpoise to the federal capital and a standing protest against Unitarian theory. But to build a town is one thing and to people it another; the vast political and commercial interests of Buenos Aires completely overshadowed the upstart city, and it remains a mere lifeless husk, unvitalised by the comparatively insignificant Provincial business. In the United States interference by the Federal Government in State rights is extremely rare and would be liable to cause real civil war; in the Argentina it is common and only brings about a "revolution"—a political phenomenon which has been very mild in type in Argentina during the last decade or two, and indeed public opinion generally seems to applaud the President when he brings an unruly Governor to book.