Class__£i2^. Book _1L_ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from The Library of Congress http://www.archive.org/details/boundarybetweenmOOunit p 1st Session. ' ^ ) No. 154. 48th CoNaRESS, { HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. ( Ex. Doc. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. MESSAGE FKOM THE \ PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. TRANSMITTING A eommunication from the Secretary of State relative to the hoiindaries between Mexico and Guatemala. May 6, 1884. — Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. To the House of Representatives : In answer to that part of the resolution of the House of Representa- tives of the 17th of January last respecting- the question of boundary between the Republics of Mexico and Gautemala, I transmit herewith the report of the Secretary of State and its accompanying papers. CHESTER A. ARTHUR. Executive Mansion, Washington, May 6, 1884. Department of State, Washington, May 6, 1884. To the President : The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 17th of January last, requesting the President, if in his opinion not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the House " any correspondence with the Governments of Mexico and Guatemala in reference to the boundary question be- tween said Republics, and any offer ou the part of this Government to mediate on the same," has the honor, in response thereto, to submit to the President the papers mentioned in the subjoined list. Respectfully submitted. FRED'K T. FRBLINGHUYSEN. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATKMALA. F1^4j No. 1. No. 2 Ni). 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7 No. 8. No. 9. No. 10. No. 11 ' H.(£>0 j^jgrj, gj^. ACCOMPANYING PAPERS. I. — RKPORTS FKOM THE UNITED STATES LEGATION IN CENTRAL AMERICA ABOUT THE BOUNDARY QUESTION BETWEEN GUATEMALA AND MEXICO. -Mr. Logan to Mr. Blaine, No. 179, May 24, 1881. --Same to same, No. 183, Mav 27, 1881. —Mr. Blaiue to Mr. Logan, No. 151, June 21, 1881. —Mr. Logan to Mr. Blaine, No. 197, June 28, 1881. —Same to same, No. 210, Jnly 19, 1881. —Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Logan, No. 202, April 11, 1882. —Mr. Titus to Mr. Frelinghuysen, No. 5, May 12, 1882, with accompaniments. —Mr. Hall to Mr. Frelinghuysen, No. 20, September 29, 1882, with accompani- ments. — Same to same, No. 27, October 12, 1882, with an accompaniment. —Same to same, No. 47, December 20, 1882, with an accompaniment. —Mr. Davis to Mr. Hall, No. 36, January 19, 1883. II. — GUATEMALA'S REQUEST TO THE UNITED STATES TO INTERFERE IN THE BOUNDARY QUESTION WITH MEXICO. No. 12.— Mr. Ubico to Mr. Blaine, June 15, 1881. No. 13. — Mr. Blaine to Mr. Ubico, June 16, 1881. No. 14,— Mr. Ubico to Mr. Blaine, June 19, 1881. No. 15. — Same to same, June 22, 1881. No. 16.— Mr. Montufar to Mr. Blaine, July 20, 1881. No. 17.— Mr. Ubico to Mr. Blaine, October 19, 1881. No. 18.— Mr. Blaine to Mr. Ubico, October 31, 1881. No. 19.— Mr. Blaine to Mr. Montufar, October 31, 1881. III. — OFFER OF MEDIATION BY THE UNITED STATES TO MEXICO IN THE BOUNDARY QUESTION WITH GUATEMALA. No. 20.— Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan, No. 138, June 16, 1881. No. 21.— Same to same, No. 139, June 16, 1881. No. 22.— Same to same, No. 142, June 21, 1881. No. 23.— Same to same, No. 143, June 21, 1881. No. 24. — Same to same, telegram, June 23, 1881. IV. — OBJECTION OF MEXICO TO THE MEDIATION OF THE UNITED STATES. No. 25.— Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine, No. 232, July 12, 1881. No. 26.— Same to same, No. 240, July 19, 1881. No. 27.— Same to same. No. 247, August 5, 1881, with accompaniments. No. 28.— Same to same, No. 253, August 11. 1881. No, 29.— Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan, No. 164, August 24, 1881. No. 30.— Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine, No. 259, August 25, 1881, • iio. 31. — Same to same. No. 273, September 22, 1881, with an accompaniment. No. 32. — Same to same. No. 287, October 6, 1881. No. 33.— Same to same, No. 289, October 20, 1881, with an accompaniment. No. 34. — Same to same. No. 297, November 2, 1881, with an accompaniment. No. 35. — Same to same, No. 304, November 9, 1881. 3S[o. 36.— Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan, No. 198, November 28, 1881. Ko, 37.— Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelinghuysen, No, 335, January 10, 1882, with accom- paniments. No. 38.— Same to same, No. 354, February 6, 1882 No. 39. — Same to same. No. 357, February 13, 1882. No. 40.— Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Morgan, No. 232, February 16, 1882. No. 41. — Mr. Morgan to Mr. Freliugliuysen, No. 372, March 8, 1882. No. 42. — Same to same. No. 374, March 28, 1882, with accompaniments. No. 43.— Mr. Frelinghuysei^o Mr. Morgan, No. 252, April 3, 1882. No. 44.— Same to same, No.#)4, April 11, 1882. ai^o ]V1 dA54, D. cif D. APR 8 1916 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 6 V. — FUKTHEU APPEALS FROM GUATEMALA FOR THE MEDIATIOX OF THE UNITED STATES DURING MR. MONTUFAR'S SPECIAL MISSION TO WASHINGTON. No. 45. — Mr. Montnfar to Mr. Blaine, November 2, 1881. No. 46. — Same to same, November 7, 1881. ; No. 47.— Same to same, November 21, 1881. No. 48.— Mr. Ubico to Mr. Freliughuyseu, February .3, 1882. No. 49. — Same to same, February 4, 188-^. VI. — ATTITUDE OF PRESIDENT ARTHUR'S ADMINISTRATION ON THIS QUESTION. No. 50. — Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelin<;huyseu, March 9, 1882, with an accompaniment. No. 51. — Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Romero, March 24, 1882. No. 52. — Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen, April 29, 1882, with an accompaniment. No. 53. — Same to same. May 6, 1882, with accompaniments. No. 54. — Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Romero, May 13, 1882. No. 55. — Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen^ June 23, 1882, with an accompaniment. VII. — NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN GUATEMALA AND MEXICO CARRIED ON AT WASHING- TON FOR THE SETTLEMKNT OF THE BOUNDARY QUESTION. No. 56. — Mr. Montnfar to Mr. Frelinghuysen, April 14, 1882. No. 57. — Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Montnfar, June 5, 1882. No. 58. — Mr. Montnfar to Mr.' Frelinghuysen, June 9, 1882. No. 59. — Same to same, Juno 15, 1882. No. 60. — Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Montnfar, June 27, 1882. No. 61.— Mr. Romero to Mr. Freliughnysen, July 20, 1^82. No. 62. — Mr. Montufar to Mr. Fielinghuyseu, July 21, 1882. No. 63.— Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen, July 22, 1H82. No. 64.— Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Montufar, July 24, 1882. VIII. — FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE BOUNDARY QUESTION THROUGH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE UNITED STATES. No, 65. — Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen, August 14, 1882. No. 66.— Mr. Davis to Mr. Romero, August 23, 18 -2. No. 67.— Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen, September 27, 1882, with an accompani- ment. No. 68.— Mr. Davis to Mr. Eomero, October 2, 18-<2. No. 69.— Mr. Crnz to Mr. Frelinghuysen, October 14, 1882. No. 70. — Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen, January 16, 1883, with an accompaniment. No. 71. — Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelinghuysen, No. 614, May 9,1883, with an accompani- ment. No. 72.— Mr. Davis to Mr. Morgan, No. 406, May 28, 1883. No. 73.— Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelinghuysen, No. 689, September 20, 1883, with an ac- companiment. CORRESPONDKNCE. l.—RErOllIS FROM THE UNITED STATES LEGATION IN CENTRAL AMERICA. No. 1. Mr. Logan to Mr. Blaine. [Extract. — Confidential. — Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] No. 179.] Legation of the United States IN C'ENTRAL AMERICA, Guatemala City, May 24, 1881. (Received Juiie 17.) Sir: In previous dispatches I have had occasion to mention the un- satisfactory relations between Guatemala and Mexico, arising from their unsettled boundary line. I have now to report that these relations are growing still less satis- factory, and that an open rupture between the two countries is not an improbable result of the uear future. The state of Chiapas in Mexico, as well as Guatemala, belonged to the old captain-generalcy up to the period of the termination of the lat- ter, when the people of the former state elected to attach themselves to Mexico, under the short reign of Iturbide, whom the Gnatemaltecos now charge with having forced the state from them. A certain portion of Socouusco, a province of Chiai)as, has become the modern bone of contention between the two countries, not so much because of the value of the territory perhaps, as because of an important river, with a fair harbor on the Pacific, which traverses it. Two or three expensive commissions have been appointed to survey and report upon a line to divide the two countries, whose work up to this time has not amounted to anything. In the mean time local dis- turbances, consisting of raids over the border, have occurred at inter- vals, until the feeling has become quite embittered. ♦ * * * * * * In confirmation of the disposition of Mexico to make a rupture with Guatemala, is the fact I learned from a reliable person last evening that Mexico had lately sent 1,000 well-armed men into Socouusco, and that 2,000 more are expected soou to arrive there. I give you these statements for what they are worth. I believe that Mexico has every disposition to come to an open rupture with Guate- mala on the boundary question, and that she may do so. Barrios is in- tensely hated in Mexico, and he returns the feeling with compound interest. Though Barrios does not realize it, yet his gov^ernment in one sense is a very weak one. * * * His old opponents * * * are held down with an iron hand, made up, so to speak, of muskets and brass bands. By themselves they can do nothing ; but if Mexico, with a few thousand men, were to call away the Guatemala troops from the BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 5 capital to defend the bortlers, twenty-fou r hours would not elapse be- fore the clericals would be massed into an aggressive army ; and being in the majority, Barrios would soon be crushed. * * * The conquest of Central America, however, would be a dif- ferent thing. Were Mexico jjrosperous, and with ability to maintain an army and prosecute a war, Montufar's idea would not be an improbable one, nor would the mere conquest be a thing of very difficult accom- plishment; but the Mexicans must certainly know that no republican form of government could hold together territory so separated by phys- ical barriers as that comprising the countries herein spoken of. Noth- ing but the strong arm of an absolute monarchy, supported by ample resources of money, ships and men, could tie them into a single gov- ernment. When railroads and telegraphs are built, so that quick com- munication can be had from ^Mexico to Oosta Kica, such a project may be entertained. At present it is impracticable, and operating upon a smaller scale, the difficulty mentioned constitutes the chief obstacle against a federal union of the Central American states, as heretofore stated to the Department in my dispatches. But a single agency — the protectorate of a i)owerful country — can make such a union possible in Central America. The situation, however, is sufficiently interesting to call for this re- port to you. I shall promptly inform you of any additional matter of interest. I have, «&c,, C. A. LOGAK No. 2. Mr. Logan to Mr. Blaine. [Extract. — Publisliecl heretofore in Foreign Relations.] No. 183.] Legation of the United States IN Central America, Guatemala City., May 27, 1881. (Received June 17.) Sir : My dispatch No. 179 informs you of matters relating to Guate- mala in their connection with the adjacent Republic of Mexico. I have now to inform you that President Barrios returned yesterday from his visit to San Marcos, near the border. To-day I had a few minutes' interview with him, during which he informed me that he could not leave here until the 15th of June. His manner convinced me that he has already abandoned the idea of leaving, although, as other persons were present, I could get no opportunity to talk privately with him. Later in the day, however, I talked further with Montufar about these affairs, when he told me plainly that every day they seemed n)ore threatening. Information of the fact communicated to you in my No. 179, that regular troops were being sent to Soconusco by the Mexican Government, has just reached the Guatemala Government, aud prep- arations are now being made to dispatch troops from this capital to the border. * * * What Mexico may really be meditating you are probably better ad- vised of, through our minister, Mr. Morgan, than myself. It is without doubt simply a question of ability with her, not one of disposition or desire. It seems altogether certain that the border raids, often re- sulting in loss of life, which have been frequent of late, must precij^i- b BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA tate a collision between the two Governments, if Some basis of agree- ment be not soon reached. ♦ * • My policy has been, and will be, an evasive one, until instructions from Washington may be received. Montufar, who is altogether the best in- formed man upon our political system in Central America, tries to argue away the probable objections to be interposed by our Government against any unwarranted interference in the affairs of our neighbors, and especially the acquisition of territory, and rather regretfully, as it seemed to me, informed me that with the Democratic ])arty in power the acquisition of Soconusco would be but a question of two days. All this amounts to nothing, however, except that when hope of assist- ance from tbe United States is abandoned Guatemala will undoubt- edly make this proposition to one of the b^uropean powers. Great Brit- ain, France and Germany are striving for commercial supremacy in Central America, and there are some possibilities in the case of a char- acter not favorable to our own interests. Hence, until I hear from you, my i)olicy will be not to give the Bar- rios Government any ]>()sitive encouragement of favorable action by the United States, and \t't not i)eremptorily to ciush every hope in that direction lest it drive ihem into another quarter. Though the jtresmt threatening aspect of these affairs may again pass away without open hostilities between the two countries, yet 1 consider the situation sutiiciently grave to recommend it to your careful consider- ation. 1 have, &c., C. A. LOGAN. No. 3. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Logan. [Published heretofore in Foreign Relati6nn.] No. 151.] ' Department of State, ^yash^ngton^ June 21, 1881. Sir: Your Nos. 179 and 183, of the 24th and 27th ultimo respectively, have just been received, and have commanded my earnest attention. The posture of affairs between Guatemala and Mexico, therein shown, had already received urgent consideration, on the representations of the Guatemalan minister, Senor Ubico, and an instruction to Mr. Mor- gan, at Mexico, had embodied the views of this Government thereon, for formal communication to the Mexican Government. The fuller details of the situation now received from you have led me to instruct Mr. Morgan still further, in a more explicit, but to a certain extent con- fidential sense. The correspondence* in full is herewith transmitted to you for your confidential perusal. The distinctness with which the President's policy in the premises is set forth will, I think, make it unnecessary just now to give you the special instructions as to your conduct which you ask for at the close of your No. 183. I may say, however, that the Presi- dent deems it no less incumbent upon Guatemala than upon Mexico to endeavor to so shape the course of the dispute as to avoid open hostili- ties and conduce to an honorable settlement in the interest of all par- ties. You will, of course, do all you consistently can in this sense. I am, «&c., JAMES G. BLAINE. * For correspondrnce inclosed, see documents ,Nos. 12, 13, 20, and 22. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 7 No. 4. 31r. Logan to Mr. Blaine. [Extract. — Published heretofore in Foreign Relations ] No. 197.] Legation of the United States IN Central America, Guatemala City, June 28, 188 L. (Received July 20.) Sir: My dispatch No. 179, under date of May 24, and my No. 183, under date of May 27 ultimo, treat of the relations between Guatemala and Mexico ; while my No. 195 informs you of a recent note, received by the former from the latter Government, of a very threatening char- acter. Mr. Montufar, the minister of foreign relations, showed me the whole correspondence to day ; and, having an opportunity to catch the steamer carrying my mail sent by the dispatch-bearer, I hasten to advise you of the posture of affairs. The present difficulty relates to the same class of troubles detailed to you in my Nos. 179 and 183, viz, the questions of limits and raids over the border. It seems that in December last, a band of Mexicans appeared upon ground which has alwH.ys been under the jurisdiction of Guatemala — ground occupied by Carrera, the former President of Gua- temala — when Barrios and Grenados began their revolution against his. Government, and upon which one or more battles were fought. Thia band carried oft' four Guatemaltecos as prisoners, among them an al- calde of the Government. The Jefe Politico of San "Marcos, with 100- men, went to a place called Tonintand for the purpose of a reconnais- sance, but nothing further happening, they went back to San Marcos.. Tonintana is not in Soconusco, but considerably this side of it, and was; not even claimed by Santa Ana when he took the latter from Guatemala. No claim to this portion of territory has ever been made by Mexico heretofore. This occurrence has become the basis of a fresh correspondence upon the old subject between the Mexican minister at this capital and the Guatemala Government; the former claiming that Mexican territory had been invaded by Guatemala troops, and at a later period, demand- ing satisfaction through instruction of his Government. Guatemala then addressed Mexico directly, endeavoring to show that no offense had been committed, that Mexican territory had not been entered upon, &c. The Mexican Government replied that Guatemala was endeavor- ing to meet the questions at issue by a policy of delay ; that the form- ation of a treaty which both Governments had agreed to, in amend- ment of the treaty of 1877, was being intentionally postponed by the Guatemala minister in Mexico, Seiior Herrera; that the territory iu question belonged to Mexico ; that her dignity had been violated ; and that satisfaction— which is understood to mean the punishment of the leaders of the force, Margarito Barrios and Manuel Rocas, a salute to the flag, &c. — was demanded, failing in which, the inauguration of hos- tilities is very plainly intimated by the note. The Guatemala Government is greatly alarmed, of course, feeling its utter inability to cope with a power like Mexico. A pacific reply has been tendered, and the result of events is awaited. Guatemala claims that Mexico is pushing her line further every year, and she is confident that it is the settled purpose of Mexico to slice ter- 8 BOl NDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. ritory from Central America, and peiliaps to absorb one or all of the states. She has i)roposed arbitration to Mexico upon the boundary question a number of times, but is alwaj's met with the reply that the dispute must be settled by themselves. This is th ' Guatemala side of the stor3^ If Mexico really have ul- terior designs looking- to the acquisition of territory, it seems important that the United States should be in i)osition to consider whether or not her own interests are to be a fleeted thereby. The Guatemala Govern- ment, in determining to cede Soconusco, or her right to it at least, to a foreign power, hopes to put a stop in that way to the aggressions of her l)Owerful neighbor. The idea is not a bad one. I am confident that, as yet, no communication upon the subject with the representative of any other power has taken place. I have a belief, however, that should the United States decline any interest in these affairs, a proposition will be made in some other quarter. I shall watch the matter as closely as possible. ******* I have, &c., C. A. LOGAN. No. 5. Mr. Logan to Mr. Blaine. [Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] No. 210.] Legation of the United States IN Central America, Guatemala City, July 19, 1881. (Received August 16.) Sir: Referring to your dispatch No. 151, under date of June 21 ultimo, which incloses copies of instructions to Minister Morgan in re- lation to the matters at issue between Mexico and Guatemala, I have to report that I have conversed with President Barrios in the spirit of your instructions to me, and tind him to be in full sympathy with the ideas advanced by you in the whole matter. Nothing new has been developed in the affair, as sufficient time has not elapsed to hear from the Mexican Government in reply to Mr. Montufar's note spoken of in my No. 190. As to the full merits of the dispute, it is, of course, difficult to forma j udgment. 1 1 is hardly probable that Guatemala is wholly free of blame, it being a rare case that, in any dis[)ute, one party is entirely right and the other wholly wrong. As Guatemala, however, is a very small nation compared with Mexico, she is in no position to be aggressive: and the probabilities of ulterior purposes by Mexico, as related in my previous dispatches, are, from a priori reasoning, very strong. I shall keep you posted in relation to the march of events, as observed from my own standpoint. I have, &c., C. A. LOGAN. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 9 No. 6. Mr. FreUnghuysen to Mr. Logan. "So. 202.] Department of State, Washington^ April 11, 1882. Sir: I transmit herewith for your information the inclosed copy of a note* which I have received from the Mexican minister at this capital, of the 9th ultimo, respecting the boundary dispute between the Repub- lics of Mexico and Guatemala, also a copy* of my reply thereto. I am unable to furnish you with a copy of the printed pami^hlet men- tioned in the minister's note, one copy of the same only having been received here. I am, &c., FEED'K T. FEELINGHUYSEN. No. 7. . Mr. Titus to Mr. FreUnghuysen. [Extract.— Publislied heretofore in Foreign Relations.] No. 5.] Legation of the United States IN Central America, Guatemala City, May 12, 1882. (Eeceived June 3.) Sir : Your dispatches Nos. 202 and 203 to Mr. Logan, the latter dated April 13, have been received at this legation. Eeforring to the dispute between Guatemala and Mexico on the sub- ject of boundaries, which is the subject of your No. 202, I have the honor to inclose certain documents which may give you some infor- mation of the state of affairs here. No. 1 is a translation of a note from the Mexican minister here to the Guatemalan minister of foreign relations, and No. 2 is tbe answer of the latter. These translations were very hastily made, but I think they will be found to be substan- tially correct. * * * A few days after this correspondence, President Barrios sent a mes- sage to the assembly, asking for full powers to arrange the boundary question with Mexico as he thought best. His request was granted in a decree of which the following is a translation : Only article. The President of the Republic, General J. Riifiuo Barrios, is authorized in an especial and ample manner, to arrange definitely, and in the manner which he may judge most beneficial t) the true interests of ths country, the question of frontiers pending with the United Mexican States. * * * * * * * I have, &c., FEANK H. TITUS. For inclosures, see documents Nos. 50 and 51. 10 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. [Inclosnre 1 in No. 5.] Mr. Loaeza to Mr. Crus. Mexican Legation in the Republic ov Central America, Guatemala, April 10, 1882. Mr. Minlsteu : I have jnst received two copies of the report presented by yonr ex- cellency to the legJNlatnre last month; which document I have read attentively, giving special attention to the portion referring to the relations between Guatemala and Mexico. Speaking of the question of boundaries, your excellency says that "it 18 bfliered with sufficient reason that before the termination of the year the naid question may he completely and saii-sfactorily arranged, it beiny impossible for the Government of Guate- mala to have any otlier aspiration than that of maintaining its rights, and that the territory legitimately belonging to the Republic may not he dismembered, for tvhose integrity it has to u-aich according to the fundamental latv." Your excellency also expresses your opinion that all the charges made against the Government of Guatemala in the report which the secretary of state and of the department of foreign relations of Mexico remit- ted to the Congress of the Union of my country, the 10th of last September, '^are abso- lutely destitute of justice." That the Government of which your excellency forms part is pleaded that Mexico recognizes the judicial fact that the Uriarte-Vallarta conven- tion has legally expired; "and that the President of the Republic does not remember having proposed that a new convention be made with the intention of reviving the former on*'s." Finally, yourexcellenc^V, penetrating into the slippery region of snppo- .sitions, affirms that "it is hidden from no one, that if it were sufficient that the federal Government of Mexico should declare, upon its oivn authority, that to it belonged any part ivhatever of the territory of Guatemala, the day that it should be pleased to declare that the whole extent of the Republic belonged to it, your excellency's Government would have to acknotvl- edge that resolution, and to recognize the legitimacy of the title which it would create, or else to give an offense which would necessitate a reparation." I wish that your excellency's hope that during the present year the question of boun- daries may be terminated in a satisfactory manner may as soon as possible be an accomplished fact, because the desire of my Government in regard to the affair is that the dividing line between the two Republics be lixed, perfectly determined, in order that there may be no room for doubts, and that the vexatious difficulties which are making themselves felt may be avoided. As your excellency's report to which I refer contains asseverations which affect the good name of my country, and it may be necessary that they be removed, I remit to my Government a copy of the said document; but this does not prevent me from ful- filling the duty of expressing in the present note my dissent from the facts and appre- ciations given by your excellency, in order that at no time consequences may be de- duced from my silence. I permit myself to rectify only the most important errors. Although it cannot be consideri d as a serious hypothesis that it could occur to Mex- ico to declare of its own authority that all the Republic of Guatemala belonged to it, taking into consideration the elevated character and illustriousness of the function- ary who formulates it, I am obliged to inform him that there is no fact authorizing a supposition of sucli a nature. Mexico, Mr. Minister, prides herself on nothing so much as on her never deviating Irom rectitude. My country does not need nor wish for foreign territories : she possesses sufficient teriitory for a ])opulation ten times greater than that she has, and if your excellency will please to read the declarations that, competently authorized, are made by the editor of the Diario Oficial of the Government of the United Mexican States, in No. r)9 of this periodical, dated the 10th of last month (of which I take the liberty of inclosing a copy), you will be convinced of the truth stated. It is certain that the Government of Mexico lecognizes that the effects of the con- vention of December 7, 1877, and those of its prorogation of May 3, 1879, legally ceased on account of the termination of the first period stipulated in the last, without the commission of experts having finished its labors in the first section of the frontier line, and as the nK>8t excellent President of this Republic does not remember, as your excellency says, having proposed that a new convention be made with the intention of reviving the former ones, I am able to clear up that fact. In a note dated June 25, 1881, I had the honor to inform, among other things, the department under your very worthy charge, as follows : '' An incident which concerns the minister of foreign affairs of my country, in the note which causes this answer, i* not referred to by your excellency in your very esteemed note which I have the honor to answer, and it is the fact that the undersigned, by order of his Government, had the honor to insinuate to the most excellent President of this Republic the conveni- ence of celebrating a new convention, which should revive that of December 7, 1877, and that, having received snch insinuation favorably, the First Magistrate himself dictated his agreement, that it might be transmitted to the minister of Guatemala in Mexico, in order that the treaty might be celebrated ; and that Senor Herrera had not BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 11 informed the department of foreign relations of Mexico that he was anthorized to that eflFect." And the 29th of tlie same month, Dr. Lorenzo Montnfar, in his character of secretary of foreign relations, which he was then, had the kinduess to answer me, among other things, as follows: "Instrnctions were sent to Senor Herrera that tjn- medialely he address himself to the secretary (department) of state of the Mexican Republic, tvith the end of entering into negotiations over tite new convention referred to in yonr excellency's esteemed note, which I answer to-day. " In consequence, when the secretary of foreign relations of Mexico stated in there- port of last September that the most excellent President of this Republic had ac- cepted the proposition which the Mexican Government made him, through me, to revive the said convention, he expressed a truth entirely iudisputablf. Before closing, will your excellency permit me to express my surprise to see expressed, iu the document to which I refer, that the Government of Guatemala is pleased that Mexico recognizes the juridical truth that the Uriarle- Vallarta convention has legallg expired, because this manifestation of pleasure contrasts with that of the desire which your excellency says the Government has to come to a prompt and complete arrangement of the question of boundaries, when the scientitic investigations stipulated iu ohe said convention must have been exceedingly useful, furnishing the data necessary for its greater exactness. Although at the risk, Mr. Minister, of abusing your excellency's kindness, I permit myself to ask you to be pleased to insert this dispatch in the Guatemalteco, providing there should be no objections. Renewing, &c., F. LOAEZA. [Inclosure 2 in No. 5.] Mr. Cruz to Mr. Loaeza. Guatemala, April 11, 1882, Mr. Minister : I have attentively studied the esteemed communication which your excellency wa-4 pleased to address me tinder date of yesterday, with the object of ex- pressing your dissent to certain statements and observations coutaiued in the last report made to the legislative assembly, and of rectifying the principal errors which, in your excellency's judgment, are contained in the portion referring to the relations between Guatemala and Mexico, iu the said document, which for my part I also took care should reach your excellency's Goverumeut. I might from this moment abstain entirely from entering into discussion coucerning the statements and observa- tions contained in the said report ; and so doing, would do no more than imitate the conduct which, in a recent and analogous occasion, the secretary of state of the Re- public of Mexico saw tit to observe, when our minister addressed him, expressing the astonishment caused him by certain words used by the President in giving an account to the chambers, ou the 16th of September last, of the state of the relations between Guatemala and Mexico. The answer which that elevated functionary gave him was, that without establishing a promiscuous precedent, the documents issued by the e!secutive, in conformity to a constitutional requirement, to inform, not foreign conn- tries, but the rep-eseutatives of the nation, of its political state, although they might be given the greatest publicity for the information of the latter, could not be taken as a theme of discussion with foreign ministers, because they are acts of interior polity, although they may be found to contain references to exterior affairs. Without piej- ndice oi the right to make use of this example, nevertheless, I do not make use of it now, through deference to your excellency, and because I do not wish to deprive mj'- self of the pleasure of giving you an answer, rectifying iu my turn the erroi-s into which it appears to me you have fallen. The report presented to the assembly does not say, nor could it say in any part, that it is believed that Mexico is going to de- clare, of her own authority, that all the Republic of Guatemala belongs to her, nor does it eay in any part that there is a presumption that such a thing wmII happen, or that there are facts which authorize that i)resum])tiou or suspicion. The report only says, if your excellancy will permit me to recall it to yon, " that referring to the reclaim for the invasion of Tor{intana, the representative of Mexico stated to this department that his Government denied the satisfaction asked, because it had declared that that territory was part of the Mexican soil and had given him orders to so communicate il." It says " that on our part it was answered that Mexico was not competent authority to make a declaration of that nature, because the party himself interested in a question cannot he competent to decide it, and because nations cannot make themselves by their own authority, and by the title of their sole declaration, owners of a territory." It says " that in spite of this the reclaim of the Government of Guatemala teas not at- 12 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. tended to,'' and it says finally, to demonstrate ronjijlily to wbat point the consequences might come, if one nation had to abide by the declarations made by the other in dis- puted malters, that " H it hidden from no one, ihaf if it were sufficient that the federal Government of Mexico .should declare upon its own authority that to it helonged any part whatever of the territory of Guatemala, the day that it should be pleased to declare that the whole extent of the licjxublic belonged to it, my Goveninwnt would have to acknouledge that resolution, and to recognize the legitimacy of the title which it rvould aeate." I have not penetrated then, Mr. Minister, into the slippery region of supposition, because I have not said nor believed that that would happi n, as I have not been al>le to believe nor say that Guatemala would ever agree to a resolution to this effect. The only thing I have wished to do, and have done, is to make manifest how inad- missible and absurd it would be to recognize in one of the contending parties the right to itself determine the question by m* ans of the declarations it should see tit to make, imposing them upon the other as obligatory. For this jturpose I have made use of a style of argument, vtry well known, which is that of pointing out the extremes to which the logical ajiplicatiou of a principle would lead, in order that its falsity might be recognized by all who could see the impossibility of accepting its conseqnences. Your excellency knows perfectly that certain inflexible principles of justice are neither nmre or less in small things than in great. If a nation once be- lieves itself to have the right to decide for itself that a span of territory which it dis- putes with its neighbor belongs to it, with the same right it conld decide afterwards that it owned an immense territory which might be the matter in dispute. If in a question between two individuals for a few cents one of them conld constitute him- self judge, there would be no reason why he should not constitute himself judge in the same numner when the (juestion might be for many millions of dollars. But as it frequently hapjiens that, when treating of the relatively insignificant, all the im- portance of fixing an unsustainable principle is not clearly seen, it becomes necessary to apply that same principle to a greater extent and to present all that would happen in that case, that there may be no doubt that the principle shonld be repulsed, al- though in the very insignificant and small. They ar:-, therefore, as I conceive, two things very different, to suppose, that is to say Ixdieve or presume, that a certain thing is going to happen, and to only feign thehypothesis that it might happen, in order to calculate the conseqnences of a principle. I agree perfectly with yonr excellency that it cannot be believed or seriously presumed that it could occur to Mexico of her own authority to declare that all the Republic of Guatemala belongs to her, but ex- actly the circumstance that that deed gives force to the argument i)resented to the assembly, choosing the most unrealizable hypothesis, that is to say, demonstrating the inexactitude of a principle by means of the absurd consequences that would have to be derived from the application of it. Referring to the remarks which your ex- cellency is pleased to make respecting the fact that the President of this Republic does not remember having proposed that a new convention be made with the object of re- viving those of December 7, 1877, and March 3, 1»79, 1 must inlormyon|thatthisatiirma- tion contained in the report, in virtue of data furnistied me by the President, is iu nowise •opposed to what my predecess)r said to you, on the 2yth of June of the last year, about sending instructions to the minister of Guatemala with the object of entering into nego- tiations concerning the new convention to which your excellency refers, for continuing the study of the fron t iers. It has not been said that a new convention is not desired or has not been authorized, because, as the report itself says, even without it no difficulty lias been raised to prevent the Mexican engineers from continuing their labors in tl^p territory of Guatemala ; and fv.rthei-more, although it were unnecessary, there was no objection whatever to a convention limited exclusively to that, unless it shonld offer to reproduce some of the inadmissil)le provisions contained iu the first. It was said, then, that there would be no objection to making a new convention, which should have the same object of continuing the study of the frontier, but not exactly a new convention in terms leaving subsisteut the same ones of the first, whica, as is men- tioned in the report, encountered opposition in the council of state, and even among some of the members of the Guatemala cabinet, who were not inclined to ratify it, and it was only approved by the President of the Republic acceding to the request of the representative of Mexico, who assured him that that convention had no other object than that of a simple reconnaissance. 1 believe I am able to remove the surprise which your excellency has experienced at the contrast which you have judged to exist between the manifestation that the Government of Guatemala is pleased that Mexico recognizes the juridical fact that the Uriarte-Vallarta convention has legally expired, and the expression of the desire, whicli the Government asserts itself to have, of coming to a prompt and complete arrangement of the question of boundaries. I have not been able to find the difference of meaning between the two declarations, which yonr excellency supposes. The (iovernment of Guatemala is pleased that Mexico recognizes the expiration of the Uriarte-Vallarta convention, because this having expired according to its judgment, as it declared to the assembly, it is natural to bo pleased that the Government of Mexico, with which it was cele- BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. I'd brated, shares in the same opinion,- so that the two are agreed on that point. It is pleased that this expiration is recognized, becanse if the convention has no other object than the study or reconnaissance of the frontiers, it is entirt^ly unnecessary, seeing that this can be done by means of simple notes, and that it is being done even without them, and because, if it have any other object aside from this, as was pre- sumed from the terms in which it Avas expressed by the individuals of the council, and those of the cabinet who opposed its ratification, that peril is avoided, without prejudice to the making, if it were believed indispensable, a convention actually limited to its proper object. Therefore, the complacency that that convention, as it was conceived, has expired, and the sincere desire which animates my Government that a prompt and complete settlement of the question of boundaries be reached, are perfectly reconcilable. If, in order to reaeb it, there are any scientific studies which it may be indispensable or useful t<> make, nothing opposes their being made, if it were agretal to make them, and this were convenient, but without the terms .and agreements of the Uriarte-Vallarta treaty being reproduced in the convention, but that it be made in terms which offer no diiiScnlty, and be limited to providing that the studies and reconnaissances required be made. Under the condition of frankness which presides over my relations with your excellency, and of the publicity which my Government wishes all acts which interest the country to have, I have no objection to complying with your excellency's dt sire, that the dispatch which I answer be in- serted in the official periodical, to which I promise to send, in the future, reclamations and other mattern, which, from their nature and importance, may oppormnely be brought to the ki owledge of the j)ublic. Reiterating, &c., FERNANDO CRUZ. No. 8. Mr. Sail to Mr. Frelinghuysen. LPublished heretofore in Foreign Relations.] No. 20.J Legation of the United States IN Central America, Guatemala, September 29, 1882. (Received October 23.) Sir: For several moDths past tbe Government of Gnatemala has been receiving information of projected invasions of its territory by expedi- tions of armed forces, having for their object the enticing or compelling the inhabitants of the frontier, who are mostly Indians, info subscrib- ing or adhering to public acts of annexation to the bordering states of Mexico. It is said that those expeditious have been preparing in Cam- peche, Yucatan, Tabasco, and Chiapas. The first of these invasions has taken place during the present month in the department of Peten; all the information in regard to it, thus far received, is contained in the accompanying copies of dispatches and letters to the minister of war of Guatemala, and which have been received during the past week. For convenient reference I inclose a tracing from an authentic map, show- ing what is believed to be the correct boundary lines between Mexico and Guatemala, and the location of the towns said to have been invaded, as well as those which are mentioned in. the inclosures. The first information comes from the alcalde of an Indian town named Silvituk. As well as can be made out, from a letter dictated by a person who can neither read nor write, it appears that the place was invaded, and that the inhabitants were compelled to go to the village of Teuchac and there declare their adhesion to Campeche. He charges, also, that deception was practiced upon them by a priest named Bersumssi, "who told them that the Republic of Guatemala was taken." This priest is a native of Campeche, and is well known to the Guatemalan Government. The several communications embraced in the inclosures are numbered from 1 to 5. Nos. 2 and 3 are translations of dispatches from the military 14 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. (.'ommandaiit oi Peteu to the minister of war: tbey report the fitting out of an expedition in Tabasco, with the knowledge and consent of the governor, for the invasion of that department; that one commercial firm has given therefor the snni of $5,000, and another has contributed 00 Winchester rities; that the expedition would be sent b,v steamboat from Tabiisco to a place called Tonosique, on the Uniaciuta River, six days from his headquarters. He reports also the invasion of the towns of San Antonio and Coucepcion. The remaining letters and telegrams merely corroborate the general news of the invasion. This affair has given the Government of Guatemala a vast deal of trouble and anxiety, besides the expenses which it can ill afford to incur, of sending 500 troops from Coban to the frontier. I have time only by this mail to <;ommuuicate the facts, and to say that the Government is reluctant to believe that the Government of Mexico has any knowledge of these hostile movements. At the earnest solicitation of the President of Gua.. temala, 1 cabled to you on the 26th the following : President Orantes has information of invasion of Gnateinalan districts Coucepcion and San Antonio by Mexican troops, compelling iuliubitants to declare for annexation to Campeche. Pnsident hopes invasion not authorized by Mexico. Five hundred troops sent to invaded districts. I apprehend hostilities may ensue unless Mexicans retire. No suggestion of any action in the premises on your part has been made; it was desired only that the Government of the United States should be advised of these movements. I have, &c., • HENRY C. HALL. [iBclosure 1 in Ko. 20. — Translation of cominunicatioua received by the Government of Guatemala in relation to the invasion of the department of Peten by Mexican armed forces.] Governor Tuz to the prefect and military commandant of the department of Peten. San Juan Silvituk, September 2, 1882. Sir: I send this for your information, having received no reply to a dispatch I sent making known to you that forces were coming from Caujpeche to take possession of these places, which was carried out. A commission having been sent, they made us go down to Tanche (Tenchac) to subscribe to an act of adhesion of tliese towus to Campeche. Finding onrsidvcs without resources for resist.uice we had to yield, but wo oiler not to take up arms against that department. This happened through the decejitious of the curate Bersunisa, who told us that tlie Republic of Guatemala had been taken and that we could not resist a state like Campeclie. Hearing this, we were afraid, and we told them to continue; that we could xiot, inasmuch as wo had taken an oatli (to Guatemala probal)ly), but afterwards we learned tliat you had sent circu- lar orders, and these papers were taken in Tanche (Tenchac) and we had no knowl- edge of the orders which you sent us. Besides this, orders have been given to collect provisions for tlie troops that are going to Coucepcion, or for your headquarters, I am not sure which. This is all I have to make known to the respectable headquarters. For the Governor, Jose M» Tuz, SALVADOR PERERA. [Inclosnre 2 in No. 20. — Translation.] Military commandaut, department of I'etin, to minister of war. Pktkn, La LiukutaI), Septtmber 4, 1HH2. Dkau Sir and Frikxd: I write to communicate to you the n*'\vs given me by a merchant who has just arrived from Tabasco. He says tiiat in the cai>ital of that state, with the knowledge and permission of the govcruor, a party of bandits is being formed to come and rob the department ; that the house of Bulues & Company has BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 15 given them $5,000, and the house of Valenznela, GO Winchesters; that sixty persons were ready who were expecting to complete the nuraher to one hundred, to go out ; they will come to Tenocique in a steamer of the house of Bulues; that place is not more than six days from here. Many of these rogues have been woodcutters in this department ; have failed and wish to retrieve their fortunes by robbing and pillaging. The person who has given me this news is very respectable, and from the names of the individuals he mentioned, and whom I know, I believe it, because they are bandits capable of anything that is bad, and one of their pranks is to ruin the house of Jumet & Sastre, to which the Bulues are in hostility. I will do everything possible not to be surprised, and will defend myself to the last. I have no other arms than 25 Remingtons, second class. I have therefore asked for 25 of first class, and I again ask you most earnestly to send them to me immediately with corresponding ammunition. With fifty men well armed I will teach these ban- dits a lesson. I remain, &c., IGNACIO G. SALAS. [Inclosnre 3 in No. 20. — Translation.] Military commandant, department of Ptten, to the minister of war. Peten, La LiiJERTAD, September 13, 1882. SiK : I have the honor to annex a dispatch from the alcalde and governor of the town of Silvituk (see No. 1), in which he communicates to me that the towns of the •district of San Antonio have been invaded by forces from Campeche, who drew up acts in those towns annexing them to Campeche. Besides this, I have news that in the town of Concepcion, near the boundary of Campeche (state of), and 112 leagues from here, there are two hundred troops of Campeche that are preparing to march on these headquarters. « * * I am, &c., IGNACIO G. SALAS. [Inclosure 4 in Ko. 20. — Translation.! Senor Cruz to minister of war. CoBAN, September 21, 1882. Sir: I have bad news from Peten, given me by a person who has just arrived from there. There are two hundred men from Campeche in the town of Concepcion, pre- paring to march upon the capital of Peten. I expect you to send me orders, and two competent officers for the emergency I deem expedient. I am, &c., LUIS M. CRUZ. f Inclosure 5 in No. 20. — Translation j [Telegram.] COBAN, September- 21, 1882. To the Minister of War : At this moment I have received a courier from the prefect of Peten, recommending the following telegram to be sent to you : "On the 1.5th instant one of the spies sent to the frontier of Campeche relurned, stating that forces from that state to the number of 200 men have invaded the depait- jtneut and are marching upon this capital." I await your orders. LUIS MOLINA. IG BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. No. 9. Mr. Hall to Mr. FreUnghuysen. [Extract.] No. 27.] Legation of the United Stai'ES, Guatemala, October 12, 1882. (Received November 4.) Sir : With reference to my telegram of the 26th, and dispatch No. 20, of the 29th ultimo, relating to the reported invasion of Guatemala ter- ritory by Mexican forces, * * * to-day the following telegram has been sent: Telegram of tlie 26th ultimo of uo immediate importauce, Mexico haviog telegraiihed orders to Tabasco aud Campeche. The immediate importance of my telegram of 2Gth ultimo reporting the invasion has ceased, a treaty of limits liaving been signed in Mex- ico on the 27tl» ultimo, and orders having been communicated by the Mexican (lovernment 10 the authorities of Tabasco and Campeche to put a stoj) to further invasions of Guatemalan territory. This infor- mation is published in El Guatemalteco of the 7th instant, of which I transmit an extract and translation. I have, &G., HENEY C. HALL. [luclosure 1 in 27. — Translation from El Guatemalteco.] MKXICO AND GUATEMALA. In the begiuniug of September last, the authorities of Peteu advised the Govern- ment that in the state of Tabasco some forces were being organized with the inten- tion of invading that department ; subsequently, about the middle of the same month, they further reported that the organized forces of Campeche were invading the fron- tier posts, obliging the defenseless inhabitants of San Antonio aud other remote places to hign acts of annexation to the Mexican Republic. Without giving undue importance to the gravity of the news received as to the in- vasion of our territory by Mexican troops, at the very moment when a definite treaty was being concluded with Mexico, in virtue of the bases signed in New York the 12th of August, the Government of this Republic limited its action to the adoption of such measures of safety as the case demanded, until with better data than the reports of persons coming from those distant plapes it might be able to judge of its importance and gravity, and then to adopt measures tending to sustain the honor and the in- tegrity of the country. While awaiting further advices (difficult to obtain on account of the great distance to the borders of Peten), which the Government proposes to make public, a cable dis- patch has bteu received from Mr. Herrera, the minister of this Republic in Mexico, announcing that the treaty defining the boundaries has been signed, and that the au- thorities of Tabasco and Campeche were promptly instructed to put a stop to all further disorder aud to invasions of the territory of Peten, the late advices from there having, as a measure of precaution, been communicated to our minister. The dispatch from Mr. Herrera is as follows : "Mexico, Oclobvr 5, 1882. (Received in Guatemala, 10.40 a. m.) " General J. M. Orantes : " To-day, on the inauguration of the great enterprise, the cable, I have the honor to salute you and yonr illustrious cabinet; it is most satisfactory to me, on this first occa- sion, to advise you that on the 27th ultimo a delinite treaty with this Republic was signed and boundaries fixed from the Pacific to the Atlantic. I will send it by the mail of the 12th. " The minister of the interior sent a telegraphic order to the governors of Tabasco and Campeche to stop promptly all disorders and the invasion of Peten, and to respect the state of affairs. " MANUEL HERRERA, Jr." BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA 17 It is therefore satisfactory to tlie Government to advise the Guatemalan people of the final termination of a question which, for many years, has caused the country grievances and disorders, and even while in the coarse of settlement has served as a pretext to the revolutionists to promote on the frontiers of Peteu the disturbances already an- nounced, which at this date will have completely disappeared through the measures adopted by both Governments. We congratulate once more the people of Guatemala, and their illustrious chief. General Barrios, to whose patriotic ettbrts is due tlie hon- orable and necessary termination of that question which was a perpetual menace to our liberty and tranquillity. No. 10. Mr. Hall to Mr. Frelinghuysen. [Extract.] No. 47.] Legation of the Unted States, Guatemala, December 20, 1882. (Received January 10, 1883.) Sir : Mr. Batres, miuister of foreign affairs at Guatemala, has sent me copies of the documents relating to the tinal settlement of the ques- tion of boundaries between Guatemala and Mexico, consisting of the " preliminary bases," for a treaty of limits, signed in New York by Presi- dent Barrios and Miuister Romero on the 12th August, and the final treaty which was signed in Mexico on the 27th Sejjtember ultimo. In his accompanying note of the 11th instant, the minister informs me that these documents are for transmission to the Department in compliance with the promise made to you by Mr. Fernando Oruz (the associate of General Barrios during his late visit to the United States) in his note of the 14th of October ultimo. Translations of these jjapers are also inclosed. The minister has supplied me also with a cojjy and translation to Eng- lish of President Barrios's message to the national legislative assembly of Guatemala, submitting the treaty to the approval of that body. The translation is a copy of one that has been sent to the consul of Guate- mala in New York for publication in the United States, It may, there- fore, have reached you, and in a more convenient form than the accom- panying voluminous manuscript. In connection with Article III of the treaty, I inclose for reference a tracing of a map showing the former boundaries, said to have been claimed by Guatemala, and the present limits, as established by the treaty of September 27, 1882. A number of maps by different authors, puri)orting to show the former boundary, have been published during the past thirty or forty years, and there are no two which agree. The one from which the tracing is made is believed to be nearly correct, and the ines designating the new boundary have been drawn by Mr. Irun- garay, the consulting engineer who was associated with the Guatemalan miuister in Mexico in negotiating the treaty. According to this trac- ing it appears that Guatemala, in addition to the voluntary surrender of al) claims to Chiapas and its department of Soconusco, loses terri- tory equal in extent to the half of that state. By refereuce to my dispatches Nos. 20 and 27, of the 29th September and the 12th of October ultimo, and to the tracing accomiianying the former, it will be seen that the territory Guatemala loses embraces the districts then reported to have been invaded by the Mexican forces. ****** m H. Ex. 154—2 18 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. While the territory in question is of no special value or interest to Guatemala, the existence of well-defined boundaries, as established by this treaty, will no doubt save her in the future from further encroach- ments of her more powerful neighbor. The phraseology of the treaty appears to be borrowed in part from the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. General Barrios's message will, I am persuaded, be found of interest. I take from it the following extract, wherein he refers to the kind at- tentions he received in the. United States, and by which he has bBen, I learn, profoundly impressed : Before reporting to you the conditions of the conclnded negotiations respecting the boundaries, I must declare publicly, upon this solemn occasion, that I received con- tinually from the Government and people of the United States delicate proofs of es- teem and consideration, the remembrance of which I preserve with affectionate grati- tude, corresponding with my sympathies and respect for that generous and glorious nation. He recites the complications connected with the settlement of the boundary dispute with Mexico, arising from the discussions carried on at the same time from different standpoints by the respective repre- sentatives of Guatemala in Washington and Mexico, the minister in Washington having represented that he had reached an agreement with the minister of Mexico in the United States to submit the whole ques- tion to the arbitration of the United States, while the Guatemalan minister in Mexico had reported that the Mexican Government would accept the project of a treaty presented by the minister, which included indemnification to Guatemala for the renouncement of all claims to Chiapas and Soconusco. There proved to be no foundation for either report. On the contrary he found, to his surprise, that the representa- tive of Mexico in Washington was not authorized by his Government to enter into any definite settlement of the dispute ; that Mexico had not intimated any wish to submit it to the arbitration of the United States, and that this arbitration or mediation could be obtained only upon the joint application of both parties. Although he does not refer again in the message to the subject of indemnification for the renounce- ment of all claims to Chiapas and Soconusco, the result shows that Mexico could not have entertained seriously such a condition. President Barrios congratulates himself that in renouncing claims to the disputed territory he has relieved Guatemala of a menacing and bar- ren question 5 he has learned that her rights to Chiapas and Soconusco are not sustainable, and for the following reasons : That Chiapas de- clared its separation from Spain and its annexation to Mexico before Guatemala had made any similar declaration of independence; that on the 29th of September, 1821, the authorities and people of Chiapas, by a public act, declared their wish to separate from Guatemala and to join Mexico ; that with that object they sent a commissioner to express their resolution to the Mexican Government; that in 1824 the question was submitted to a popular vote of Chiapas, and the result was a large major- ity in favor of remaining with Mexico — 90,829 for Mexico and 00,400 for Guatemala; that all the constitutions of Mexico since 1824 have in- cluded Chiapas as one of its departments or states; that Chiapas has jjarticipated in all the vicissitudes of Mexico from that time to the present, and has never by any act of the people or authorities expressed a wish to unite with Guatemala. President Barrios concludes his message, requesting the legislative assembly to deliberate upon the treaty with perfect freedom and inde- pendence, without partiality or personal considerations for himself, as men who will have to render account for their acts to their country and BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 19 posterity. There is little doubt, however, but that the treaty will be approved by the legislative body, in accordance with the President's wishes, and, beyond a doubt, the wishes of a majority of the people of the country who have ever taken any interest in the question. I have, &c., HENEY C. HALL. [Inclosure 1 in 47. — Translation. I Senor Bdtres to Mr. Hall. Department of Foreign Relations, Guatemala, Decemier 11, 1882. Mr. Minister : Under date of the 14th of October of the current year the minister, Dr. Fernando Cruz, addressed a note to the honorable Secretary of State of the United States of America, in which he informed him, among other things, that wht'u the President, General Barrios, returned to Guatemala, and when the treaty of boundaries with Mexico should have been received, the department of relations, which is under my charge, would have the honor to send to his excellency the Secretary of State of the great Republic which your excellency worthily represents, a copy of it and of the preliminary bases agreed upon in New York. To-day it gives me pleasure to fulfill that promise by sending to your excellency authenticated copies of the said docu- ments, that you may be pleased to transmit them to the Secretary of State of the American Union, together with the messages which I have the honor to inclose. The treaty has already been submitted to the deliberation of the national legislative as- sembly, and of what it may determine I shall also take care to advise your excellency's respectable Government, which has been pleased to take such a kind interest in the question of boundaries which we have had with the neighboring Republic of Mexico. I have, &c., ANTONIO BATRES. E^O. 11. Mr. Davis to Mr. Hall. No. 36.] Department of State, Washington, January 19, 1883. Sir : I am in receipt of your dispatch No. 47, of the 20th ultimo, touching the satisfactory adjustment of the boundary differences be- tween the Eepublics of Guatemala and Mexico. I have to remark, with pleasure, that this at one time threatening question seems to have reached a happy conclusion. The Department has received copies of the printed English version of President Barrios's message to the na- tional assembly upon the subject to which you refer. I have, &c., JOHN DAVIS, Acting Secretary. 20 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. U.— GUATEMALA'S BEQUEST TO THE UNITED STATES TO INTERFERE IN THE BOUNDARY QUESTION WITH MEXICO. No. 12. Mr. XJhlco to Mr. Blaine. [Traiislatiou— Published heretofore in Foi-eigu Relatious.] Legation of the Eepublic of Guatemala, Washington^ June 15, 1881. (Received June 15.) Sill : As soon as the Central American Kepublics had shaken oflt" the sway of Spain, Mexico, constitnted then as an Empire by Itnrbide, began to show its tendency to an increase of territory towards the south by encroaching- on the boundaries of the said Republics. With that ob- ject the armies of the Mexican Empire passed through the whole of Guatemala, and were only stopped by the patriots of Salvador, who defeated them at a i)lace which, in remembrance of such an event, bears to this day the name of " Mejicanos." Guatemala lost, nevertheless, the two important provinces of Soconusco and Chiapas. Many years later the Central American territory was once more in- vaded by 400 men of the regular Mexican federal army, who were luck- ily driven from it. However, the slow and partial annexation of terri- tory has not ceased one single day, showing well that if the form of government in Mexico has changed from the Empire to the Republic, the tendency to enlarge the territory and to overstep the boundaries towards the south has remained the same. The Government of Guatemala, desirous of settling this affair in a manner in accordance with the international law of nations and with the established practice of civilized countries, has employed all possible means within its reach to obtain this favorable result, and unhappily with- out the least success up to the present day : far from it. Neither have the claims of our diplomatic agents been attended to, nor have the par- tial annexations of territory ceased, nor even the vexations from the Mexican authorities. An instance of these was the arbitrary- imprison- ment by said authorities of the Guatemalan agents sent, in accordance with the Mexican Government, to make a preliminary study which was to serve as a basis for the settlement of a definite boundary line be- tween the two countries ; also the imprisonment of agents of Guatemala who were making the census of the poi)ulation of that country, and that of many local authorities of political and local jurisdiction, instead of which Mexican authorities have been substituted. All peaceful means of conciliation ai)pearing to be exhausted, my Government sees no resource left but to appeal to that of the United States as the natural protector of the integrity of the Central American territory. The Government of Guatemala, from which I have special instructions on the subject, and the i)eople of Central America will see with pro- found gratitude any demonstration that the Government of the United States may find tit to make to that of the Mexican Republic that may induce this latter to respect the integrity of the Central American ter- ritory, and also lead to the cessation of an abnormal state of affairs- which, unfortunately, has lasted too long already. Accept, &c., A. UBICO, BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 21 No. 13. Mr. Blaine to Mr. TJMco. [Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] Department of State, Washington, June 16, 1881. Sir : I have had the pleasure to give attentive perusal to the note of yesterday's date, which you were pleased to address me concerning the question of boundaries between Guatemala and Mexico, in respect whereof your Government makes an appeal to that of the United States " as the natural protector of Central American integrity." Few subjects can more cordially commend themselves to the good judgment and sympathy of the President than the preservation of peace and friendship between the Republics of Spanish America, in their com- mon interest no less than in our own. The President does not understand that your presentation of the causes and course of the long i)endiug disagreement with Mexico as to the re- spective rights or territorial limits of the two countries, in the districts of Soconusco and Chiapas, calls upon him for any expression of opinion as to the extent of the just jurisdiction of either. It is not the policy or the desire of this Government to constitute itself the arbiter of the destinies in whole or in part of its sister Republics. It is its single aim to be the impartial friend of each and all, and to be always ready to tender frank and earnest counsel touching anything which may menace the peace and prosperity of its neighbors, and in this it conceives that it responds to its simple and natural duty as the founder and principal upholder of the true jirinciples of liberty and a republican form of gov- ernment upon the American continent. The Government of the United States is above all anxious to do any and every thing which will tend to strengthen the indispensable and natural union of the Republics of the continent, in the face of the tendencies which operate from without to influence the internal affairs of Spanish America. It is especially anxious, in the pursuance of this broad policy, to see the Central Ameri- can Republics more securely joined than they have been of late years in protection of their common interests. It feels that anything that may lessen the good will and harmony so much to be desired between the Republics of the American Isthmus, must in the end disastrously atfect their mutual well-being. The responsibility for the maintenance of this common attitude of united strength is, in the President's conception, shared by all, and rests no less upon the strong states than upon the weak. Entertaining these views, and without, however, in any way prejudg- ing the contention between Guatemala and Mexico, the President has deemed it his duty to instruct the diplomatic representative of the United States in Mexico to set before that Government his conviction of the danger to republican principles which must ensue should inter- national boundaries be disresiDected, or force resorted to in support of rights not made clear by recourse to the peaceful procedure recognized by the modern code of intercourse. In taking this course, the President is sure that Mexico, no less than Guatemala, will see therein the most signal proof of the impartial good will we bear toward both. Accept, &c., JAMES G. BLAINE. 22 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. No. 14. Mr. Ubico to Mr. Blaine. [Translation. — Publislied heretofore in Foreign Relations.] Legation op Guatemala, Neiv YorJcj June 19, 1881. (Received June 21.) Sir : I have bad the honor to receive your excellency's polite note of the 16th instant, in reply to that of this legation of the day previous iu relation to the dismemberment of the territory of Central America by the Mexican authorities. Your excellency is pleased to inform me that my appeal to the United States Government for protection has not been disregarded, and that you have tendered your mediation and good offices in order to put an end to the untoward state of things on the Mexican frontier, for which purpose you have sent suitable instructions to your representative in the Republic of Mexico.'' The Government of Guatemala, to which I have communicated the decision adopted by your excellency, and to which I have sent a state- ment of the frank and friendly policy of your excellency's Government, as well as of your excellency's views and those of His Excellency the President, which are in every way calculated to inure to the benefit of the Spanish Americans in general and to that of Central America in particular, will duly appreciate the noble and generous course adopted by the United States Government, to which the inhabitants of the Gua- tamalan frontiers will be indebted for their future peace and tranquil- lity. By way of justifying its constant dismemberment of the territory of Central America, the Government of Mexico will perhaps allege un- founded rights, in which case that of Guatamala will submit the case on its part to the United States Government for arbitration, because it considers that it is the mission of that Government to settle the dis- putes that unfortunately arise on this continent. With assurances, &c. A. UBICO. No. 15. Mr. Ubico to Mr. Blaine. [Translation. — Published heretofore in Sen. Ex. Doc. 156, 47th Cong., 1st Sess.] Legation of Guatemala, Washington, June 22, 1881. (Received June 24.) Sir : Again feeling grateful for the friendly and opportune mediation of your excellency's Government in the matter concerning which I had the honor to confer with your excellency this morning, I have felt un- willing to leave Washington without expressing my gratitude to your excellencj-, in the name of my Government, together with the hope that you will kindly continue to give the same attention as heretofore to this matter, which is of so high importance to Central America. With assurances, &c., A. UBICO. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 23 No. 16. Mr. Montufar to Mr. Blaine. [Translation. — Published Heretofore in Foreign Relations.] Department of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, Guatemala, July 20, 1881. (Received October 20.) ' Mr. Minister : I have been informed of the benevolent sentiments which actuate the Government of the United States on the subject of Central American unity, and especially of your desire to prevent a war between Guatemala and Mexico, growing out of the boundary question. K Such a war seems to be daily more imminent, and there have been times when it was believed to be actually breaking out. . The expressions to which your excellency has been pleased to give utterance in behalf of peace have been regarded by the Government of Guatemala as a fresh evidence of the sincere friendship of the United States Government, while the instructions transmitted to the American minister in Mexico have been considered as an additional proof of the warm interest felt by the United States in behalf of everything that tends to promote justice, good order, and progress in the New World. The constitutional President of Guatemala instructs me to thank the enlightened Government of the United States in his name, and to ex- press the sentiments of gratitude which he entertains, together with his desire to co-operate in the realization, in America, of the views rela- tive to the welfare of the whole continent, which do so much honor to the American Union. In obeying these instructions, which I am most happy to do, I have, &c., LORENZO MONTUFAR. No. 17. Mr. Ubico to Mr. Blaine. [Translation, published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] Legation of el Salvador, New York, October 19, 1881. (Received October 20.) Sir : During the month of September last I received instructions from my Government to place in your excellency's hands the paper which I now have the honor to inclose.* The painful circumstances in which your excellency was placed by reason of the late great national calamity have prevented me from trans- mitting this document to your excellency sooner. I reiterate, &c., A. UBICO. * For inclosure see note from Mr. Montufar to Mr. Blaine, July 20, 1881. No. 16. 24 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. No. 18. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Ubico. [Published, heretofore iu Foreign Relatious.] Department of State, Washington, Oetober 31, 1881. Sir : I liave the lionor to acknowledge tlie receipt of yonr note of the 19tli instant, accompanied by one addressed to me by his excellency SeQor Dr. Lorenzo jMontufar, minister of foreij;n aiiairs of Guatenjala, of July 20 last, in which he conveys the thanks of his Government for the proffered mediation of the United States in the boundary dispute be- tween his Government and the Mexican Republic. I beg to confidently assure you of the very grateful ap]>reciation with which the sentiments of the Guatemalan Government have been received, and of the desire of the President and Government of the United States that a full and impartial measure of justice should be accorded in each case, which, in the interest of the peace, prosperity, and happiness of the family of nations of this continent is so much to be desired, and to the accomplishment of which the good offices of this Government are ever ready when desired. I avail, &c., JAMES G. BLAINE. No. 19. il/r. Blaine to Mr. 3Iontnfar. [Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] Department of State, Washington, October 31, 1881. Sir : I have had the honor to receive, through the courtesy of the minister of Guatemala at this capital, your note of the 20th of July last, wherein you tender the thanks of your Government for the proposed mediation of the United States Government of the settlement of the impending dispute between the Kepublics of Guatemala and Mexico, touching their boundary. The very cordial manner in which the action of the United States has. been received and acknowledged is most gratify iug to the President and to this Government, whose object was solely in the interest of an im- partial and amicable adjustment of the disputed points. Actuated by such desire, and cherishing the brightest hopes for the peaceful settle- ment of all dithculties between the rei)resentatives of republican gov- ernments upon this continent, and for their hapi)iness and prosperity, the Government of the United States cheerfully lends its influence toward the attainment of so laudable an end, whenever called upon. I avail, &c., JAMES G. BLAINE. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATtMALA. 25 UI.-OFFEE OF MEDIATION BY THE UNITED STATES TO MEXICO IX THE BOUNDARY QUESTION BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. No. 20. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan, [Publislied heretofore in Foreign Relations.] No. 138.] Department of State, Washington, June 16, 1881. Sir : In luy iustructious of the 1st ii)staut and to-day I have so clear- ly auaplilied the spirit of i^ood will wliich auiinates this Government toward that of Mexico, that I am sure no room for donbt can remain as to the sincerity of our friendship. Believing that this friendship, and the frankness which has always distinguished the policy of this country toward its neighbors, warrant the tender of amicable counsel when oc- casion therefor shall appear, and deeming such counsel due to our recog- nized impartiality aud to the position of the Uuited States as the founder, and in some sense the guarantor and guardian of republican principles on the American continent, it seems proper now to instruct you touch- ing a point upon which we feel some natural concern. I refer to the question of boundaries and territorial jurisdiction pending between Mexico and Gnateuiala. In the time of the Empire the forces of Iturbide overran a large part of the territory of what now constitutes Central America, which had then recently thrown oft the Spanish domination. The changing fortunes of war resulted in the withdrawal of Mexican forces from most of that region, except the important provinces of Soco- nusco and Chiapas, which remained under their control. Since that time the boundaries between the two countries have never been adjusted upon a satisfactory basis. Mexico became a Republic, did not forego claims based upon the imperial policy of conquest and absorption, while Guatemala, resisting further progress of Mexican arms, and disputing step by step the conquests already made, has never beeu able to come to a decision with her more powerful neighbor concerning the relative extension of their jurisdiction in the disputed strip of territory lying between the Gulf of Tehuau tepee and the Peninsula of Yucatan, Under these circumstaiicf s the Government of Guatemala has made a formal application to the President of the United States to lend his good offices toward the restoration of a better state of feeling between the two liepublics. This application is made in frank and conciliatory terms, as to the natural protector of the rights and national integrity of the republican forms of government existing so near our shores, and to which we are bound by so many ties of history and of material interest. This Government can do no less than give friendly and considerate heed to the representations of Guatemala, even as it would be glad to do were the appeal made by Mexico, in the interest of justice and a better undei standing. The events fresh in the memory of the living genera- tion of Mexicans, when the moral and material support of the United States, although then engaged in a desperate domestic struggle, was freely lent to avert the danger which a foreign Empire threatened to the national life of the Mexican Eepublic, afford a gratifying proof of the purity of motives and benevolence of disposition with which the United States regards all that concerns the welfare and existence of its sister Eepublics of the continent. 4 26 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. It is alleged, on belialf of Guatemala, that diplomatic efforts to come to a better understanding with Mexico have proved unavailing; that under a partial and preliminary accord looking to the ascertainment of the limits in dispute, the Gautemalan surveying parties sent out to study the laud with a view to i)roposing a basis of detinitive settlement have been imprisoned by the Mexican authorities ; that Gautemalan agents for the taking of a census of the inhabitants of the territory in question have been dealt with in like summary manner; and, in flue, that the Government of Mexico has slowly but steadily encroached upon the bordering country heretofore held by Guatemala, substituting the local authorities of Mexico for those already in possession, and so wilied to him that the alternative which he i)resented amounted to a declaration of war, and that he accepted it, what would he say"? And in respect of his saying that he would look to the United States for protection, I told him that it ap])eared to me that this might be looked upon as a threat, which I did not think would be effective; besides which it was one which i did not think he was authorized to make, for 1 understood that up to now, at least, the President of the United States, while he had offered to mediate be- tween the two countries, had not coupled this offer with an announce- ment to Mexico that she must accept his niediation or tight. He inquired of me again what 1 thought he had best do. I replied that if I were in his ])lace 1 should be careful, under all circumstances, not to do anything which could give the secretary for foreign affairs any rea- son to think that he had treated him slightingly, and that the secretary certainly would be justified in thinking so if he sought the President, instead of calling on him, who was the official channel of communica- tion between them, and that if I was in his place, situated as he then was, I should call on Senor Marisral and say to him that I had been in- formed by the Guatemalan minister at Washington that the President of the United States had consented to act as arbitrator between our countries, provided both were willing that he should do so; that I was glad of this, as there could, I should suppose, be no objection to this, and that if Mexico consented, as I did not doubt she would, there would be no necessity for pursuing the question of appointing the commission which was then pending between us. Later in the afternoon Mr. Herrera informed me that he had seen Senor Mariscal, but that his interview with him had been far from a pleasant or satisfactory one. The substance of it was, according to Senor Mariscal, that the wiong was all on the side of Guatemala ; that there had been double dealing on her part; that while negotiations were pending here, Guatemala had sought the intervention of the Washing- ton Government, and that that intervention was intended by Guatemala as a menace to Mexico, all of which had angered President Gonzalez when he was informed of it ; that he would know how to reply to Presi- dent Garfield's suggestion of arbitration, declining the same without giving offense to the United States, and that he was then preparing a statement of the differences between the two countries, in reply to the copy of the dispatch which I had left with him, which he would send me, he thought, the following day. Mr. Herrera appeared somewhat concerned as to the future, but I endeavored to show him that his fears were not well founded. I am, &c., P. H. MOKGAN. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 33- No. 26. Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. [Pnblislied. lieretofore in Foreign Eelations.] No. 240.] United States Legation, Mexico^ July 19, 1881. (Keceived August 4.) Sir : I had another interview of Senor Mariscal on the 15th instant, at the department of foreign affairs, upon the subject of the differences between Mexico and Guatemala. I informed him that since our last interview, an account of which I gave you in my dispatch No. 232, 12th instant, I had received other dis- patches from you, from which it would appear that great interest was felt at Washington upon the subject of the unhappy disputes between the two Governments in question, and that I had felt it to be my duty before receiving his formal answer to the proffer made a few days since by the President of the United States to act as mediator between them, to make some further suggestions to him with reference thereto. Senor Mariscal manifested something of excitement, I thought, and interrupted me by repeating the complaints which Mexico had, as he said, just grounds to make against Guatemala ; of her want of fair deal- ing, and, in fact, duplicity in pretending to negotiate a convention with him for the appointment of commissioners to survey the strip of territory which was in dispute, with the view of finally settling the boundaries between the two countries, while she had been secretly attempting to obtain the interference of the United States in their disputes, thus ren- dering the appointment of a commission unnecessary. He insisted upon it that it was Guatemala that had committed acts of aggression upon Mexico, instead of Mexico upon Guatemala. He cited as a fact that it had been agreed between the two countries when the convention which had been entered into between them for the appointment of a commis- sion to survey the territory in dispute — the convention which expired by limitation without having acct>mplished its work — that pending the settlement of the boundary question, the line of demarkation should be at a certain point, and that not long since Guatemalan troops had gone beyond that point, had planted the Guatemalan flag upon territory which was conceded to be Mexican, and had demolished certain monuments which had been erected thereon. He spoke a great deal about the President of Guatemala, and the condition of the Government of that country. But to this I paid little attention, as I had not gone to him to discuss either the conduct of the one or the condition of the other. As soon as the opportunity pre- sented itself I said I had been informed that Mexico had sent a large body of troops to the Guatemalan frontier, and I asked him if my in- formation was correct. He replied that some troops had been sent there, but that the number was not large, with orders to retake })Osses- sion of that jjortion of the territory which had been occupied by the Guatemalan troops, and to i^ebuild the monuments which had been ' destroyed. (These monuments, he afterwards informed me, vn ere a num- ber of crosses standing on pedestals of stone, but not erected as mark- ing the boundary between the two countries.) I said to him, ''Suppose the Mexican troops find troops from Guatemala on the disputed ground, and these latter deny the right of the Mexican troops to enter there- upon, what will be the result?" He replied that the Mexican troops would then endeavor to take possession. H. Ex. 154 3 34 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. I remarked to him that all this only confirmed the information which my Government had received, viz: thaiTan angry feeling, to say the least of it, existed between Mexico and Guatemala, which angry feel- ing might at any time result in war, and that it was with the view of avoiding such a calamity that the President of the United States, as the common friend of both parties, would be willing to accept the position of mediator between them. He replied he did not think that the time for mediation had arrived ; that a proposition for appointing a commission to survey the territory in dispute was then pending, and until that was disposed of, he did not see what could be done ; that Mexico had been insulted by Guatemala, and that before any further negotiations were entered upon, matters should be replaced in their former position. Thereupon, I said, I had called upon him in the ex- pectation that he would declare that Mexico entertained no hostile pur- pose against Guatemala, and I regretted to find myself mistaken, it being apparent to me that as Mexico had sent troops to occupy a dis- puted territory, if Guatemala had also sent troops there, the two armies were facing each other, and a conflict might ensue at any momeiit ; that this was a state of things which the United States could only look upon as a calamity, which it was their duty, if possible, to prevent. He repeated that Mexico had been insulted by Guatemala, and asked " What is she to do f I answered at once, " Submit the question of in- sult, as well as the matters of interest which are in dispute between the two countries, to the arbitration of a common friend." I then directed his attention to the condition of affairs which would in all probability re- sult from any open act of hostility on the part of either country; that one act of hostility would probably result in war, and that whatever might be the proximate cause of the war, or whatever might be the present purpose of Mexico to confine her efforts to maintaining what she claimed was the admitted boundary of her territory, there was no telling, when a war was once commenced, where it would end, and that a war once begun between Mexico and Guatemala would, almost of necessity, resolve itself, on the part of Mexico, in one of conquest, for, I said, the result thereof could scarcely be doubtful ; that Mexico would insist upon Guatemala's paying the expenses of the war; that as she would not have the means of doing this, a portion of her territory would be taken from her, and that thus a movement would be inaugurated which would possibly result in the attempted absorption of all the Re- publics as far as the Isthmus of Panama by the Kepublic of Mexico ; that this raised the question far above the consideration of the individ- ual interests of Mexico and Guatemala; that the preservation of all the Republics on the continent in their present integrity of territory and under their present form of government was of the first importance, and that the United States could not look upon any act, on the part of either of them, which might result in breaking them up or reducing their present territorial limits, with anything but disfavor. In evidence of the interest which the United States felt upon this subject, I reminded him of the i^osition assumed by them towards France, then one of the most powerful Empires of Europe — when a great portion of Mexico was in the power of French troops, and when, but for the inter- vention of the United States, and this at a moment when they had only just emerged from a struggle upon which their life had been at issue — a struggle which had taxed their resources to the utmost to enable them to maintain a war which had lasted for years, and which had been waged upon a scale of enormous proportions, and without which action on their jiart it is possible that not only Mexico, but all the territory south of it, BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 35 as far as the Isthmus of Panama, would have become a French depend- ency, a result which the United States were prepared to take up arms, even in their then exhausted condition, against the French Empire, to prevent. I called his attention to the fact that this was a question in which Mexico was as largely interested as any of the Eepublics of Central America ; that the Government of the United States and the people of the United States were opposed to fllibusterism in any of its forms, but that it would be a bad example for Mexico to set to the world if she were to set about conquering neighboring territory, and that this exam- ple I hoped she would be slow to give. I endeavored to impress upon him the fact that Mexico had now suf- ficient territory to support iu comfort and happiness a population of one hundred millions of people; that the small territory of Guatemala would add only a trifle to that which Mexico already possessed, and looking at the question under discussion from the standpoint of her own interest, it was evident to me that the course which it seemed to me she was prepared to pursue could do her no good, and might do her a great deal of harm. I also suggested to him the evil consequences which would probably result from the mere fact of a state of war, ujpon the many and vast schemes of public improvement which were in progress of construction, as well as in contemplation — schemes which, if carried out, would con- nect all of her territory, and make every i)ortion thereof accessible, as well as give to her the means of communication with the United States by safe and rapid methods of transportation, all of which would cer- tainly be disturbed, if they were not suspended, by a state of war ; that the money which had been, up to the present moment, spent upon these works had come from the United States ; that our people were ready and willing to furnish all that might be required to complete them, and that they felt, therefore, a natural interest that the suras which they had already expended should not be lost, as well as that their future undertakings should not be embarrassed by war. I urged upon him that a war between any two of the North American Eepublics would be a reproach upon republican institutions, which would not fail to be made against them by those whose interest it was to oppose our form of government; that from this point of view, the question was one of importance to the entire North American continent, and that, when our common interests were threatened in this direction, it was, T thought, the duty of the United States to interpose their good offices to prevent it ; that as the United States were the pioneers upon this continent of republican institutions, they were justified in oifering their advice when they saw that a war was imminent between either of the Eepublics thereon, and that their position and disinterestedness seemed to render it only proper that their advice should not be lightly rejected. I assured him that the suggestions of which I was the inter- preter were prompted alike from the purest feelings of friendship which the President entertained for both Mexico and Guatemala, as well as from his desire to see that the integrity of the two nations should not be impaired ; that in the present advanced state of public opinion, di- plomacy should first be exhausted, and after that arbitration, before war should even be thought of, and that I therefore earnestly hoped he would, in the reply which he had informed me he was preparing, ad- mit the justice of the position I had assumed and signify the assent of President Gonzalez to the offer made by the President. This is the substance of my remarks. My words, tone, and manner 36 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. were as conciliatory as I could make tliem, although 1 left, I think, no room for doubt as to my earnestness, or the views which I was instruct- ed to present. Seiior Mariscal replied that the present purpose of Mexico was to cause the Guatemalan troops to evacuate the territory which they had, in the opinion of the Mexican Government, occupied without authority, and to rei)lace the "monuments," as he called them, in the state in which they were prior to their demolition. This done, he would then be ready to renew negotiations for the purpose of appointing a commis- sion to survey the territory in dispute, in order that the question of boundary" might be finally settled. He denied that Mexico had com- mitted any act of aggression upon Guatemala, and distinctly disavowed any intention on the part of Mexico to use her troops for the purpose of conquering any portion of the territory belonging to Guatemala, and stated that of this disavowal I might inform you. Thereupon I took leave of him. In the meanwhile, nearly a fortnight has elapsed since I first brought the matter to Sefior Mariscal's attention, and he has not furnished me with the written reply which he stated he would prepare, although I said to him in my last interview that I was anxious to forward it by this mail. I do not feel justified iu waiting for it before informing you of what has occurred up to date. I am, &c., P. H. MORGAN. No. 27. 3fr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. [Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] No. 247.] Legation of the United States, Mexico, August 5, 1881. (Received August 19.) Sir : I transmit herewith copy and translation of a note of 30th July from Senor Mariscal, as well as of the " memoranda " made by him of our interview of the 9th of July. Mr. Mariscal, at the same time, sent me a co])y of M. Matias Rome- ro's "Refutacion de las Inculpaciones hechas al C. Matias Romero por el Gobierno de Guatemala " ; also copy of '' Bosquejo Historico dela Ag- regacion a Mexico de Chiiipas y Soconusco" ; a colh'ction of official docu- ments ; "Question de Limitas entre Mexico y Guatemala ; " " Chiapas y Soconusco, con motivo de la question limites enti'e Mexico y Guatemala," and a pamphlet upon the same subject by Juan N. de Pereda. The first two arc enormous volumes. I do not send thenj to you, as I am not requested to do so, and because I sui)pose they are in the library of the State Department. Sefior Mariscal's "memoranda" agre(s, I think, substantially with the report of the interview I had of him on the 9th July. You will observe that he does not mention our second interview (July 15). It is evident from Sefior Mariscal's "uiemoramla" that Mexico is in no humor at present to acquiesce to any jiroposition to submit her dis- pute with Guatemala to an arbitration, and also, I think, that I was justi- fied in saying to him that b(ith countries occui)ied a hostile i)osition towards each other which niight, at any moment, resolve itself into a BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 37 state of war, and therefore that the^^ should be willing to have their difficulties adjusted by a common friend. Some time ago, as you are aware, Colombia proposed to the Repub- lics south of the Rio Grande that au international congress should be held, with power to enter into a compact by which all matters of dis- pute arising between any two or more of them should be submitted to arbitration — the arbitrator to be the President of the United States. Seiior Mariscal has acknowledged the receipt of this j^roposition and has declared that the President would take it into consideration. But the Diario Oficial has lately declared that the Mexican Government would not accept the proposition. This declaration, the editor says, is not the decision of the Government, but I suppose no one can doubt the source from whence the editor derived his inspiration. I am, &c., P. H. MORGAN. [Inclosure 1 in No. 247. — Translation.] Mr, Mariscal to Mr, Morgan. Department op Foreign Relations, Mexico, July 30, 1881. My Dear Mr. Morgan: In the iuterview whicli we had on the 9th of the current month, I had the honor of intimating to you that I would prepare a memorandum which would express with greater precision the reply I gave you upon the impor- tant question which occupied us, and would also add some observations, which it was impossible for me to explain at the moment, relative to the contents of the note from the Department of State of yonr Government which you had read to me. I have completed my memorandum, and inclose you a copy accompanying it, with several articles published in Mexico relative to the question of boundaries between this country and Guatemala. I avail, &c., IGNACIO MARISCAL. [Inclosure 2 in No. 347. — Translation.] MEMORANDA. On the 9th of the current month the honorable minister of the United States, hav- ing requested a special interview with the undersigned, minister of foreign relations, on a subject of great importance, came personally to the Department, and in a full and unreserved conversation explained the friendly sentiments entertained by his Government toward Mexico, referring at the same time to the note of the honorable Secretary of State, Mr. Blaine, a copy of which he had given to the undersigned some days previously, and in which this friendly spirit was most decidedly manifested. In continuation he arlded that, in the matter he was about to present, his Govern- ment disclaimed all intention of officious interference, and had no other interest in view than that arising from a desire for the maintenance of that peace and harmony between neighboring and friendly Republics which was essential to the good repute and prosperity of republican institutions, as to the nations which had adopted such institutions; and the people who had first planted republicanism on this continent could not do otherwise than feel a deep interest in its successful and permanent es- tablishment among the nations of the New World. His Government, however, did not assume on such grounds to interfere in the do- mestic affairs or mutual relations of the other American Republics, but confining it- self to sincere good wishes for their welfare it would make no pretensions to advance their interests otherwise than by its own example, and, when a proper occasion might present itself or circumstances appear to invite it, to offer a word of friendly counsel, disclaiming all selfish or interested purpose whatever, and trusting that it would be received in the same spirit in which it was offered. When Mr. Morgan perceived that the undersigned had been fully impressed with the sincerity of the sentiments expressed in behalf of his Government he added these 38 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. "words: "All that I have said to your excellency you will find better expressed, and the business to -which it is applicable more clearly set forth, in the note of instruc- tions from my Government which I will read to you." He then proceeded to read the note sent him by the Hon. Mr. Bhiine, dated June IGth ultimo, informing him that the Government of Guatemala had formally applied to the Government of the United States, soliciting itsfrieudly intervention for the purpose of re-establishing the good understanding between the two Republics which bad been interrupted by the pend- ing question of disi)uted boundaries After the reading was concluded, Mr. Morgan offered a copy of the note to the un- dersigned, who expressed himself pleased to receive it. He then added that if the Mexican Government would agree that the question of boundaries between itself and Guatemala should be referred to arbitration, he believed the Government of the United States would act as arbitrator, and that its decision would undoubtedly be both just and impartial, as it could have uo other interest in the matter than the wish to as- sure peace and a better understanding between Mexico and her southern neighbor. Mr. Morgan then went on discussing the question from various standpoints, enlarg- ing upon the evils of war and observing that Mexico, even if victorious in a war with Guatemala, as from her decided superiority in the elements of power she undoubtedly would be, she must nevertheless suffer very seriously. In all probability her present promising movement in the direction of material improvement would be paralyzed, and still worse results might be anticipated from the evil example of two sister Repub- lics having resorted to force to settle their difficulties. The undersigned replied that he was fully conviuced the Government of the United States had been actuated in this matter by the most friendly and disinterested motives, but that it had been misled by misrepresentation of the question by Guatemala. He would overlook for the present certain errors in the statement of historical facts, as well as of some events of more recent date, appearing in the note of the honorable Secretary of State; errors attributable, without doubt, to the partial representations of the Guatemalan Government, and the fact that the history of Mexico is not generally known, as he proposed to himself without delay to prepare a memorandum in which that which has passed at this interview shall be more clearly presented, the errors alluded to rectified, and certain ideas expressed by the honorable Secretary of State more fully and carefully considered. He limited himself for the time to showing that at no period has the claim which Mexico maintains to the territory in dispute be- tween her and Guatemala been considered as founded on force or conquest ; an asser- tion which can be clearly demonstrated at a more opportune moment. The complaints of the Gautemalans, therefore, are not sincere, and the Government of General Barrios well knows how very diti'erent the facts are from the representa- tions it has made to the Government at Washington. Without any previous consultation with his excellency the President, he could as- sure Mr. Morgan that the friendly offers of his Government were highly apjireciated by Mexico, nor was there any reason whatever to apprehend an appeal to force for the settlement of this controversy with Guatemala, in view of the fact that for many years it had been discussed peacefully and patiently, and it had always been the pol- icy of Mexico to bring it to a friendly and satisfactory termination. The recent events of which the Gautemalan Government has complained have been matters of discussion in which it has not attempted to reply to the arguments advanced by Mexico — the later notes from this Government remaining unanswered. Their tactics have con- sisted in avoiding argument and relying on delays and evasions. The question as it stands at present awaits the report of a commission of engineers appointed jointly by the two Govtrnmeuts for the purpose of studying the frontier. These appointments were made by virtue of a convention suggested by Mexico, in which it was stipulated that there should be a suspension of the negotiations upon the question of the boundary while the said commission should i-econnoiter the fron- tier and establish certain points by astronomical observations which might be bases for further discussion. The time fixed by this convention has expired before the commi.ssioners have con- cluded their work, and Mexico, always anxious to bring about a fair and conscientious settlement, is endeavoring to renew the convention in order that the reconnaissance may be completed, as it seems impossible to discuss the question intelligently or to arrive at any satisfactory tei-ms of agreement without a fuller knowledge of the ground. This will demonstrate two things to Mr. Morgan : Ist. That the Mexican Government strongly desires a just and peaceful solution of the controversy. 2d. That it is impossible to tell at present whether this question, or any branch of it, is in a proper condition to be submitted to arbitration. Respecting that phase of the controversy which involves a question of the rights of Mexico to the state of Chiapas with the department or district of Soconusco which it has held in possession for so many years, the Government of Mexico has re- peatedly declared that it cannot honorably entertain any discussion. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 39 The pretensions of Guatemala which it is willing to discuss and on account of which the mapping and reconnoitering of the frontier has been undertaken, are those es-^ pecially relating to the boundaries of Chiapas and Soconusco on the side of Guate- mala, and even this portion of the question could not now be submitted to arbitra- tion, because the information necessary for its proper decision is still lacking. Mexico, however, is far from refusing positively ail proposals for arbitration, but it does not consider it advisable at present for the reasons expressed, and will reserve the right to determine whether or not it might accept such jiroposals at some future time on certain points in regaid to which arbitration might appear to be admissible. Aside from these considerations and without making any formal proposition to that effect, Mexico would be very glad indeed to accept the United States in the charac- ter of an arbitrator in its disputes with Guatemala, having the fullest confidence in the justice and impartiality of this mutual friend of the two parties. The interview ended with promises from Mr. Morgan to send a copy of the note which he had read, and on the part of the undersigned to prepare this memorandum, which, in addition to the foregoing, will embrace some observations touching the contents of the note alluded to. On examination of this important note, a copy of which was sent to the department the same day, I was impressed with the earnest desire evidenced by the writer to give assurance of the disinterested and friendly intentions of his nation. He uses the fol- lowing words : "Events still fresh in the memory of the present generation of Mexicans and occur- ring at a period when the United ,§tates, although herself engaged in a tremendous civil war, freely lent her moral and material assistance to avert a danger from a foreign Empire which menaced the existence of the Mexican Republic, should afford satisfactory evidence of the friendly disposition with which the United States regards all that concerns the welfare and existence of her sister Republics on this continent." Indeed, Mexico can never forget that which the living generation of Mexicans ex- perienced during the period to which the Hon. Mr. Blaine refers, when her people, exhausted, discouraged, and alone, struggled against the power of a foreign potentate assisted by a misguided faction of her own population, the United States did gener- ously extend her moral support, with such unmistakable evidence of popular sym- pathy that had the circumstances been different Mexico would have received such other support as would have terminated her struggle some years earlier. In the same dispatch we are told that the forces of the Emperor Iturbide, having oc- cupied a great portion of the territory of Central America, were constrained by a change in the fortunes of war to abandon all, even Soconusco and Chiapas, and that after Mexico had adopted republican institutions she still persisted in claims to" terri- tory founded on the imperial policy of conquest and absorption. In this statement several historical inaccuracies are apparent, one especially, which must be attributed to misinformation or an imperfect acquaintance with Mexican his- tory. Even during the reign of Iturbide it was not by conquest, but in accordance with the free will and wishes of the inhabitants of Chiapas and Soconusco, that they were united to Mexico, as was equally the case with all the states of Central America except San Salvador. Afterwards, availing themselves of the same liberty, these states withdrew from Mex- ico, and with Guatemala formed a Republic. Chiapas and Soconusco did not take part in this movement, but as Mexico had also become a Republic, they repeated their adher- ence to her and remained incorporated with her Government. It not being possible here to give a full historical account of these events, it may be sufScieut to note the fact that several able and well-studied publications have appeared in relation to the persistent and reiterated pretensions of Guatemali, and showing clearly the right which from the beginning Mexico had acquired to this portion of her territory, founded not upon conquest but upon the free will of its inhabitants. Among the published documents attbrding unanswerable evidence on these points, maybe noted those writ- ten respectively by Senor Don Matias Romero and Don Manuel Larrianzar — gentle- men well acquainted with everything relating to Chiapas and Soconusco ; Sehor Lar- rianzar being a native of Chiapas, and Senor Romero having lived in Soconusco, and having been obliged to abandon his property there, it having been ruined by Guate- malan invasions. But without reference to the contents of these publications a proper understanding of the inaccuracy of the Guatemalan staten)ent of this question may he obtained from the very able and exhaustive dispatch with its accompanying proofs, which Senor Lafragua as minister of foreign relations directed to the Guatemalan min- ister in this capital on the 9th of October, 1875. This dispatch, which was printed and published, triumphantly vindicates the origi- nal rights of Mexico to Chiapas and Soconusco, now assured beyond controversy by a possession of forty years' duration. This dispatch, which it might be supposed would have elicited a serious reply from the representative of Guatemala, still remains unanswered, a tacit acknowledgment that it is unanswerable. It requires but a brief r6sum4 of the points exhibited in this 40 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. lengthy (Uspatch to prove that the titles of Mexico have act been derived from absorp- tion and conquest, as the calumniators of this Republic may have induced Mr. Blaine to belii've. The coucluding portion of the document alluded to has the following: " Suniiiiing up all that has been presented in this note the following points are dem- onstrated : "1st. Chiapas was a province possessing equal rights with the others composing the captaincy general of Guatemala. "2(1. Chiapas on the 3d of September, 1821, seceded voluntarily from Guatemala and united herself with Mexico. "3d. Chiapas on the 12th of September, 1824, united herself again with the Mexi- can states by the free vote of a majority of her inhabitants; the election, which re- sulted in a large majority in favor of Mexico, took place when there was no Mexican force anywhere within the territory. "4th. Soconusco in 1821 was a portion of the province of Ckiapas, and as such uni- ted herself to the Mexican Empire. "5th. Soconusco in 1821 was a portion of the province of Chiapas, and by her free vote united herself to Mexico on the 3d of May. "6th. The act passed on the 24th of July, 1824, in Tapachula, was revolutionary and illegal. "7th. Central America recognized the supreme junta of Chiapas and agreed to re- spect its determination." Without copying the whole 7'^sMm^ enough has been cited to convince any one that the Mexican Government does not base its original claim to Chiapas and Soconusco on the right of conquest. In regard to recent events, there are four points of complaint urged against Mexico which the Government of Guatemala has made available in presenting its case to the United States. 1st. That diplomacy has been unavailing in bringing about an agreement with Mexico. 2d. That there was a preliminary convention and some steps taken to ascertain what were the true Iwundaries, but the commissioners appointed by Guatemala and sent to reconnoiter the ground for the purpose of obtaining a basis for a definite agreement had been thrown into prison by the Mexican authorities. 3d. That the agents of Guatemala charged with taking a census in the territory in question had been treated in the same manner. 4th. That the Mexican Government had been encroaching, cautiously but cou- stantly, on the border territory wliich had formerly been under the jurisdiction of Guatemala, ousting her local otficersand substituting those of Mexico in their stead, thus stretching her authority over the disputed area. We will reply to these charges in their proper order: I. The efforts to settle this question of boundaries diplomatically have invariably been initiated by Mexico. In 1832 the Mexican Government sent to Guatemala as en- voy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary Senor Don Manuel Diez de Bouilla; and iu 1853 it sent Senor Don Juan N. de Pereda iu the same character, without, how- ever, obtaining any satisfactory result. Senor Pereda remained in Guatemala until 1858. In the frequent conferences which he had with Senor Don Manuel Pavon, then the Guatemalan minister of foreign relations, that gentleman constantly declined to enter into any treaty on the subject of boundaries, saying that Guatemala had pro- posed in the negotiations pending with Mexico to recognize simply the statu quo of the boundary lines between the two countries without any alteration whatever. At length Senor Pereda was constrained to suspend ofticial relations with the Gua- temalan Government on account of its persistent refusal to treat on this question of boundaries and because in an ungraciotis and offensive manner it declined at his in- stance to send to the interior certain emigrants from Mexico who were conspiring against the peace of that Republic. There was no further attempt to negotiate on the boundary question until October, 1873, when Senor Lafragna, minister of foreign relations, directed a note to Senor Garcia Granados, charge d'affaires for Guatemala, urging the necessity of a final disposition of that question. In effect he iuvited the Government of that Republic to name a plenipotentiary authorized to open negotia- tions at this capital. Senor Uriarte, the new mininter from Guatemala, replied, after a delay of several months (iu July, 1H74), and after making inquiry by letter of Senor Lafragna, if he would accept the pro))osed invitation, declared that he was clothed with full powers to enter upon the negotiations. On the 21st of August Senor Uriarte presented a memorandum to serve as a basis for the discussion. After various conferences, Senor Lafragna replied to the memorandum in a note dated October 9, 1875, which was accompanied by the project of a treaty to arrange BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 41 the boundaries between the two Republics. This important note of which we have spoken has never been answered, as previously stated. In July, 1877, negotiations were renewed by Seuor Vallarta as plenipotentiary on the part of Mexico, and Seiior Uriarte, minister of Guatemala. The lesult was the convention of the 7th of December of the same year. II. Reference is made to this convention in the note of the Hon. Mr. Blaine. By this convention, as has been before indicated, a mixed commission was created, composed of Mexican and Guatemalan engineers, who were charged with the survey and mapping of the disputed district and the tixing of certain points astronomically for the purpose of fnrnishing some reliable data aud throwing more light upon the question, contiuuiug their operations during the discussion of the subject between the two Republics. In tenth article it was stipulated that during the suspension of nego- tiations both the contracting parties should respect aud exact respect for " actual possession," neither making nor permitting any movement whatever in regard to boundaries, and suppressing every act of hostility, either proceeding from the au- thorities or the citizens of the respective countries. The com iiissiouers met at Tapachula on the 18th of November, 1878, and commenced operations. On the 26th of January, 1880, three engineers of the Guatemalan party accompanied by several natives appeared in the vicinity of Cuilco Viejo, a town of Soconusco, and set up a cross. Tlie local authorities supposed that this meant a movement of the landmark Pinabete, recognized as a boundary between the two Re- publics, and which was situated eight leagues more to the north ; the people of Ta- can^ pertaining to Guatemala having done the same thing several years before. Un- der this impression they interrogated the engineers, who, failing to give any satis- factory explanation of their action orto exhibit any papers by which their true char- acter might have been understood, were in consequence arrested by the said author- ities and afterward sent to Tapachula. Here they were immediately set at liberty by the political chief, wlio also gave them full satisfaction for their detention. This is the onlj' instance in which Guatemala can complain of the arrest of her commis- sioners, and it would seem in this case that ample satisfaction had been tendered. At the time, the Mexican Government believed that the local authoriiies had acted un- der an erroneous impression, but subsequent acts of the Guatemalan Government have justified the surmise that this was actually an attempt to remove the boundary. III. A similar attempt made some time previously had occasioned the arrest of the Guatemalan agents to whom we have alluded. In December, 1880, a commission composed of the alcalde of Tacau^ and four other individuals went for the ostensible purpose of taking a census of the occupants of some ranches which, although a league distant from the town of Cuilco Viejo, were considered as included within its corpo- rate limits. ■ Although they went under the pretense of taking a census, theirreal ob- ject was to exercise some act of jurisdiction which might be used as evidence that these ranches belonged to Guatemala. It may be remarked that the inhabitants of Tacana, of whose alcalde we are speaking, were the same people who moved the boundary mark of Pinabete some time before, which, if it had been permitted to re- main, would have included the said ranches within the jurisdiction of Guatemala, and we may further note that they had located this landmark in the same spot where the engineers had erected their cross. These agents spoken of, being in the act of violating an agreement by which they were bound to respect " actual possession," were therefore properly arrested and ar- raigned before the district judge, that they might be tried in conformity with the provisions of Mexican law. The minister of Guatemala made reclamations in this case, insisting that these ranches did actually belong to his country. In the reply which was given, dated the 27th of January ultimo, the inaccuracy of his assertions was clearly demonstrated by the authority of the official map recognized by Guatemala itself. It was evident that the said ranches were located within the provisional limits of Mexico, and that they belonged to this Republic. In refutation of the charges against the Mexican authorities, made in the note of Senor Herrera, it can be shown by recent events that the abuses complained of are all chargeable to the Guatemalan authorities. As Senor Herrera had based the rights of his country to the places indicated upon the fact that certain auxiliary alcaldes had been appointed by the authority of Sabi- nal, a town of Guatemala, the undersigned notitied him that these appointments had been made, for the first time, while the stipulations of the convention were still in force, which bound the two countries mutually to respect the statu quo in regard to boundaries, and that for the rest the fact laints against and demands upon each other. 6. Guatemala prefers hers (indeed she would occupy, as it were, the 46 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. position of plaintiff iu a suit, Mexico that of a defendant). In it she claims that she has been despoiled of her terri'^ory of Chiapas, and that it should be returned to her. 7. Mexico answers and says that Chiapas belongs to her by conquest, by the vote of the inhabitants thereof, by an uninterrupted possession of nearly half a century, and that her title thereto cannot now be ques- tioned. But that there is a question as to the proper boundary between the two countries which they are willing to subnjit to arbitration. If these facts were as stated, there could be little danger in submitting them to the appreciation of any candid man, and that if the President of the United States were satisfied of their correctness he would prob - ably say to Guatemala that Chiapas was out of the question, and that the inquiry would have to be reduced to the question of boundary, and iu this regard what was in reality the southern boundary of Chiapas. 8. That Guatemala would, of course, submit to his decision upon that point. 9. That if the representatives of the two countries charged with the presentation of their case before him could not agree as to where the boundary should be, Mexico would appoint a commissioner, Guatemala one, and the President of the United States would appoint a third, whose duty it would be to run what they considered to be a true line which would show what, in their oi)inion, should be the boundary be- tween the two countries, any two of the commissioners to be competent to do the work in case the third one should fail to co-operate with them. That they might make unanimous report or a majority and minority re- port or a separate report. 10. That when this report was made the President of the United States would notify the parties in interest and advise them that he would hear them upou the subject at such a time as would suit their convenience. 11. That after having heard them the President would then deter- mine where the boundary line between the two countries should be located, and thus their trouble would be at an end. In the meanwhile, I said, there was to be no act of hostility on either side. Sefior Mariscal appeared greatly interested in the subject. In- deed I left him not without hope on my part if the suggestions I made him, as above set forth, were submitted as a proposition, they would be accepted. I had written nearly this much when I received a visit from Mr. Her- rera, the minister from Guatemala. He is exceedingly anxious upon this subject. He has, he tells me, received instructions from his Gov- ernment to endeavor to come to an understanding with Seuor Mariscal upou the subject of a commission which has been so long pending be- tween them. I said that while I had no advice to give him, inasmuch as he did not think he would accomplish anything in the way of the ap- pointing a commission, I should, were I in his place, wait until the question of submitting the differences between the two countries to ar- bitration should be finally decided before saying anything further upon the subject. He said he would. I then told him that I had had an interview with Seiior Mariscal on yesterday, and without telling him of the suggestions I had made, I told him how I thought the matter should be managed in substance, as I stated it to Sefior Mariscal. Mr. Herrera agreed with me. I then said to him that I fancied the great difliculty in the way was Chiapas, and I said to him, almost in these terms, " Suppose Mexico would agree to the arbitration upon the condition verbally assented to between the BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 47 representatives of the two Governineuts, although uot expressed iu the written proposition, that upon the question of title to Chiapas, the Pres- ident of the United States was to decide that Chiapas belonged to Mexico, and therefore was not to be considered in the arbitration, would Guatemala consent thereto ? " He replied in the affirmative. He said that it was a question of pride with bis country ; that he did not believe a judgment could be rendered in her favor thereon, and still they could not, of their own accord, give it up, but that if the United States were to say that Guatemala had no title now to Chiapas, the decision would be acquiesced in. It occurs to me, therefore, that as the principal Objection on the part of Mexico to submit to an arbitration is Chiapas, if Guatemala would consent in advance that a judgment should be rendered against her upon that point, an agreement to submit the other dilierences which exist between the two countries to arbitration could be arrived at. I have, &c., P. H. MOEGAN. No. 29. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan. [Published heretofore in Sen. Ex. Doc. 156, Forty-seventh Congress, first session. ] No. 164.] Department op State, Washington, Angust 24, 1881 . Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatches numbered 232, 240, and 247 of the 12th and 19th ultimo and 5th instant, respect- ively, in relation to the differences between the republics of Mexico and Guatemala, relative to their boundary lines. These dispatches are full and valuable, and have been read with interest. You will con- tinue to transmit promptly, as events progress, all information on the pending difi&culties between those two countries. 1 am, &c., JAMES G. BLAINE. No. 30. Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. [Extract published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] No. 259.] Legation of the United States, ,Yvv^ Mexico, August 25, 1881. (Received September 9.) Ijy^ '^IR : * * * called on me on the 17th instant. He was going for a few days to Orizaba, and had come " to give me good- by." He asked me very abruptly whether Mexico had made any an- swer to the proffer of arbitration made by the President of the United States to act as arbitrator between Mexico and Guatemala. He in- formed me that I had received a dispatch from you upon the subject 5 that a copy of that dispatch had been given to Senor Mariscal, and that the Mexican Government was furious. I asked him from whom he had 48 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. obtained all this information. He shrugged his shoulders and replied that I could answer yes or no. To which I replied that it was not nec- essary I should answer at all. He endeavored to renew the conversa- tion, but I would not permit it. In the afternoon I called on Seiior Mariscal; I told him of the inter- view I had had with , and exi)ressed my surprise that he should be informed of any negotiations which might be pending between us. * * * He replied at once that must have obtained his information from Mr. Herrera. He however admitted that he had spoken to him upon the subject, but only in a general way. * * * In my oi)inion has been employed by to frighten Mr. Herrera, and he has succeeded in doing so, and he was sent to me for the purpose of ascertaining, if ijossible, to what lengths the United States would go in preserving the peace between the two coun- tries. The following day, ISth instant, Mr. Herrera called on me and informed me that the Guatemalan minister at Washington had written him that you had stated to him that in case Mexico refus(!d the proposed arbitra- tion and attempted to harm Guatemala, the United States would pro- tect her by force, if necessary. As I have before stated to you, I have on several occasions, when Mr. Herrera has spoken to me upon the ques- tion now pending between his country and Mexico, said to him that if I were in his i)lace I would keep away from Seiior Mariscal as much as possible until Mexico should decide positively whether to accei)t the mediation of the United States or not. He always replied that he "would. On the evening of the 19th iustantMr. Herrera called at my residence. He had just had an interview with Sefior Mariscal. He told me that Senor Mariscal had said to him that it was impossible to settle their dis- putes by arbitration ; that Guatenmla claimed the whole of Chiai)as, and that even if he, Senor Mariscal, and the President were willing to give it up (which they were not), they would not be permitted to do so ; that the only way the matter could be settled was by war; that the applica- tion of Guatemala to the United States for their intervention was an insult; that Mexico would not accept it, even if her refusal should re- sult in a war with that country. At the same time he said Mr. Herrera need not fancy that such an event was at all probable, inasmuch as the United States had too great an interest in Mexico to jeopardize them by taking up Guatemala's defense, where she has no inteiest. Mr. Herrera then said that he ai)preciated the difficulty which pre- sented itself to Mexico submitting the questions at issue to an arbitra- tion, and he inquired of Sefior Mariscal whether it would not be possible for them to arrive at an understanding upon a different basis, viz, that Guatemala should cede all her claim to Chiapas and Soconusco, upon Mexico i)aying an indemnity to Guatemala therefor. Sefior Mariscal replied, after some reflection, that that might be pos- sible, although he would give no positive answer; but he said arbitra- tion was not to be discussed, repeating that he preferred war with the United States to that. In my opinion Mr. Herrera made a mistake when he sought an inter- view with Senor Mariscal, and he made a greater one when he allowed himself to make the above projwsition. Sefior Mariscal, when he told him his suggestions might be entertained, said so only that negotiations might be resumed between them. Mexico has no money with which to purchase anything. If she had, she would not purchase territory from Guatemala. When she wants it, she will take it ; and I submit to your BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 49 better judgment whether, if the negotiations upon this subject are to be continued, Mr. Herrera should not be advised to allow them to take their course; for you will, I think, readily perceive that if I make a proposition to the effect that the differences between the two countries be submitted to arbitration, and he makes a proposition to sell Guate- mala's rights, we are playing at cross-purposes. In my dispatch No. 253 (August 11, 1881) I expressed the hope that the Mexican Government would accept a proposition for mediation if made something in the form of the one I suggested. It is apparent that if they can resume direct negotiations with Guatemala, they will do so. It is very certain that Senor Mariscal's conversation with Mr. Herrera (as the latter reported it) was in tone and matter very differ- ent from the one held with me. It would indicate that Senor Mariscal had changed his mind since our interview, or that he had been in- structed differently, aud tend to confirm the suggestions of , that Mexico was "very angry," aud gives good ground to fear that if the United States should now retire from the negotiation and leave Guatemala to herself, there will soon be nothing left of that already very small Republic. I am, &IC., P. H. MORGAN. No. 31. Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. [Extract published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] No. 273.] Legation of the United States, Mexico, September 22, 1881. (Received October 7.) Sir: On yesterday I sent you a telegram, as follows: Mexico, September 20, 1881. Secretary Blaine, Washington : The President's annual message is considered threatening towards Guatemala. It announces that Mexican troops have arrived at the frontier State, and that others will soon jo lu them. Confi^rmatory of the threatening character of the message, I inclose an editorial taken from the Monitor Republicano of the 20th instant, and a translation of that portion thereof which relates to the subject before us, from which you will observe that the editor is of the opinion that the President's words give reason to believe that a declaration of war is imminent. Referring now to your dispatch No. 164, August 24, 1881, in which I am instructed to continue to transmit promptly, as events progress, all information on the pending difficulties between those two countries, I have to report that from the date of my dispatch No. 259, August 25,, 1881, up to last evening I have not had any conversation whatever with Seiior Herrera, the Guatemalan minister — indeed in that interval I had seen him but once, and that was at a ball which he gave on the 15th instant, in commemoration of the anniversary of his country's inde- pendence. I had declined his invitation on account of the President's illness. At his earnest instance, however, and as the news had reached here that the President had been sitting up, and had gone to Long H. Ex. 154 4 50 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. Branch, I went to the ball for a few moments. It is well, perhaps, that I did so, as my absence might have been misinterpreted. Neither had I had any conversation with Seiior Mariscal upon the subject nntil yesterday. Although I had seen him several times in the meanwhile, he carefully abstained from alluding to it. Yesterday evening, 21st instant, however, Mr. Herrera called on me. He directed my attention to the President's message, and particularly to that portion of it which refers to Guatemala, and which was the sub- ject of niy telegi am. He appeared to be quite concerned about it. He informed me that Seiior Mariscal had at his (Mr. Herrera's) house, on the night of the loth, spoken with several persons upon the dififlculties which were pending between Mexico and Guatemala; that the Presi- dent of the United States had proffered his services as mediator between them; that the proffer had been declined. (One of the guests of Mr. Herrera had told me the same thing onlj^ a short while before.) I was careful not to say anything beyond assuring Mr. Herrera that the United States would view with concernment any trouble between the two countries, and that they would use every amicable means to pre- vent it. I did not, however, deem it imprudent to mention to him that I had informed you of the message by telegraph. Later in the evening I received Seiior Mariscal's visit. He came in while the minister from Germany was with me. The German minister was speak- ing to me upon the subject of the pending difficulties between Mexico and Guatemala and the proposed intervention of the United States, and had stated that Mexico was very angry thereat, when Seiior Ma- riscal came in, to whom 1 told the subject of the pending conversation. The German minister soon left, and after a few moments' conversa- tion upon other subjects, Sefior Mariscal said, "And so you were speak- ing of the Guatemala question when I came in?" I said, "Yes." He asked me whether I had seen the President's message. I replied that I bad read that "Napoleonic" document. He in(iuired of me why I characterized it thus. 1 replied that because of its warlike i one, as well as its manner, reminded one of the speeches which that Emperor was in the habit of delivering, or causing to be delivered, from the throne, when he considered himself in some sort the master of Europe. He asked me if I really thought it was so. I answered, "To such an extent that I had said to the minister from Guatemala, not long before he came in, who had spoken to me upon the subject, that it would, perhaps, have been better if he had kept the money which his ball had cost to pur- chase powder with." Senor Mariscal then repeated a great deal of what he had said to me in our former interviews concerning the griev- ances which Mexico had against Guatemala, adding that he proposed to send to Congress, with his department report, a copy of your dis- patch No. 138, the 16th June, 1881, as well as his memorandum to me in reply thereto. Alluding to the tentative of your dispatch, I said to him that when he can)e in I was exjdaining, in reply to a remark of the German min- ister that it was understood that the President of the United States had offeuMl his mediation, and that he had proposed to take up the ques- tion as to whether Socouusco and Chiapas belonged of right to Mexico, which had angered the Mexican Government and people, that the Pres- ident of the United States had not, through me at least, made any such proposition. 1 then took occasion to call Sefior Mariscal's attention to the fact that there was not a press in Mexico (except the Official Jour- nal) which did not contain, almost every day, something offensive to the people of the United States, a circumstance which, I told him, I re- BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 51 gretted very much, as it had a tendency to engender a bad state of feel- ing on both sides of the line, and that it was, I thought, particularly to be regretted in view of the friendly and sympathetic tone of the assur- ances contained in those of your dispatches, which, under instructions, I had read to him. I cited to him particularly the Nacional, a paper which was owned and published,! had been informed, by a nephew of the minister of Hacienda (Secretary of the Treasury). SeQor Mariscal was obliged to admit, with some reservation, the truth of my observa- tions, and said, in regard to the Nacional, that he would take occasion to speak to the editor and caution him upon the subject. I particularly directed his attention to the warnings which were daily uttered against the grantings of concessions, &c., to Americans, and the baneful influences which, it was said, American enterprise would ex- ercise upon Mexican interests, material and political, threatening as it did the national existence. In the same connection, I mentioned as an instance of these warnings the articles which were constantly appear- ing in the daily papers upon the subject of the branch of the Franco- Egyptian Bank here to the effect that the assent of Congress to the contract, celebrated between the President and the directors thereof, should be given upon the ground that it would do a great deal toward counterbalancing American commercial influence in the country, and I inquired of him how it wns possible that the expenditure of, I might say, hundreds of millions of American money in Mexico, giving', as it did, employment to many thousands of its citizens, could be any detri- ment to the country. Jn respect of the Franco-Egyptian Bank, I called his attention to the suggestion which I had made to him upon the sub- ject, to the effect that 1 believed if the Government of Mexico desired to establish a bank here one could be organized with American capital upon the basis of our own national banks ; and I asked him which should be considered the safer institution, the one whose circulation was secured by United States bonds, or one whose circulation had practi- cally no security; the one whose circulation did not exceed the amount of the security therefor, or the one whose circulation exceeded by three to one the amount of its nominal coin deposit; the one which would bring $20,000,000 of bonds of the United States — more than equivalent to that sum in gold — into the country, or the one which would be en- abled to take at least 160,000,000 in coin out of it. ******* Going back to the Guatemala question I stated that the President of the United States when he consented to have it suggested to Mexico that he would act as arbitrator between the two countries, had been act- uated by the purest feelings of friendship for both nations, and in the interest of a public peace which, once disturbed, might result in conse- quences little dreamed of by either party. Laughingly, I said that if the Mexican appetite for conquest had been excited, it was probably for- tunate for us that Guatemala, and not Texas, was the meat it craved. This is the substance of what occurred, although I do not pretend that the points touched upon are given chronologically. Seizor Mariscal reiterated that if there should be a war with Guate- mala, it would be Guatemala's fault. He admitted that the course pursued by the United States was friendly in its character, although he persisted in saying the facts of the case had been misrepresented by Guatemala to you. We parted on the best of terms, but he left me more than ever con- vinced that nothing would prevent a war between the two countries unless a positive position was taken by the United States, and I ven- 52 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. ture to suggest that unless the Gov^erninent is prepared to announce to the Mexican Government that it will actively, if necessary, preserve the peace, it would be the part of wisdom on our side to leave the matter where it is. Negotiations on the subject will not benefit Guate- mala, and you may depend upon it that what we have already done in this direction has not tended to the increasing of the cordial relations which I know it is so much your desire to cultivate with this nation. I am, &c., P. H. MORGAN. [Inclosure in No. 273 — Translation.— From Monitor Republicano of September 20, 1881.] Anotlier dark passage in the President's message is the one in which he refers to the diplomatic relations between Mexico and the Republic of Guatemala. These are his words: " With regard to Guatemala, it is painful to have to say that an equally favorable disposition is not observed in the course of the government of that country ; on the contrary, there appears to be a certain interest revealed on its part in preserving indefinitely the same vagueness and uncertainty in its relations with Mexico as re- gards the international boundaries between the two countries. The Executive, not- withstanding, will make every effort to clear up a .situation which is pregnant with evil for our conntryas well as for Guatemala. If in pursuing these efforts the inter- vention of Congress should become necessary, I shall not fail to ask for it in proper season." The words with which the President treats the Guatemala question are terrible ; they indicate that certain of our relations with that republic are very tightly draw^n, and, in truth, unless the official documents and acts of the Government ot Guatemala show, as the President says they do, a special desire on its part to continue in its uncertain attitude towards this nation, it may be said that the sentence above quoted from General Gonzalez's message is a bold one. It is a clear and explicit accusation against the Government of Guatemala, expressed in very harsh terms for a document such as a presidential message. The public in general were not aware that matters had proceeded so far between the Mexican and Guatemalan Governments, and all methods of conciliation must have been very nearly exhausted when the chief of the nation speaks in such terms as these in the face of the nation to Congress. The answer of the president of the chamber to the i)aragraph which we have cop- ied upon the Guataniala question indicates in a greater degree the hostile feelings Avhich exist between the two Governments. He said: "It is with still greater pain that the Congress of the Union has learned that the Government of Guatemala has not manifested a disposition similar to that evinced by I he United States to adjust its relations with our country, appearing, as it tloes, to wish to maintain in its present unct-rtaiuty the question of our national boundary. " The members of both chambers hope that if, in truth, the cause of the attitude of the Government is the want of a recognized boundary between the two countries, this state of affairs will cease so soon as the scientific commission, named to this end by the Mexican Government, will have completed its labors, and that an amicable con- vention may end a question which has betn so much debated, and which may result, if prolonged, in great evils to fraternal nations, which should be avoided. Tu tlie meanwhile, the representatives of the nation approve of the efforts which he Executive has made to obtain an honorable solution of so delicate a question, and it may rest assured that in this matter, as well as in the maintenance of the dig- nity and lights of the rejiublic against all comers, it will have the support of the legislative ])ower." In our opinion this is a grave and delicate question ; it is proper under all circum- stances to guard and defend everything required by tlie national honor ; it is proper, also, to bring to an end this question of boundary which has for such a length of time agitated the two countries, but this should be done with the circumspection and pru- dence which a matter of such a nature demauect to the points in which it might be necessary, if it were not for these motives, it would give the Government, great ]»leasure in accepting the mediation of the United States as arbiter to settle the differences with Guatemala, if it were uot formally proposed, as hitherto it has not; as the Government has the great- est confidence iu the mutual friend of the two countries. When the conference termi- nated the undersigned promised to make a memorandum comprising the above, with some other explanations about the boundary question and about the contents of the note whicli Mr. Morgan had read. The copies of the note referred to and the said memorandum are adjoined to the present memoir, uuxrked with the uninliers five and six. In this important dispatch, a copy of which was sent to the ministry that same day, our attention is called by the strong desire to ascribe friendly motives to the following paragraph : "The events yet fresh in the memory of the present Mexican generation, although they hajjpened whilst the United States was sufiering with a civil war, the latter country lent its moral and material su[)])ort iu annihilating the danger of a foreign empire which threatened the life of the Mexican Republic; this in itself is a satisfac- BOUNDAKY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 57 tory proof of the purity and disinterested feelings of the United States towards her republican sisters on this continent." In fact, Mexico will never be able to forget what the present generation of Mexicans then witnessed, referred to by the Hon. Mr. Blaiue, namely, that the United States lent its generous moral support when Mexico was invaded by a foreign foe; her people were tighting against a European monarch, alone aud without fi)reign resources. Neither will Mexico forget that if the United States had not been in the midst of a terrible civil war she would have done something more besides lending her moral aid, and the war might have been concluded some years sooner. In the same note it is stated that the forces of the Emperor Itnrbide having occupied a great part of the Central American territory, abandoned all this territory excepting Soconusco aud Chiapas, and Mexico, being constituted a Republic, still claimed a right to what she considered the imperial conquests. In this there are several historical errors, and one of these especially, as before stated, founded on prejudiced information, orthe history of Mexico is unfortunately little known. Even during the empire of Itnr- bide it was not conquest, but the voluntary wiwh of the districts of Chiapas and Soco- nusco that determined their annexation to Mexico, as it also decided the annexation of all the provinces in Central America excepting Salvador. Previously to this the provinces separated from Mexico and joined Guatemala in forming a Republic, except- ing Soconusco and Chiajias, which Mexico converted into a republic, reiterated their intentions to remain iucorjiorated with this latter nation. It not being possible to give here a detailed history of the events, suffice it to say "ihat with the ever-recurring pretensions of Guatemala, it has caused several serious and well-written papers to be publislied, proving the right that Mexico has to that portion of her present territory, founding it not only on the conquest, but on the voluntary surrendering of these districts. Notably amongst the writers of these papers are Senor D. Manuel Larrainzar and Senor D. Matias Romero, men well known to haveathorongh knowledge of affairs relative to Chiapus and Soconusco, the first being a native of the former State, and the second having li v< d inSoconu«co, where he was obliged to abandon his pro])erty, ruined by GuatenialHU invaders. Without alluding to the above-mentioned publications it will be leadily understood how inexact are the statements in regard to Mexico's right to these districts which form a State of the Unioi*!, merely by reading the comprehensive article written by Senor Lafragua (while minister of foreign aifairs) to the Guate- malan miiiistrr in this capital, dated 9th of October, lH7o. This note, which so clearly points out Mexico's unquestionable right to Soconusco aud Chiapas by a possession respectively of thirty aud fifty years, aud which ought to have provoked a serious discussion when first issued, is at the present time unanswered, as the Government of Guatenuila leaves everything it finds a dilSculty in answering. The most brief sum- mary of that comprehensive note will show that Mexico is not entitled by conquest to those districts, as Mr. Blaine evidently believes, thus calumniating this republic. The following is found at the end of the document to which we allude. "Making asuumiary of what has been said in the present note, the following points are proved : 1st. Chiapas was a province exactly like the others forming the genera- caplainship of Guatemala; 2d. ChiaiJas on the 3d of September, 1821, voluntarily sepa- rated itself from Guatemala and united itself to Mexico ; 3d. i hiapas on the 12th of September, 1824, again united itself to the United States of Mexico by a free vote of the majority of its inhabitants (before it was proved that the voting was done with- out any Mexican force whatever, and that the majority was greatly in favor of Mex- ico) ; 4th. Soconusco in 1821 was a party of the administration of Chiapas, and as such united itself to the empire; 5th. Soconusco in 1821 was a party of the administration of Chiapas, and voted freely for the aggregation to Mexico on the 3d May ; 6th. The act passed on the 24th of July, 1824, in Tapachula, was revolutionary and illegal ; 7th. Central America acknowledged the supreme council of Chiapas aud said she would respect its resolutions," &c. Without copying the whole of the summary, enough has been said to convince any- body that Mexico does not found her primitive rights by conquest to Chiapas and Soconusco. As to recent events there are four complaints against Mexico, which the Govern- ment of Guatemala has stated to that of the United States. 1st. That the diplomatic efforts made to come to an understanding with Mexico have been unsuccessful : 2d. That there is a Guatemalan examining committee sent to study the ground, and the said committee has been imprisoned by the Mexican authorities ; 3d. That the agents of Guatemala, charged with making a census of the territory in question, have been treated in like manner ; and, 4th. That the Government of Mexico has invaded cautiously, but constantly, the boundary domain which has until the present time belonged to Guatemala; substi- tuting the local authorities which were working, by Mexicans, thus extending the area of the territory now disputed. 58 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUTAEM\LA We will answer these statements in their order : I. The diplomatic efforts made to arrange the boundaries with Guatemala have been made exclusively by Mexico. In 1832 the Mexican Government sent to Guatemala, as envoy and minister plenipotentiary, Seuor D. Manuel Diaz de Boiiilla, and in 1853 Senor D. Juan N. dePereda, in the same character, bub without obtainiui^ any result. Senor Pereda remained in Guatemala unil 18.5H. In the various c nferences which he had with Senor D. Manuel Pavon, minister of foreign affairs of that republic, this gentleman would never consent to a treaty of boundaries, and said that Guatemala had resolved in the negotiations with Mexico only to acknowledge the statu quo of the boundaries and frontiers of both countries. As the Government of Guatemala would not treat about the boundaries, Senor Pereda had to give up his othcial relations with it, also because in a disagreeable and offensive manner that Government refused to internate the various emigrants proceed- ing from Mexico, who were conspiring against the peace of this republic. The question of boundaries was not discussed until October of 1873, when Senor Lafragua, minister of foreign affairs, directed to Senor Garcia Granados, charg6 d'affaires in Guatemala, informing him of the necessity of settling the subject referred to ; in effect he invited the Government of the said republic to open negotiations with this capital. The new minister of Guatemala, Senor Uriarte, answered at the end of some months, in July, 1874, and after Senor Lafragua had asked him if the invitation would be accepted, as he was provided with the full corresponding power to enter into negotia- tions. Ou the 21st of August Senor Uriarte presented a memorandum to serve as a basis for the discussion. After various conferences. Senor Lafragua answered the memo- randum in the note dated October 9, 1875, to which was adjoined a project of bound- aries between the two republics. This important note, which has before been men- tioned, has, as we have said, remained unanswered. In July, 1877, negotiations were resumed by Senor Vallarta, as minister plenipoten- tiary of Mexico, and Seiior Uriarte, minister of Guatemala. The result was the con- vention of the 7th of December of the same year. II. The note of the Hou. Mr. Blaine refers to this convention ; by it, as we have before stated, a mixed committee of Mexican and Guatemalan engineers was formed, charged with the surveying and making of plans, fixing astronomically some locali- ties, in order to clear up the data on this subject, the discussion about boundaries to be afterwards continued by the two republics. In the Article X it was stipulated that during the suspension ot negotiations about boundaries the contracting parties would religiously respect the actual possessions, not provoking any question relative to borders, and preventing any act of hostility on the part of the authorities and citizens of either republic. The commissioners met at Tapachula and commenced work ou the 18th of Novem- ber, 1878. On the 26th of January, 1880, three engiiuiers of the Guatemala commission pre- sented themselves in the neighborhood of Cuilco Viejo, a village in Soconnsco, accom- panied by several Indians, and planted a cross there The local authorities believed the object of this operation was to remove the landmark of Pinabete, accepted as marking the boundary line between the tvvorei)ublics, and situate eight leagues more to the north, as had already been done some years before by some people of Tacani, a place belonging to Guatemala. In this belief the above-mentioned engineers were interrogated, and these not giving a 8atisfa(^tory account of their proceedings, nor preseming any document to prove their official character, they were arrested and sent off to Tapachula by the said authorities. Here they were at once set at liberty by the political chief, who amply apologized to them. This is the only case Guate- mala can cite of engineers being imprisoned, and on this point she seemed to be fully satisfied. The Mexican Government thought the local authorities had made a false step in the matter. However, subsequent events prove that the Goverument of Gua- temala really wished on that occasion to alter the landmarks. III. A similar reason was the cause of the apprehension of the Guatemalan agents alluded to. In December, 1880, a committee, formed of the judge of Tacauiiand four other persons, went to draw up a census of the inhabitiints of several farms, which though a league from th'- Mexican town of Cuilco Viejo, form a part of the same. This commission did not go to make a census in a (lebated country, but rather to exercise there acts of jurisdiction, which afterwards 'might seem to prove it as belonging to Guatemala. It is noteworthy that the inhabitants of Tacanii, of whose judge we are speaking, were the parties who on a former occasion removed the landmark of Pina- bete, and that the farms in question would be on Guatemalan territory if the said landmark had remained where they then placed it, and where afterwards the engineers of Guatemala placed the cross. The aforesaid commission who thus violated the con- vention to resjiect the actual boundaries was therefore justly arrested and consigned to the judge of the district, to be treated according to the Mexican laws. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 59 The minister of Guatemala remoastrated against these acts, claiming that the farms belonged ami always had belonged to his country. An answer was sent on the 27th of last January, demonstrating how inexact were his assertions respecting the farms situated within the provisional boundaries of Mexico, and that they belonged to this republic even according to the official map of Guatemala. Refuting the accusations made by Seiior Herrera in a note directed to the Mexican authorities, it was proved to him by recent events that the abuses were committed by Guatemalan authorities. As Senor Herrera founded the claims of his country to the above-mentioned places on the fact that there were situated there a few auxiliary judges, named by the authority of Sibinal, a village in Guatemala, the undersigned acquainted him with the fact that when the nominating of these judges took place for the first time, the convention which obliged both countries to respect the status quo as to boundaries was in force; thus showing that Guatemala had violated her compromise. Senor Herrera said he would give an account of that note to his government, which until now has remained unanswered. IV. The accusations made against Mexico in this account, in which it speaks gen- erally of the continual Mexican invasions on Guatemalan territory, are not ouly ex- ceedingly bold but entirely false ; there exists a plan of Soconusco, carefully formed by Senor D. Jos6 E. Ibarra, as will at once be seen by reading the geographical and statisti- cal news of that department, which is on the margin on the same map, the ancient bound- aries are marked in red ink, and with green those which have been lately acknowledged. The space between both lines marks the advances made by Guatemala; and at the conclusion of the marginal note, the ditferent times of these advances are specified. Lately the invasions have continued. The archives of the department of foreign af- fairs are full of accounts of invasions which have occurred since 1870, until the present time; not least amongst the smaller invasions was the destruction of Seiior D. Matias Romero's property in Soconusco. Senor Romero, well known la Washington, where he represented Mexico for several years, notwithstanding his impartial and prudent character, had his property (which was situated in Mexican territory) invaded by natives of Guatemala, by order of a prefect of that nation, destroying his effects, takingprisoner one of his dependents, and wounding others; in November, 1H75, a com- plaint against this outrage was made to the Guatemalan Government, which up to this time has remained unnoticed; on the contrary, they have ascribed to Senor Romero the setting on fire of Guatemalan territory and other improbable crimes, which he has extensively refuted. In the same month and year an engineer, Senor D. Alejandro Prieto, secretary of the Mexican legation in Guatemala, made a survey on the frontier, by order of Senor Garza, then minister to that country. The survey was made in company with Senor Gen- eral Barrios, president of Guatemala, according to the letter addressed by Senor Garza to Senor Lafragua, and the governor of Chiapas in office on the 26th of November, 1875. From this visit ivsnlted the plan got up by Prieto, which is at present in the office, and which, as it has been made under the inspection of President Barrios, and on ac- count of other reasons, can hardly excite suspicion in Guatemala; in it is marked the line actually serving as boundary, and it also shows the points at present in dispute. The former line therefore must be the one referred to by the status quo stipulated in the convention of lb77. Therefore the actual dispatches of the minister of Guatemala prove that his Government, far from having respected the convention, has violated it in Tonintana Las Chicharras, Cuilco Viejo, and other points. The said Government has actually reached the point of approving the attempts of Judge Meoiio, who sought to murder a Mexican laud surveyor, and burned farms in Mexican territory. It has done more. In December last it dispatched a fi>rce, or consented to its dispatch, by the prefect of San Marcos (Guatemalan department), which invaded our territory and destroyed the landmark of Pinahete (the same which was demolished by the inhabitants of Tacan^, and which had since been recon- structed). The said prefect then proceeded to hoist the Guatemalan flag exactly on the cross so mysteriously erected by the Guatemalan engineers near Cuilco Viejo. Complaints having presented in Guatemala against these acts, that Government refused to give our Government any explanation, under the pretext that the affair should be treated in Mexico because Senor Loaeza had no instructions to receive the complaint Pressure being put on Senor Montufar, the minister for foreign affairs, by our represent- ative, who forwarded to him a copy of a letter from the undersigned, in which sur- prise was expressed at such conduct, he replied that the spot where the acts referred to took place belonged to Guatemala, without explaining how, and f irgetting that the undersigned, in his unanswered letter of 27th of January Last, had demonstrated the contrary. In the mean while the term of the convention of 7th December, 1877, had expired (31st of December. 1^79) without seeing the conclusion of the work of the scientific commissioners. The Mexican Government proposed to that of Guatemala that the said convention should be reserved for a term sufficient to attain the desired object, and decided its engineers should continue on the frontier, as in effect they have con- 60 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. tinui'd, notwithstanding the fact thut the Guatemalan engineers were recalled by their Government w ilhout even uotifj ing this to that of Mexico. The President of Gnateuiala informed our minister personally that he was willing to renew the convention, and had already sent his instructi-ons to this effect to Senor Herrera. However, for several months he has not considered that he possesses sufiScient power to negotiate in the matter, and alleges that the instructions to thisetfect do not possess sufticient clearness. On the 11th of July, when Senor Herrera presented him- self to spe;ik with the undersigned on the friendly step being taken by the Govern- ment of the United States, he made the observation that the Governti ent of Guate- mala even yet had failed to send to its minister the proffered instructions, showingthat in effect he had already received them as his Government desired. This conduct of his Government, insincere and ap])areutly incomprehensible, is now explained by the commnnication of the President of Guatemala (by means of his representative to the Government of the United States). It appears that President Barrios has wished to gain time by complaining of certain alleged injuries on the part of the Mexican Gov- ernment, whose conduct he painted with false colors on seeking the interposition of the good offices of the United States. Notwithstanding, in the representation made by the Government, it appears to have been omitted to state that there was an im- pending renewal, solicited by Mexico, of the convention to go on with the survey and study of the frontier, a survey and study that has been pronounced by both Govern- ments indispensable to the locating of international boundaries by diplomatic uego- tiations or any other pacific means. The omissions are inexactitudes of the Government of General Barrios in their rep- resentations to the President of the United States, as well as the rest of its acts rela- tive to the subject of boundaries with Mexico, denounces its policy as entirely wanting in sincerity and frankness. The acts stated briefly in this article and others which we have not been able to take into account authorize our susi)icions that the above-mentioned Government, in addressing itself to the President of the United States, does not propose, as it pre- tends, to obtain an arbiter to decide the boundary question. We are quite certain that Government will see the impossibility of disputing Mexico's right to Chiapas and Soconusco, forming as they have for years a state of the Union, an integral part of the republic; also how impossible it is to fix the boundaries between this state and Guatemala, before studying the contested ground, whoever the arbiter charged with the decision might be. The object, then, in having arbitration can be no other than to gain time, as has been done before, continue the invasions, and enervate the actions of the Mexican Government in simjile defense of their national territory. The undersigned, with the object of consigning what passed in his conference with Minister Morgan, and the oliservations that the honorable Mr. Blaine's note gave rise to, has written the present memorandum. Mexico, July 2b, lesSl. IGNACIO MARISCAL. / No. 34. Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. [Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] No. 21)7.] Legation of the United States, Mexico, Novembei 2, 1881. (Received November 17.) Sir: Complying with iustructioiis coutairied in your dispatch No. 164, of the24tb of Auj^nst last, tliati should transmit promjitly as events pro- gress all information on the pending- difficulties between Mesico and Guatemala, I have now to report that a few days since 1 received the visit of Seiior Herrera, the Guatemalan minister. He had lately had an interview with President Gonzalez, and he expressed himself to me as not being at all .satisfied therewith. He appears to believe that hostil- ities will soon break out between the two countries. Although I have on several occasions lately seen Seiior Mariscal, he has never mentioned the subject to me. The only person at all connected with the Govern- ment with whom I have had any conversation upon the matter since my BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 61 last dispatch relating thereto, Ko. 289, 20th October, is Mr, Fernandez, the official ma\'or of the foreign office. Meeting him casually one morn- iog in front of my dwelling, I requested him to send me a duplicate copy of Senor Mariscal's report to Congress, which I inclosed to you in my dispatch No. 291, 25th October. He introduced the subject of Guate- mala, but spoke in very general terms. I said to him that I saw with great pain that a conflict between that country and Mexico was immi- nent j that I felt the United States had done everything in their power, to prevent it, and that on my part I had endeavored to carry out my instructions in that direction. More than all, I said, I was grieved to see that ray Government's intentions in the matter had been misinter- preted, for whereas it had never had any object beyond wishing to keep the peace on this continent between two neighboring republics, its kindly offer at mediation had been received as an officious interference in a matter which did not concern it, if not as a menace, and that until the subject should be mentioned to me by Senor Mariscal, in the absence of further instructions from you, I could say nothing further. Pleas- antly, I said my great concernment in the matter was that, as the appe- tite is said to grow upon what it feeds upon, after Mexico had disposed of Guatemala she would not be satisfied until she had eaten Texas. I spoke thus to Sefior Fernandez, believing that he would report our conversation to Senor Mariscal, and in the hope that that gentleman would, when the occasion presented itself, introduce the subject, and thus give me another opportunity to i)resent to him your views. Several opportunities have occurred since then, but he has kept silent. The subject is on every tongue. It is constantly discussed by the press, and. I feel it my duty to say that nothing has occurred since I have been here which has excited so much bad feeling against us as this proffer of arbitration Say what, I may to the contrary, it is consid- ered as a menace. Every one I meet speaks to me upon the subject. To all I have held the same language, viz : that the United States had no other object in suggesting an arbitration beyond wishing to make a war between Mex- ico and Guatemala unnecessary, and that as regards Mexico it would be, I considered it, deeply to be lamented if she set the example of acquir- ing territory by conquest, and this course I shall continue to follow until otherwise instructed. The Trait d'Union of this morning publishes a paragraph to the effect that Mexico has five thousand soldiers on the frontier of Guatemala, and that Guatemala also has a considerable number of troops there. The articles and translation thereof I inclose. I am, &c., P. H. MORGAN. [Inclosure in No. 297. — From Le Trait d'Union, 1st of November, 1881. — Translation.] The Mexican Government has, it appears, been assured that five thousand soldiers are already on the Guatemala frontier. The Guatemalan Government is also send- ing a considerable number of troops of the line upon her frontier. 62 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 1^0. 35. Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. [Published heretofore in Foreign Relations. ] No. 304.] LEGATIOlSi OF. THE UNITED STATES, Mexico, November 9, 1881. (Received November 25.) Sir : I had a visit this raoruiug from the Guatemalan minister. He brought with him two newspajiers containing articles upon the subject of the differences between Mexico and Guatemala, in both of which the action of the United States Government was sharply criticised. As they are of the same character with those which I have on several occa- sions forwarded to you, I do not consider it necessary to inclose them in this disj^atch. Seiior Herrera informed me that he had had an interview with Senor Mariscal since the interview which I informed you in my dispatch No. 297 (November 2, 1881) he had had with President Gonzalez. I called his attention to a paragraph which I had seen in the Trait d'Union newspaper, a few days ago, to the effect that the difficulties between Mexico and Guatemala were in a fair way of being amicably and hon- orably adjusted. He said that there was no truth in the statement. He, however, in the course of conversation said that there was a propo- sition pending by which Guatemala was to receive a certain sura of money from Mexico and a portion of territory adjoining, as 1 understood him, British Honduras, and that, this agreed upon, surveyors were to be appointed upon whose report a boundary line between the two coun- tries was to be established. I inquired of Seiior Herrera whether this did not show that negotiations were going on between him and Senor Mariscal. His answer was evasive. I said to him I thought it was proper I should know precisely how he was acting, as 1 considered it only due to my Government tbat it should be informed of what was going on. I called his attention to the fact that great offense had been taken by the Mexican Government and the people at the oft'erof mediation which had been suggested by the United States, and I said it appeared to me if Guatemala was in earnest in asking for friendly assistance she should not do anything until that proffered assistance had been definitely acted upon. At all events I said to him 1 should inform you of the negotia- tions which were being carried on between them. I have, &c., P. H. MORGAN. No. 36. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan. [Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] No. 198.] Department of State, Washington, November 28, 1881. Sir: Referring to your correspondence with this Department since its instruction tendering the good ofiBcesof tlie Government of the United States in aid of the amicable settlement of the differences between Mex- BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXJCO AND GUATEMALA. 63 ico and Guatemala, I have to remark that it would bo a matter of the gravest disappointment if I found myself compelled to agree with you in the conclusion which you seemed to have reached in your last dis- patch. Eeporting in your ]S"o. 273, of September 22, 1881, your most recent conversation with Seiior Mariscal, the Mexican secretary for for- eign affairs, you say : I venture to suggest that unless the Government is prepared to announce to the Mexican Goveruuieut that it will actively, if necessary, preserve the peace, it would be the part of wisdom on our side to leave the matter where it is. Negotiations on the subject will not beneht Guatemala, aud you may depend upon it what we have already done in this direction has not tended to the increasing of the cordial relations which I know it is so much your desire to cultivate with this nation. "To leave the matter where it is" you must perceive is simply impos- sible, for it will not remain there. The friendly relations of the United States and Mexico would certainly not be promoted by the refusal of the good offices of this Government tendered in a spirit of most cordial regard both for the interests and honor of Mexico, and suggested only by the earnest desire to prevent a war useless in its purpose, deplora- ble in its means, and dangerous to the best interests of all the Central American republics in its consequences. To put aside such an amicable intervention as an unfriendly intrusion, or to treat it, as I regret to see the Mexican secretary for foreign affairs seems disi)osed, as a partisan manifestation on behalf of claims which we have not examined aud in- terests which we totally misunderstand, certainly cannot contribute " to the increasing of the cordial relations which you know it is so much our desire to cultivate with Mexico." / But, rn ore than this, "to leave the matter where it is" is to leave Mexico and Guatemala confronting each other in armed hostility, with the certainty that irritation and anger on the one side and extreme ap- prehension on the other will develop some untoward incident leading to actual collision. In such event no successful resistance can be antici- pated on the^ part of Guatemala. Whether the claims of Mexico be moderate or extravagant, whether the cession of territory be conhned to the present alleged boundary lines or be extended to meet the necessi- ties of a war indemnity, there would be another lamentable demonstra- tion on this continent of the so-called right of conquest, the general dis- turbance of the friendly relations of the American Republics, and the postponement for an indefinite period of that sympathy of .feeling, that community of purpose, and that unity of interest upon the development of which depends the future prosperity of these countries. The republic of Guatemala, one of those American Republics in whose fortunes the United States naturally feel a friendly interest, communi- cated to this Government that there existed between it and Mexico cer- tain differences which, after much diplomatic consultation, had failed to reach satisfactory settlement. Recognizing the relation of the United States to all the republics of this continent, aware of the friendly serv- ices which this Government has never failed to render to Mexico, and presuming not unnaturally that Mexico would receive our amicable counsel with cordiality and confidence, the Government of Guatemala asked our good offices with that power for the purpose of inducing it to submit to an impartial arbitration those differences upon which they had been unable to agree. To have refused such a request would not only have been a violation of international courtesy to Guatemala, but an indication of a want of confidence in the purposes and character of the Mexican Government which we could not and did not entertain. In tendering our good offices, the Mexican Government was distinctly 64 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. informed that the United States " is not a self-constituted arbitrator of the destinies of either country or of both in this matter. It is simply the impartial friend of both, ready to tender frank and earnest counsel touching anything which may menace the jieace and prosperity of its neighbors." Before this instruction could have reached you, information was re- ceived that large bodies of Mexican troops had been ordered to the fron- tier in dispute. You were therefore directed to urge ui)on the Mexican Government the proi)riety of abstaining from all such hostile demon- stration, in order to attord opportunity tor the friendly solution of the dift'erences between the two Governments. It is unnecessary now to repeat the reasons which you were instructed to submit to the con>id- eration of the Mexican Government, and which were stated in the most earnest and friendly spirit, and wliich were communicated by you to the Mexican secretary for foreign affairs with entire fidelity. I now learn from your dispatches that our information was correct; that Mexican troops have been ordered to the disputed boundary line, and that while the Mexican Government does not absolutely reject a possible future arbitration, it is unwilling to postpone its own action to farther discussion, and does not receive the good offices of this Govern- ment in the spirit in which they have been tendered. The United States does not pretend to direct the policy of Mexico, nor has it made any pre- tension to decide in advance upon the merits of the controversy between Mexico and Guatemala. The Mexican Government is, of course, free to decbne our counsel, however friendly. / But it is necessary that we should know distinctly what the Mexican Government has decided. It is use- less, and, from your dispatches, I infer that it would be irritating, to keep before the Government of Mexico the <»ffer of friendly intervention, while on the other hand it would not be just to Guatemala to hohl that Government in suspense as to whether there was a possibility of the ac- ceptance of the amicable mediation which we have oifered. You will, therefore, upon the receipt of this instruction, ask for an in- terview with the secretary for foreign affairs. You will press upon his reconsideration the views which you have already submitted to him; as- sure him of the earnestness with which this Government desires a peace- ful solution of the existing differences, and inform him of our profound regret and disappointment that the tender of our good offices has not been received in the spirit in which it was made. ., You will, if he affords you the opi)ortunity, endeavor to enforce the practicability of the solu- tion which you suggested, both to himself and the Guatemalan minister, by which tlie arbitration could be limited to the question of boundary without involving the title to the province of Chiapas. . If the Government of Mexico should be disposed to accept an arbitra- tion, limited in its point of settlement, as Mr. Herrera, the Guatemalan minister, indicated would be accei)table to his Government, you will ask the assurance of the Mexican Government that, pending the discus- sion necessary to perfect such an arrangement, all hostile demonstra- tion should be avoided, and, if possible, that the Mexican troops should be withdrawn from the immediate vicinity of the disputed boundary. But this latter request you will not insist upon, if it should be an obsta- cle to obtaining the consent of Mexico to a limited arbitration. Should the Mexican Government, however, decide that it was not consistent with its views to accept a friendly intervention in the differ- ences between itself and Guatemala, you will inform the secretary for foreign affairs that you accept this decision as undoubtedly within the right of Mexico to make. You will express the very deep and sincere BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 65 regret which this Government will feel if it shall find the powerful re- public of Mexico unwilling to join the Governineut of the United States in maintaining and establishing the principle of friendly arbitration for international differences on the continent of America. Mexico and the United States, acting in cordial harmony, can induce all the other inde- pendent governments of North and South America to aid in fixing this policy of peace for all the futnre disputes between the nations of the Western Hemisphere. And it would be a marked and impressive pre- cedent, if, in a dispute with a weaker neighbor, Mexico should frankly consent to a friendly arbitration of all existing differences. /You will further say to Mr. Mariscal that you are expressly instructed to call his attention to an expression of opinion which you have reported in your dispatch No. 253, of the 11th of August, 1881, as follows: He (Sefior Mariscal) appears to entertain a very bad opinion of tlie President of Guatemala, and to think that his appeal to the United States has a purpose beyond the settlement of the boundary betweeu the two countries. He said, for instance, he had been informed that you had expressed an opinion favorably to the consolidation of the Central American republics into one goTernment, that the President of Guate- mala was favorable to such a project, that he would like in such an event to become the president of the new nation, and that he was endeavoring to obtain the influence of the United States to further his ambition in that direction. He seems impressed with the idea that General Barrios is Mexico's enemy, and that it would not be well to have his power increased. Of course the Government of the United States has no information as to the personal ambitions of General Barrios, and it would deem any inquiry into, or consideration of, such a subject both unworthy and im- proper in any discussion of the great interests which concern the peo- ple of Central America and their relation to the kindred republics of this continent. I am unwilling to believe, and, if compelled to believe, would deeply regret that any such consideration could affect the tem- per or thought of the Mexican Government in determining its policy towards the republics of Central America. / But in reference to the union of the Central American' Republics under one federal government, the United States is ready to avow that no subject appeals more strongly to its sympathy nor more decidedly to its judgment ; nor is this a new policy. For many years this Govern- ment has urged upon the Central American States the importance of such a union to the creation of a well-ordered and constitutionally gov- erned republic, and our ministers have been instructed to impress this j upon the individual governments to which they have been accredited, and to the Central American statesmen with whom they have been asso- ciated. And we have always cherished the belief that in this effort we had the sincere sympathy and cordial co-operation of the Mexican Gov- ernment. Under the conviction that the future of the people of Central America was absolutely dependent upon the establishment of a federal government which would give strength abroad and maintain peace at home, our chief motive in the recent communications to Mexico was to prevent the diminution, either political or territorial, of any one of these states, or the disturbance of their exterior relations, in order that, trusting to the joint aid and friendship of Mexico and the United States,, they might be encouraged to persist in their efforts to establish a gov- ernment which would, both for their advantage and ours, represent their combined wealth, intelligence, and character. If this Government is expected to infer from the language of Seiior Mariscal that the prospect of such a result is not agreeable to the pol- icy of Mexico, and that the interest which the United States has always manifested in its consummation renders unwelcome the friendly H. Ex. 154 5 66 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. intervention which we have offered, I can only say that it deepens the regret with which we will learn the decision of the Mexican Govern- ment, and compels me to declare that the Government of the United States will consider a hostile demonstration against Guatemala, for the avowed purpose or with the certain result of weakening her power in such an eftbrt, as an act not in consonance with the position and char- acter of Mexico, not in harmony with the friendly relations existing between ns, and injurious to the best interests of all the republics of this continent. The Government of the United States has the sincerest sympathy and the profoundest interest in the prosperity of the Spanish repuidics of America, and is influenced by no selfish considerations in its earnest efforts to prevent war between them. This country will continue its policy of peace, even if it cannot have the great aid which the co-opera- tion of Mexico would assure; and it will hope at no distant day to see such concord and co-operation between all the nations of America as will render war impossible. You will leave with Mr. Mariscal a copy of this dispatch. I am, &c., JAMES G. BLAINE. Ko. 37. Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelingliuysen. [Extract.— Published heretofore in Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 156, 47th Congress, 1st session. 3 No. 335.] Legation of the United States, Mexico^ January 10, 1882. (Received Jantiary 26.) Sir : Your dispatch No. 198, 28th of November, 1881, relating to the difficulties now existing between Mexico and Guatemala, was received on the 29th of December. On the same day I addressed a note to Seiior Mariscal, asking him to name a day when I could communicate to him the contents thereof. A copy of my note I inclose. Senor Mariscal replied on the 30th, fixing the following day (31st) for our interview. A translation of his note I inclose. At the appointed hour (12 m.) I found myself in the reception-room of the department of state, and Sefior Mariscal soon came in. I stated to him that I had transmitted to you the substance of the in- terviews which I had had with him at various times upon the subject of the difficulties between Mexico iind Guatemala, and the suggestion of the President that they should be submitted to arbitration; ■^ ^ / that I had informed you how the suggestion had been received by the Mexican Government and people, viz, as an intrusion into affairs which were of no concern to the United States ; that I had informed you nothing since I had been here had created more ill-feeling towards the United States than this; that the President of Guatemala was regarded by him as a bad man, unfriendly to Mexico; that he supposed it to be the wish of the United States that the Central American states should be con- solidated into one nation ; that General Barrios was understood by him to favor that idea; that should it be carried 6ut Barrios would wish to be the President of the new nation ; that he was counting on the influ- ence of the United States with the view of obtaining its countenance to his ambitious i)retensions in that direction, and that it would not be in the interest of Mexico if his power should be increased. That 1 had BOUND AEY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 67 stated to yon that one great obstacle, as I thought, to Mexico consent- ing to an arbitration was the question of title to Chiapas; that I had informed you I had suggested to him (Sefior Mariscal) whether this question might not be eliminated from the controversy by an under- standing between the Mexican Government and the Guatemalan Gov- ernment to the effect that if the arbitration was accepted, and Guate- mala set up a claim to that State, the arbitration should decide against Guatemala; that 1 had in a conversation with the Guatemalan minister made the same suggestion, without, however, having informed him that I had had any conversation with him (Seiior Herrera) upon the subject;; that Mr. Herrera had replied that his Government would be willino- ta agree that such an understanding should be had, and that I had in- formed you I was not without hope, if I should be instructed to make- such a proposition, it would be accepted. That I had stated to you further that, in my opinion, unless the United States were prepared to take the position that they would in- terfere positively to preserve the peace, it would be wiser on our part to leave the case where it was, as what had been done by us up to now- had produced only irritation, had been of no service to Guatemala, and would not be in the future, while I felt convinced it would not tend to the increasing of the cordial relations which I knew it was the desire of the United States to cultivate with Mexico. That this information I had given you as far back as September last, that the subject had received the consideration which its importance deserved, and that I had on the 29th instant received a dispatch dated on the 28th of November, which I proposed then to read to him. In order that there might be no misapprehension hereafter as to what I had said to Seiior Mariscal on this occasion, I had written the substance of the^ above. Seiior Mariscal said that everything I had stated to you was exacts except with regard to the reception which the suggestion of arbitratiou had met with from the Mexican Government, and he protested that ife had been received as an amicable one. I replied that I might strike that expression out, as I intended what I said as prefatory only to the dispatch which I proposed to read al- though the comments which I had seen in the press of the country of all parties, and what I had heard on all sides from every person with whom I had conversed upon the subject, would have justified such an assertion. I therefore erased from the copy of the remarks which I had given him the words " Mexican Government." I proceeded to read to him your dispatch and, when I had concluded handed him a copy thereof. ' I then said to him : In obedience, therefore, to the instructions contained in the dispatch which I have just read to you, I formally suggest to the Mexican Government through your excel- lency — 1. That all the differences now unhappily existing between Mexico and Guatemala be submitted to arbitration. 2. That pending this arbitration the troops of Mexico be withdrawn from the im- mediate neighborhood of the Guatemalan frontier. 3. I inform you that the President of the United States is willing to accept the posi- tion of arbitrator between the two Governments. 4. I respectfully ask an early decision of your excellency's Government upon these suggestions. Sefior Mariscal said that the matter should have the attention which its seriousness required, and that he would send me a rejjly as soon as he possibly could. 68 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. The couversatiou then turned into a different channel, and I soon after took ray leave of him. More than ten days have elapsed since this interview. As I have had no response from Seiior Mariscal I deem it proper to advise you of what has taken place. I am, &c., P. H. MORGAN. [Inclosure 1 in No. 335.] Mr. Morgan to Mr. Mariscal. Legation of the United States, Mexico, December 29, 1881. Sir : I have received a dispatcli from my Government the contents of which I am instructed to make known to yonr excellency. I have therefore to request that your excellency will name a day and hour when it will be convenient for you to receive me for that j)urpose. I renew, &c., P. H. MORGAN. [Inclosure 2 in No. 335.— Translation.] Mr. Mariscal to Mr. Morgan. Department of Foreign Relations, Mexico, Decemher 30, 1881. Mr. Minister : In answer to your excellency's note of yesterday, in which you in- form me of your desire for an interview in order that you may place me in possession of the contents of a disx^atch received by you from your Governmeut, I have the honor to say to your excellency that I will hold myself at your disposition at this department to-morrow, Saturday, the 3l8t, at twelve o'clock. I renew, &c., IGNO. MARISCAL. No. 38. Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelinghuysen. No. 354.] Legation of the United States, Mexico, February 6, 1882. (Received February 17.) Sm: On the 3d instant I had an interview with Seuor Mariscal, in which he took occasion to say that he had not replied to the proposition which I had made to him on the 31st of December last in obedience to your instructions contained in your 198, November 28 last, and which proposition is detailed in my 335, January 10 last, because before doing so he wished that there should be a Mexican minister at Washington who he could be satisfied would properly represent the views of his Gov- ernment, and one who, like Senor Romero, thoroughly understood the questions now pending between Mexico and Guatemala. He also said that, as there had been a change in the Department of State, the views of the Administration upon this subject might have undergone a change. I repeated to Senor Mariscal what I have invariably said to him upon this subject, viz, that the United States had never intended to express any opinion upon the merits of the dispute between Mexico and Guate- BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO ADD GUATEMALA. 69 mala ; that their sole desire was that the peace which now prevails on the northern portion of the continent shonld not be disturbed, and that when the President, at the instauce of Guatemala, consented to act as mediator between them his sole purpose was, if possible, to prevent a war. I repeated, also, what I had said to him on other occasions, that one great interest which the United States felt in the question was that Mexico should not set the example of extending her territory by con- quest. I called his attention to the fact that it would not be a new de- parture iu the policy of Mexico if she should agree to submit her differ- ences with Guatemala to arbitration, inasmuch as this mode of settling any difficulty which may arise between her and the United States is recognized iu the treaties between the two countries (Art. XXI, treaty of 1848; Art. VII, treaty of 1853). I could not, I said, find any good reason why Mexico should be willing to submit any differences which she might have with the United States to the arbitrament of a common friendly power, and refuse the same mode of settlement in her disputes with her southern neighbor. The conversation here turned into another channel. In the meanwhile Senor Mariscal and Mr. Herrera are continuing their negotiations. Mr. Herrera informed me a few days since that he had fixed upon the sum of four millions of dollars as the indemnity which Mexico was to pay to Guatemala in consideration of the latter giving up 'all claim to Chiapas and Soconusco. I have, &c., P. H. MORGAN. Xo. 39. Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelinghuysen. Xo. 357.] Legation of the United States, Mexico, February 13, 1882. (Received February 23.) Sir : In my dispatch Xo. 354, of 6th instant, rei)orting my interview with Senor Mariscal upon the subject of the difficulties existing between Mexico and Guatemala, I said : In the ineauwhile SeBor Mariscal and Mr. Herrera are continuing their negotia- tions. After that dispatch had been mailed Mr. Herrera called on me and left with me a copy of a memorandum of a treaty which he had sub- mitted to Senor Mariscal. He also left with me quite a voluminous argument which he submitted to Senor Mariscal when he handed him the memorandum. Although Mr. Herrera informed me that he had forwarded a copy of both documents to Washington, I have considered it proper to transmit a copy and translation of the memorandum, which you will find* in- closed. I do not forward a copy and translation of Mr. Herrera's argu- ment, my purpose being merely to show you that negotiations were going on between the parties and the basis ni^on which Guatemala was willing to treat. I have, &c., P. H. MORGAX, * For inclo3iire, see Mr. Romero's note of May 6, 1882, inclosure No. 13. 70 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. No. 40. 31r. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Morgan. [Published heretofore in Sen. Ex. Doc. 1.56, Forty-seveuth Cougress, first session.] No. 232.] Department of State, ^Yashington, February 16, 1882. Sir : I inclose* translation of a note received at this Department a few days since from Mr. TJbico, late minister of Guatemala at Wash- ington. I do not share in Mr. Ubico's fear that the dispatches or policy of our Government will be misunderstood. As this ai)prehp.nsion is ex- i:>ressed in connection with the announcement of a treaty between Gua- temala and Mexico, it is well to observe that the date of the presenta- tion of the draft of the treaty clearly evinces that no such misappre- hension of the policy of our Government had any effect on that event. Mr. Ubico does not give me a coijy of the vrojet, nor a synopsis of its contents, nor even a detailed statement of its objects. I can, therefore, only instruct you generally that the President will look with favor upon anything tending to restore harmony and good will between the two governments, and expects you to use with judgment and discretion your best powers to advance anything that, in your opinion, will tend to that encl. 1 am, &c., FEED'K T. FRELINGHUYSEN. No. 41. il/r. Morgan to Mr. Frelinghuysen. [Extract.] No. 372.1 Legation of the United States, Mexico, March 8, 1882. (Received March 29.) Sir : Senor Herrera, the Guatemalan minister, called on me this morn- ing. ***** * * He asked me then whether I had read his argument. I answered that I had not. I said to him that 1 could repeat what I had said to him, to Seiior Mariscal, and to every one else who had spoken to me upon the subject, that in so far as I was concerned I would not consent to give any ground for the belief that the United States were any party to •wliat is called the Mexico-Guatemala question; that the only position "wliich they could occupy was that of an arbitrator, aud this only after both governments had agreed to submit their differences to arbitration. I said to them that when this happened, and I was instructed by you to make a report upon the questions which were pending between the two governments, I would then do allinmypower towards informing myself as to the merits of the controversy, and give you the result of my in- vestigation, but that until that time arrived 1 did not propose to pre- judge the question by reading tlie ex parte statements of either side. *For iuclosure, see document No. 48. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 71 He said that Seuor Mariscal had informed him he would take no decis- ion upon his proposition until he had heard from Seiior Romero. * * * * * * * ■ I have, &c. P. H. MOEGAN. No. 42. Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelingliuysen. [Extract.] ISTo. 374.] Legation of the United States, ■ Mexico, March 28, 1882. (Received April 18.) Sir : I transmit herewith a copy and translation of the "memoranda" sent to me by Senor Mariscal of an interview which, at his request, I Lad with him on the 18th instant, in which he communicated to me the answer of the President of Mexico to the proposition which, under in- structions contained in Department's dispatch 198, 28th November, 1881, I had submitted to him on the 31st December last, to the effect that the differences existing between Mexico and Guatemala be sub- mitted to arbitration; that pending the arbitration the Mexican troops should be withdrawn from the immediate neighborhood of the G-uatemalan frontier ; informing him that the President of the United States would be willing to accept the position of arbitrator between the two gov- ernments, the details of which are given in my dispatch, No. 335, 10th January, 1882. Senor Mariscal says that the principal cause of excitement to Gua- temala is the question of the right of Mexico to the State of Chiapas, including the territory of Socouusco, which forms a portion thereof; that this question Mexico has declared not to be a matter for discussion, or one which could be subjected to any judgment; and therefore that it would be impossible to submit all the differences between the two Governments to arbitration. But that if Guatemala would expressly consent to exclude the question of Chiapas and Soconusco from-the dis- cussion, Mexico would not find it inconvenient to submit the question of boundary whicli now agitates the two nations to a limited arbitra- tion, although he says that once the pretensions of Guatemala to a state of Mexico are frankly abandoned, the question with reference to the boundary of Socouusco will be easily settled without the necessity of an appeal to arbitration. That he cannot now give a definite answer to the proposition that, pending the arbitration, Mexican troops should be withdrawn from the frontier; that this would depend upon the circumstances which may arise pending the arbitration, should one bedeternnhed u])on, the i)res- ent object of Mexican troops on the frontier being to prevent the in- cursions of armed Guatenuilians into Mexican territory which, Seiior Mariscal says, Mexicans have suffered from for many years, and that the said troops are not there now for any purpose of invading Guate- mala, a thing no one has thought of; that, within the limits above specified, the Mexican Government would be disposed to admit, and would admit with pleasure, the arbitration of the President of the United States. 72 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. I had always protested aud had endeavored to show that the only interest the ITuited States had in wishing to see the difficulties between Mexico and Guatemala healed was the desire she had that the peace of the continent should not be disturbed. if ***** * I have, &c., P. H. MORGAN. [InclosTire 1 in 374. — Translation.] Mr. Mariscal to Mr. Morgan. Department for Foreign Relations, .Mexico, March 20, 1882. Mr. Minister : I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of the memoranda which I have drawn np of the conference which we hekl yesterday, in which I gave you the answer of the Mexican Govei-nment, and which I read to you, upon the pro- position which your excellency made to me ou the 31st December last upon the sub- ject of the difficulties between Mexico and Guatemala. I improve, «fec., IGNO. MARISCAL. Memoranda of a conference held on the 18th March, 1882, between the United States minister and the undersigned, secretary for foreign relations, respecting the difficulties between Mexico and Guatemala. Having requested Mr. Philip H. Morgan to call at this Department this day at eleven o'clock, and he having presented himself at the hour uamed was immediately received, and the undersigned informed him that until now he had not been able to give him the answer of the Mexican Government to the proposition.s which had been made by Mr. Morgan on the 31st December last, as well because it was necessary that the question should be carefully studied, as well as on account of the illness of the President which prevented him from giving his instructions upon a question of such high importance. Thereupon the undersigned read to Mr. Morgan his answer, as follows : « » » » # » » Coming down to the propositions which you submitted to me, I have been instructed by the President to answer in the following terms: As respects the first, I must observe that the principal controversy which has ex- cited Guatemala is the one which relates to the right by which Mexico holds the state of Chiapas, as one of the members of the Federal Union, includiug the territory of Soconusco, which forms part a thereof; but, as has been explained ou a former oc- casion, the Mexican Government finds itself in the absolute impossibility of discuss- ing, or of submitting the rights of the nation to this portion of her territory to any judgment. For the same reason it is not pos=sible to submit all the dilferences which exist between the two governments to arbitration as you propose shovild be done. But if the Guatemala Government will agree to exjtressly exclude so much as relates to Chiapas and Soconusco, the Mexican Government will not find it inconvenient to submit to a determinate arbitration which woulil be limited to the question of bound- ary which then surged between the two countries.-' i say which then surged, because the pretensions of Guatemala upon the whole or a portion of that Mexican state frankly eliminated, the questions which have scarcely been mentioned with reference to the boundary of Soconusco would be from that time easily arranged without the necessity of appealing to an arbitrator. The aforesaid pretensions of acquiring in whole or in part the territory to which I refer, or of obtaining a compensation therefor, whether the same has been expressly Btipulated, or whether in a disguised form, has been and is the only difficulty between the two governments. If it should disappear by reason of a sensible abandonment ■which the Guatemalan Government would make of such unfounded aspirations, there •would probal)ly be no necessity for an arbitration to decide any point of difference upon the question of boundary (between the two countries), besides removing the great reason for disagreement which, up to now, has divided us. The second projjosition, to the effect that the Mexican forces be withdrawn from the frontier pending the arbitration, cannot be decided-upon at the present moment ; to maintain our forces upon our territory and near the line provisionally recognized by BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 73^ Guatemala will depend upon the circumstances arising during the arbitration, if an arbitrator be agreed upon, or even if any agreement should be concluded to arbi- trate. The object of maintaining a personal force on the frontier alluded to, whose numbers are far from alarming, is to prevent the incursions of armed Guatemalians, from which our frontier population has suffered because of the absence ordinarily of a Mexican soldier there. This Government has never in any way pretended to menace Guatemala with an invasion with these troops, and no one has thought of such a thing. ' Your third proposition consists in the formal offer that the President of the United States shall be the arbitrator between the two governments of Mexico and Guatemala. /Within the limitations expressed, that is to say, not including in the arbitration the right which Mexico has to the whole of the territory which to-day comprises the state *of Chiapas, the GoA^ernment of Mexico is disposed to admit, and will admit with pleasure, the arbitration of the President of the Uuited States for the purpose of de- ciding any question which may require the employment of such a method and which) is susceptible of being decided by it in determining the boundary of both nations. . Notwithstanding, we cannot at the i^reseut time know if any such qiiestion has not up to date been discussed by Guatemala except so far as relates to its boundary with our country, aud this always under the precautions and from the second point of view which has been above referred to. Mr. Morgan said he would take the answer which had been given him into con- sideration, that he would transmit it to his Government, making explanation to thia Department upon its contents, if, after having examined it attentively, he should deem it proper to do so. - IGNACIO MARISCAL. [Inclosure 2 in No. 374.] Mr. Morgan to Mr. MariscaJ. Legation of the United States, Mexico, March 24, 1882. Sir : I have received your excellency's note of the 20th instant, together with a copy of memoranda of the conference which, at your request, I held with you on the 18th instant upon the subject of the difficulties between Mexico and Guatemala.. ^ # * # * ^ ^ In respect to the answers which your excellency has made to the proposition sub- mitted to you by me under instructions, in our interview of the 31st December, a prop- osition which had no other purpose than the laudable one, as I think, of obviating & war between two American republics, and which was made as the friend of both con- testants, I have only to transmit them to my Government. I renew, »fec., P. H. MORGAN. No. 43. Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Morgan. No. 252.] Department of State, Washington^ April 3, 1882. Sir: Your dispatch of the 8th ultimo, No. 372, reporting your inter- view with the Guatemalan minister in Mexico, Senor Herrera, touching the pending boundary troubles between Guatemala and Mexico, has been received. Your course in the matter was prudent and is approved. I am, &c., FRED'K T. FEELINGHUYSEN. 74 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. ifo. 44. Mr. Frelmghuysen to Mr. Morgan. No. 254.] Department of State, Washington, April 1], 1882. Sir : I transmit herewith for your inforiiiatioii tlie inclosed copy of a Dote which I have received from the Mexican minister at this capital, of the 9th ultimo, respecting the boundary dispute between the republics of Mexico and Guatemala ; also a copy of my reply thereto.* I am unable to furnish you with a copy of the printed pamphlet mentioned iu the minister's note, one copy of the same only having- been received here. I am, &c., FRED'K T. FEELIXGHUYSEN. Y.—FUBTHER APPEALS FROM GUATEMALA FOR THE MEDLATLON OF THE UNLTED STATES DURLNG MR. MOXTUFAR'S SPECLAL MLSSLOA"^ TO WASHLNGTON. No. 45. Mr. Montufar to Mr. Blaine. [Translation. — Published heretofore iu Foreign Relations ] Washington, Kovemhcr 2, 1881. (Received November 4.) Mr. Secretary of State : 1 have had the honor to receive your excellency's highly esteemed note of the 31st ultimo,t relative to the manifestation of appreciation and gratitude on the part of the depart- ment of state of Guatemala to the Government of the United States for having deigned to interpose its powerful mediation in the boundary question between Guatemala and Mexico. The Government to which I belong feels deeply grateful, and now lays before your excellency, tLrough me, some points of the question, which, although they are very well known at the Department of State of the United States, require, perhaps, some evidence for their better elucidation. In Mexico it is asserted, and even taught in the schools, that the ter- ritory of Guatemala, previous to the conquest, was under the control of the Mexican Indians. The historian Juarros, in his compendium of the history of Guatemala, proves the contrary. The historian Garcia Pelaez proves the same thing by adducing a series of facts. This, however, is not the subject of the question of to-day. The events of a less remote period are to be considered. Charles V, King of Spain, and Philip II, his successor, declared the captaincy-general of Guatemala to be totally distinct from the vice-re- gency of New Spain, as may be seen in law No. G, title 15, book 20 of the " Recopilacion de Indias." The same law clearly, decidedly, and precisely says that the territory of Chiapas and Soconusco belongs to the captaincy-general of Guatemala, and that it forms a part thereof. This law did not remain written. It was nothing but the exi^ression * See documents Nos. 50 and 51 for inclosures in this dispatch. t See No. 19. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA 75 of what bad already existed before it was promulgated, and was faith- fiillj" and puuctnally executed until the era of independence. Guatemala declared itself independent of Sp^iin, together with all the provinces which composed the cax)taincy-geueral, on the 15th day of September, 1821. Mexico established an ephemeral Empire, and the aristocracy and the clergy of Guatemala, disregarding the wishes of the people, united with that Empire through the use of violent means, according to the mani- festo of January 5, 1822. The annexationists, in order to carry out their designs, required the assistance of Mexican forces, and General Filisola, at the head of those forces, saturated the soil of Central America with blood. In Mexico, however, fortune did not favor them. The pronuuciamento of Cassa- mata destroyed the Empire, and General Filisola was obliged to return to his own country. His journey from Guatemala to Mexico, however, was not unproductive of advantage to him. There was a popular junta at Chiapas, which was installed April 8, 1823. That body resolved to convoke a general junta (council) to decide what was best to be done. That junta was convoked. It was put to vote whether Chiapas belonged to Mexico or to Guatemala, and, the question not having been settled, it was resolved that the province should be i)rovisional]y separated from both Mexico and Guatemala, and that it should have a government of its own until the adoption of other measures. Such was the state of aifairs when General Filisola returned to Mexico . On passing througb Chiapas he dissolved the government of that province. This proceeding called forth remonstrances and protests which were productive of no favorable results to the aggrieved parties. Recourse was had to arms, however, and the dissolved junta was again installed. A new revolution, i)romoted by the party which favored Mexico, aided directly by the latter country, obtained a triumph. The reiterated mani- festations of the aggrieved people of Chiapas and the representations of the Government of Guatemala! called forth a resolution which was adopted in Mexico May 26, 1824, to the effect that there should be a free expression of the ])opular will. But although liberty was talked of on one hand, on the other all the violent means possible were used in order to secure a result favorable to Mexico. Among the means of coercion was a Mexican division stationed on the frontier, which intimidated the people of the vicinity. TLe voting was to take place in presence of two comujissioner.s, one a Mexican and the other a Guatemalan. They did not wait until the Guatemalan commissioner arrived, but, as soon as Mr. Jose Xavier Bustamente, the Mexican commissioner, made his appearance, business commenced, and Cbiapas was declared to be united to Mexico on the 12th and 14th of September, 1824. Such is the title by which Mexico possesses Chiapas. The party in Socouusco which had voted against annexation to Mex- ico solemnly declared its allegiance to Guatemala, which was then an integral part of the Central American Republic. This declaration bears date of July 24, 1824. The National Constituent Assembly of Central America, on the 18th day of August of the sa . e year, declared Soconusco to be an integral part of Central America. In the year 1825 there was an arrangement for peace made between the Central American Republic and that of Mexico. That arrangement is called the preliminaries of the year 1825. According to it both Re- 76 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. publics were to withdraw their forces from Socouusco, and that district was to remain under municipal government until its status should be defined by a treaty for t^e settlement of the boundary question. That arrangement was faithfully observed by Guatemala, but was infringed by Mexico. In the year 1842 General Santa Ana sent forces against Socouusco and annexed it de facto to the country which he governed. Santa Ana profited by the revolution which dissolved the Central American Fed- eration in 1839, and niade five independent states of that country, which states are now called Eepublics. That outrage can form no legal basis. Guatemala protested energetically, and she has ever conducted her relations with the neighboring Republic on the basis of that protest, and in no other way. The other sections of Central America likewise energetically protested. Arbitration has be^u proposed to Mexico since 1824, but this she has never been willing to accept. At length she was told to appoint an ar- bitrator, and that Guatemala would abide by his decision. This proposition, which was perhaps without an example in the his- tory of the New World, was likewise rejected. This is sufficient to enable the enlightened Government of the United States to judg*^ of the justice of the cause of Guatemala. What most .strikes the attention in this matter, however, is that the district of Socouusco, which is Guatemala de jure, is not now, according to Mexico, what it was in the year 1842, when it was occupied by Santa Ana, It has grown, and is growing daily. Towns which were Guate- malan in 1843, and to which Mexico could then lay no claim, even admitting the annexation to be legal, are now Mexican, and to dispute this is called outraging the Mexican flag. Socouusco is constantly increasing in extent, and it would not be sur- prising if it should one day extend to the palace of the old Spanish captains-general. No treaties were concluded between Guatemala and Mexico from 1825 until December, 1877. At the latter date a convention was concluded in the city of Mexico which was signed by Mr. Uriarte, the minister of Guatenuila, and by Mr. Vallarta, the secretary of state of the Mexican Kepublic. It is proposed in that convention to make an examination of the fron- tier, and to have surveys made i)reparatory to conferences with regard to limits. The examination was to be made, by a mixed commission of topographers and astronomers, from the bar of Ocos to the hill of Izbul, within a definite time. This treaty met with opposition in the cabinet of Guatemala because a hidden design was detected in it. For a mere survey of boundaries it is not necessary that a treaty should be signed by two Governments, nor is there any need of the forms required by the law of nations for permanent laws; an exchange of notes is sufficient. The real design of the Mexican Government was very clear. That Government intended that the hill of Izbul and the bar of Ocos should be declared by a treaty to be the fixed limits between the two Kepublics. Such, however, were the assurances given by Mr. Diaz Covarrubias to the President of Guatemala that Mexico did not wish to prejudge the question, but simply to have it examined, that that high functionary at length, for the sake of peace, and relying upon the incessant protesta- tions that the boundary question was not to be prejudged, ratified the treaty without the intervention of the legislative body, because the con- BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 77 stitution had not at that time been promuigated ; and a previous enact- ment had invested the President with full powers in such cases. The Uriarte-Yallarta treaty having been ratified on the basis that no question in relation to boundaries was to be prejudged, the mixed com- mission began its work, which it was unable to finish within the time fixed for that purpose. Mexico asked for an extension of the time on the same basis, viz, that no question in relation to boundaries was to be prejudged, and her request was granted. The time fixed again ex- pired before the mixed commission had finished its work even on the first section. Mexico asked for another extension, which was not granted. Instead of the request being granted, it was declared that the treaty had become null and void because the second extension had expired before the termination of the work on even the first section. The Government of Mexico asked for another extension, which was likewise refused. It demanded it peremptorily, and its demand was not acceded to. It almost threatened to declare war if the Uriarte-Val- larta treaty was not declared to be still in force, and we courteously replied that that treaty no longer existed, and that we would not give it new life. The events which took place while the surveys were going on have left very deep traces, and clearly reveal the situation in which we are. The place called " Cuilco Viejo," which was recognized as being Gua- temalan after the occupation of Soconusco by Guatemalan authorities, and where the persons who rose in 1870 against the administration of General Cerna entered into as Guatemalan territory, was declared to belong to Mexico, and to enter that place is now considered as an offense to Mexico and as a punishable aggression against Mexican terri- tory. A Mexican surveyor has, from time immemorial, surveyed the land in districts owned by Guatemala. A commission of the Guatemalan muni- cipality of the town called Malacatan set out for the purpose of occupy- ing a position on the frontier. A Mexican force which was concealed in a wood fired on the party, killing the first alcalde and an individual of the municipality, and wounding four other persons. A complaint was presented, and satisfaction demanded of MexicOj but no advantage to Guatemala resulted therefrom. The Mexican authorities based their action on a report, according to which the place in the territory of Guatemala where the municipal com- mission was, belongs to Mexico. In virtue of that report not only is no satisfaction given us, but satis- faction is demanded of us ; we are aggrieved, and are asked, to pledge ourselves not to commit any more offenses in future. Panfilo Roda, the alcalde of Tacana, a Guatemalan town, undertook, in conjunction with four other men, to take a list of the inhabitants of that place. The Mexicans arrested the enrollers, and took them to Tap- achula. The Government of Guatemala energetically demanded satis- faction ; its demand, however, was attended with no favorable result. Indeed, so far from being favorable, the result was an adverse one, for, as the territory occupied by Mexico constantly increases in extent, it was asserted that the town in which it had been attempted to enroll the inhabitants was a Mexican town. Don Carlos Gris claimed as Mexican territory a portion of land which has belonged to Guatemala from time immemorial. Complaint was made to Mexico in due form ; it was, however, followed by no result favorable to Guatemala, because Mexico had determined that that land should increase her territory. 78 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. Not only was justice uot done us in Mexico, but it was even declared that Guatemala was violating her pledges, and was actiug the part of an aggressor. Within the territory of Mexico revolutions are constantly going on against the frontier authorities ; the revolutionists seek refuge in the territory of Guatemala; the Mexican minister in Guatemala requests that they be interned {i. e., sent to the interior) ; his request is complied with by telegraph, the internment takes i)lace, and the Mexican repre- sentative returns his thanks therefor. The Mexican Government, however, instead of returningthauks, com- l^lains that the internment has not been ordered, and supposes that the failure to order it is due to the complicity of the Guatemalan authorities. There are districts which, from time immemorial, have recognized no authority save that of Guatemala; the people of those districts are now required to pay their taxes to Mexico ; the owners of property protest, but are forcibly compelled to pay ; complaint is made to Mexico, and the Government declares that those districts belong to Mexico, or that their ownership is doubtful, and that such being the case, they cannot be exempted from the payment of taxes. The mixed commission was busy with the survej^ of the frontier ; our engineers had the right to enter the so-called Mexican territory, as those of Mexico had the right to enter ours; but the frontier autliorities out- raged our engineers, and threw them into prison. The Government of Mexico very energetically demanded satisfaction of that of Guatemala, on the ground that the latter had invaded the territory of Mexico. This is what the invasion amounted to. The place called Tonintan^ has, from time immemorial, belonged to Guatemala. The Government of Mexico recently declared, on its own authority, that Tonintanii be- longed to Mexico; consequently to approach what is our own is invading Mexico. Parties of men enter our territory, without having any right to do so, and steal cattle ; our authorities attempt to recov^er the stolen animals, and this is considered by the Mexican frontier authorities as an insult to Mexico ; recourse is had to the federal Government, and that does not do us justice. Acts of this kind are of constant occurrence ; the offenses are re- peated, and Mexican encroachments upon our territory still go on. All this and much more that 1 have left unmentioned, in order not to make this note too voluminous, is proved by authoritative documents which I leave in the hands of Mr. Ubico, the minister of Guatemala at Washington. Something recently occurred that is considered alarming. In the message of the President of Mexico there are expressions which were offensive to Guatemala, and wholly inexact. It was said that Guate- mala seeks to defer the settlement of the questions, and to avoid hav- ing them defined, whereas the truth is quite the reverse, arbitration having been constantly proposed to Mexico, and that country having been recently told that there should not be two arbitrators, but one, and that that one should be selected by the Mexican Government, which I)ropositioii it did not see fit to accept. There has appeared in the unotficial portion of the ofiflcial newspaper ail article which I accept only in that part which declares that Mexico is treating us unjustly; for the article contains considerations of an his- torical character with regard to events on the frontier of the United States which I am unable to accept. That article was cDusidered offensive by General Loaieza, minister of Mexico, in Guatemala. He requested the Government to state whether BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA (^ the article in question reflected the views of the Government. He was informed in reply, that it expressed the views of the editor of the paper and not those of the Government, but that the latter indorsed that part of it which vindicated Guatemala from the charge of being unwilling- to have the questions defined, and of seeking to postpone their settle- ment. General Loaieza said that he would inform his Government, and that he would ask instructions from it, which proceeding was thought to embody a fresh menace. I have deemed it my duty to inform your excellency of all this in reply to ,your esteemed note of October 31, and I take pleasure in re- peating that 1 am, &c., LOEENZO MONTUFAE. Ko. 46. Mr. Montufar to Mr. Blaine. [Translation. — Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] WASHiNaTON, November 7, 1881. (Eeceived Nov. 11.) Sir: On the 2d instant I had the honor to address to your excellency a note in relation to aflairs in Guatemala and Mexico. I had not at that time received the report presented to the Mexican Congress by Mr. Mariscal, the minister for foreign aflairs of that coun- try. That document contains statements which are offensive to Guate- mala, and which are not in accordance with historic truth. It is asserted that when the second extension expired, the mixed commission not having finished its work, the effects of the Uriarte- Yallarta convention legally ceased. This is a juridical truth which I am glad to have admitted by Mexico. I must, however, call your excellency's attention to what is said with regard to Guatemala's not having notified Mexico, as is customary in such cases. In the report on foreign relations presented to the legislature of Gua- temala in 1880 it was stated that the second extension was not suffi- cient for the completion of the surveys, and that if an extension was not asked for, the Uriarte-Vallarta convention would be considered as not existing. The report was approved by the legislature, and copies of it were sent to the minister of Mexico in Guatemala and to the de- partment of foreign relations of the Mexican Eepublic. Notwithstand- ing this, no extension was asked for. The extensions having absolutely expired, and no fresh extension hav- ing been asked for, it was declared that the second extension had ex- pired in order that the convention might be considered as having ceased to exist. This declaration, which was issued on the 10th day of December, 1880, was announced during an interview held at the department of state of Guatemala, to Mr. Diaz Mimiaga, charg6 d'affaires ad interim of the Mexican Eepublic. On the 11th of December of the same year the aforesaid declaration was transmitted to Don Manuel Herrera, envoy extraordinary and min- ister plenipotentiary of Guatemala in Mexico, that he might be able to furnish such information as the case required. The Uriarte-Vallarta treaty having become null and void, Mr. Mariscal 80 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. says that General Loaieza, the minister plenipotentiary of Mexico, proposed a new convention to the President of Guatemala, and that the President thought favorably of the proposal, but that the conven- tion was not concluded. I do not know the real facts of this matter ; yet I must assure you that the President of Guatemala is now the constitutional head of the Government; that the constitution requires that international treaties shall be approved by the legislative branch of the Government, and that General Barrios never makes an offer the fulfillment of which depends upon another power. If what Mexico desires is that a survej^ of coasts and frontiers be made, she does not need the Uriarte-Vallarta treaty for such a purpose, and still less does she need a renewal of that instrument ; a simple exchange of notes is all that is required. The Government of the United States wished to have a survey of our seacoasts made, but it did not make any treaty with Guatemala with that end in view ; it simjjly wrote a note asking for authorization to have the survey made. A note was sent in reply stating that the sur- vey might be made, and it was made. Mexico may take, whenever it sees fit, the same course that was taken by the United States. Mr. Mariscal says that a party of ten men, under the command of Mr. Margarito Barrios, invaded the territory of Mexico, via Tonintana. This charge makes it appear as if the Guatemalan Government had committed a crime demanding expiation. Such, however, is not the fact. The district called Tonintana has always been respected as Guate- malan territory. Forces of our Government do indeed enter Tonintana, but that is not invading Mexican territory. The offense was committed by the Mexicans. They entered Tonintana, and compelled the inhab- itants to render service as Mexican citizens. The inhabitants, feeling aggrieved, addressed a complaint to the Government of Guatemala. Satisfaction was demanded of Mexico, and the federal Government declared that Tonintana belonged to Mexico, and that to enter it was to invade Mexico. The Government of Guatemala said that Mexico was not an authority competent to make a declaration contrary to the evidence, and that it is customary for nations, in such cases, to submit to arbitration, and not to seize at will upon territory that does not be- long to them. This remonstrance, like all those made by us, was treated with no attention. Mr. Mariscal states that in December, 1879, and in September, 1880, bands of Mexican and Central American filibusters invaded Mexico, committing great outrages in the territory of that country. There are many persons in Chiapas and Socouusco who cherish personal resent- ment and deep hatred against some of the public functionaries. These persons are continually on the move. No treaties exist between Guatemala and Mexico. The relations be- tween the two countries rest on the general principles of the law of nations. Guatemala is consequently not obliged to intern Mexican de- linquents taking refuge in her territory, and still less is she obliged to do duty as a jailer for the Mexicans. Nevertheless, for the sake of peace, and in order to show friendship to the Government of Mexico, she issued orders for all the internments that were asked of her. The orders were given by telegraph ; these orders were executed, and the parties interned asked leave of the Guatemalan Government to return to their own country, stating that they had no means of subsistence. The Government of Guatemala replied that they were subject to the BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 81 orders of the representative of Mexico, and that they would not be al- lowed to return without his consent. This was doing more, much more, than was required by the law of nations. The telegrapliic orders for internment, which were sent in the pres- ence of the representative of Mexico, and their execution called forth a very warm expression of gratitude on the part of that representative. It is surprising that, notwithstanding all this, Mr. Mariscal should prefer charges against Guatemala for what he says took place in De- cember, 1879, and in September, 18S0. Investigations were held by order of the Government of Guatemala, and they rendered it evident that not a single Guatemalan had taken part in the events in question; that Mexicans were the sole actors in them, and that they were influenced by personal resentments which they cherished, either rightfully or wrongfully, against Mexican officials. The depositions taken show that mere local feelings, and nothing con- nected with the politics of the two countries, influenced the Mexicans thus to act against the said officials. If charges are to be made against Guatemala on account of every revolution in Chiapas and Socouusco, the charges will be incessant, for revolutions are of constant occurrence there, and it is in evidence that the revolutionists are supplied with abundant resources from their own country. I am sorry to remark that what is said in relation to the landmarks of Pinabete is wholly incorrect. The districts known as Ohichanar and Touintana have belonged to Guatemala fro-m time immemorial, and Gen- eral Santa Ana, the Dictator of Mexico, never thought that his juris- diction extended to them when he saw fit to violate the treaty of 1825 and invade Soconusco. The Mexicans, by no authority save their own, without any notifica- tion or convention in the execution of their programme of encroaching upon our territory, placed a landmark in the district known as Pin- abete. If the placing of a landmark by Mexicans was sufficient to convert the territory of Guatemala into Mexican property, no boundary ques- tion would now exist, for the territory of Mexico would extend to Costa Eica. Our authorities were under no obligations to suffer that mark to re- main standing, since it was equivalent to a violent spoliation, without anything to justify it. The mark was consequently removed by the Guatemalan authorities of Tacaua. This act, then, was not, as is asserted by Mr. Mariscal, an invasion of Mexico by Guatemala, but an unauthorized invasion of Guatemala by Mexico. Mr. Mariscal says that the President of Mexico has protested ener- getically ; but he does not say that the Government of Guatemala, in reply to his protest, furnished evidence of its right. The secretary of state of the Mexican Eepublic says that Mexico can admit no question with regard to her ownership of Chiapas, including , Soconusco, for those districts which now form a state have belonged to her for years. This, Mr. Secretary, is a kind of public law that cannot be accepted. Dominion is acquired by titles which convey it, and force is not such a title. A treaty concluded in 1825 was binding upon both Mexico and Gua- temala. According to that treaty Soconusco was to remain neutral un- til the conclusion of a treaty defining the boundaries. H. Ex. 154 6 82 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. lu the year 1842 General Santa Ana infringed that treaty by in- vading Soconnsco with an armed force and annexing it to Mexico. That act was a violation of right, and cannot be a legitimate title of owner- ship. What would become of the world if every nation could violate solemn treaties, invade the domain of weaker nations, seize their territory, and then allege that a proper sense of dignity did not permit them to sub- mit what was already done to arbitration f Since the year 1842 Guatemala has constantly protested against the usurpation of General Santa Ana; she has not admitted its legality for a single day, nor is there any instrument in existence that legitimizes it. The outrage perpetrated by Santa Ana, moreover, cannot be forgotten, for it is daily producing the saddest results. It awakened in Mexico a desire for aggrandizement, and although that Eei^ublic possesses vast territories which are neither inhabited nor cultivated, it seeks to ex- tend its limits southward, and to have its flag float over all Central America. Thus it is that a question between Guatemala and Mexico is never settled, and groundless accusations are piled up against us, similar to those contained in Mr. Mariscal's report. . There is now a serious prospect of war between Guatemala and Mex- ico. We shall never make war, and shall never provoke it ; the respon- sibility of shedding American blood shall not be on our heads; we shall, however, defend ourselves with energy and bravery; and so long as a hamlet or a cabin remains standing in Guatemala, the Mexican flag shall not float over it in peace. , The United States of America are the natural guardians of the soil of all America. Were it not for the United States, the Spanish-Amer- ican Eepublics would not now be independent. They are the natural protectors of the integrity of the continent, and history shows how nobly and worthily they have fulfilled their high mission. The Government of Guatemala addressed your excellency in this sense in June last, through Mr. Ubico ; I now do so again. The Government of Guatemala lays its question with Mexico in the hands of the United States Government. It declares that in whatever manner the United States Government may see fit to settle this matter, its decision shall be cheerfully, strictly, and faithfully executed. / I entertain the pleasing hope of receiving a favorable reply before the 20th instant, on which day a steamer sails from New York for As- pinwall. I avail, &Q. LORENZO MONTt^FAE. No. 47. Mr. Montufar to Mr. Blaine. [Translation. — Published lieretofore in Foreign Kelations.] Legation of Guatemala, Washington, N'ovemher 21, 1881. (Eeceived November 21.) Most Excellent Mr. Secretary of State : The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary (on a special mission) of the Eepublic of Guatemala, has the honor to remind the honorable. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 83 Secretary of State that the credential letter which he had the honor to present requests that full faith and credit be given to whatever he may say on behalf of the Government of Guatemala, v The undersigned, in view of that request, addressed to his excellency the Secretary of State a note bearing date of November 2, for the pur- pose of informing him, in a few words, of what had occurred between Guatemala and Mexico during a period which commenced before the establishment of the independence of both countries. On the same ground the undersigned addressed to his excellency the head of the Department of State his note of the 6th instant, the object of which was to point out the errors with regard to the relations between Guatemala and Mexico which were contained in the report presented by Mr. Minister Mariscal to the Mexican Congress, and likewise (and this very particularly) to place the boundary question in the hands of the United States Government. This is not the first time that this impartial Government has thus be- friended a Spanish-American Eepublic. Venezuela placed her dispute with France in the hands of the United States Government. The Amer- ican Government complied with the request of that little Republic, and a war was averted which would have been most disastrous to Venezuela. A war between Guatemala and Mexico is now imminent. Such a war will be a calamitous one, and its results cannot be foreseen. Guate- mala has but a million and a half of inhabitants; yet she is not alone : the little Republics of Salvador and Honduras are her allies. The undersigned has credentials from Salvador and Honduras, which he has not yet presented. Nicaragua is eminently Central American in feeling, and when there is danger of aggressions from without, she will become the ally of the threatened party, in order to maintain the integrity of what was once the- country of all Central Americans. The undersigned can say nothing just now with regard to Costa Rica^ because, although he is well aware of the friendly disposition of the- people of that Republic, he is not acquainted with the views entertained by Dr. Tomas Guardia. The war, then, will not be between Mexico and Guatemala alone, but between Mexico and the greater part of Central America. Guatemala alone can raise more than 20,000 fighting men. The first engagements will be disastrous to Mexico, and will perhaps cause a revolution in that Republic, in which there is a party and a portion of the press which are opposed to war, which desire peace, and which tell the Government that Its relations with Guatemala should be very different from what they are now. If the Mexican parties unite, however, Guatemala will resist as long as there is a cabin standing within her borders. The Government of the United States now has it in its power to save Mexico and Central America, as it saved Venezuela. If a proposition for settlement is offered by the Government of the United States, Guate- mala will accept it, considering it not as an attempt to assert power or to secure dominion, but as an act of kindness and sincere friendship. The undersigned hopes that the United States will render this addi- tional service to her neighboring Republics, and that the new world will hereafter thus have one more reason to feel grateful to this powerful Republic. Entertaining this pleasing hope, the undersigned has the honor to assure his excellency the Secretary of State that he is, &c., LORENZO MONTUFAR. 84 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. No. 48. Mr. Dbico to 31r. Frelinglmysen. [Translation. — Published heretofore in Sen. Ex. Doc. 156, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.] Legation of the Eepublic of Guatemala, Washington^ Febniary 3, 1882. (Eeceivecl February 3.) Sir: As various documents relative to the territorial question between Guatemala and Mexico are already on file in the Department of State, I now have the honor herewith to transmit to your excellency a copy of another, which I have recently received. I beg your excellency to be pleased to take this new document into consideration, that you may thereby be enabled to form an opinion as to the nature of Mexico's claim. I reiterate, &c., A. UBICO. [Abstract of the inclosure. ] X The accompanying document is signed by Fernando Cruz, minister of foreign af- fairs of the Republic of Guatemala, under date of November 24, 1881. It is addressed to General Francisco Loaieza, minister of Mexico in Guatemala, and its object is to transmit to General Loaieza a report received by the ^iresident of the council of state In refereuce to one Jos6 P6rez, assistant alcalde of the village of Touintauil,* held in ■ confinement by Guatemala. It appears that Mexico has demanded satisfaction of Guatemala for the arrest of P6rez, and indemnity to him personally on the ground that he was a Mexican officer. (Guatemala charges him with treason.) A commission appointed by the Guatemalan Government presents this report on the subject to the council of state, in which it says that it sincerely desires that the right may prevail and justice be done, and that it believes Mexico will approve this view. The commission says that since the Mexican representative in that Republic has demanded the release of P^rez, &c., it is proper in the first place to inquire whether he is a citizen of Mexico or of Guatemala, and to which Republic the locality in which he was arrested belongs. The commission then states that Mr. P6i-ez is a legitimate son of A. and M. P6rez, and that he was born at TacauJi, in 1845. There is no doubt or dispute whatever that Tacan^ is a Guatemalan town, or that the parents of P^rez were Guatemalans. There is, moreover, no doubt whatever, that Vega del Volcan, the town in which he was arrested, belongs to Guatemala. This is stated in the in- dictment, and is admitted by P6rez himself. The latter was arrested for intriguing with the authorities of Soconusco, and for having co-operated with them in their at- tempts to induce the people of Tonintanii to refuse obedience to the authorities of Guatemala ; he is further charged with having encouraged a Mexican invasion of Ton- intan^. Although P6rez may allege that he has become a citizen of Mexico, yet Gua- temala has a right to consider him as one of her citizens whenever he appears in her territory, because, even supposing — which supposition is not admissible — that P6rez is a foreigner in Guatemala, he is, nevertheless, subject to the authorilies of that country as soon as he sets foot on its soil, and it is the duty of those authorities to hold him responsible for anj^ acts that he may have committed on a foreign soil to the detriment of Guatemala's territorial integrity. These are principles of international law which are recognized by all the nations of the civilized world. The commission then quotes from the writings of Bluntschli and otherst to show that every state is at liberty to decide by law what offenses are to be punishable within its territory, when such offenses have beeu committed by its subjects or citizens in a foreign coun- try, and that most nations have asserted in their laws the principle that their sub- jects may be punished for crimes so committed. The commission adds that Guate- *TonintaH^ is claimed by both Guatemala and Mexico. t Also from the penal code of Lower California. BOUNDAKY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 85 mala has good reason to complain of the Mexican frontier authorities who are con- stantly committing abuses against Guatemala and her citizens, which abuses it trusts that the general Government of Mexico will take measures to suppress. General Loaieza is informed in conclusion', by the Guatemalan minister of foreign affairs, that the report of the commission has been accepted by the council of state, by which body it has been submitted to the President of the Republic of Guatemala, who has approved it. The minister of foreign affairs trusts that General Loaieza and his Government will consider the report as fully justifying the position taken by Gua- temala. 1^0. 49. Mr. Uhico to Mr. FrelingJmysen. [Translation.— Published heretofore in Senate Ex. Doc. 156, Forty-seventh Congress^ first session. ] Legation of the Eepublic of Guatemala, Washiiigton, February 4:, 1882. (Eeceived February 4.) Sir : The press, both American and foreign, in commenting upon cer- tain ofiQcial documents which have recently been published, seeks to show that reasons have arisen for changing the foreign policy of the United States, and this is an error which very generally prevails. The Senate has called for the correspondence relative to Central American affairs, including that which took place with the view of bringing about an amicable result of the territorial question with the Eepublic of Mexico. The publication of these new documents will confirm the aforesaid error ; I say error, because I am convinced that it has been designed merely to change the form and manner of carrying out the national policy towards the nations on the Pacific coast. As such matters, however, always reach foreign countries in an ex- aggerated form, and as this erroneous interpretation may give rise to consequences most disastrous to the nations of Central America, I beg your excellency to be pleased to transmit suitable explanations to Mr. Mor- gan, the American minister in Mexico, and to acquaint me with the sense of said explanations. I must inform your excellency that the Government of Guatemala, being actuated by a desire to terminate the present dispute, has informed the Mexican Government that it renounces its* rights to the territo- ries of Chiapas and Soconusco, aud that its declaration to that effect is contained in a draft of a definitive treaty which was presented to the Mexican Government by the diplomatic representative of Guatemala on the 14th of January last. By complying with the request contained in this note, your excellency will render a service to the just cause of the Central American nations, which will appreciate the good offices that you may see fit to interpose in behalf of their autonomy. With the assurances, &c., A. UBICO. 86 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. Yl.— ATTITUDE OF PRESIDENT ARTHUR'S ADMINISTRATION ON THIS QUESTION. No. 50. Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelingliuysen. [Published heretofore iu Foreiga Relations.] Mexican Legation in the United States, Washington, March 9, 1882. (Received March 9.) Mr. Secretary: I have the honor herewith to send you a copy of a pamphlet printed in the English language, and containing various doc- uments and data relative to the boundary question between Mexico and Guatemala. You will see by these documents that the province of Chiapas, as long ago as September, 1821, voluntarily declared that it belonged to Mexico, and that, since that time, it has formed an integral part of the Mexican nation, it being declared in the Mexican constitution adopted February 5, 1857, that the state of Chiaijas is an integral i)art of that Confedera- tion. The district of Soconusco is, and has been, an integral part of what was formerly the province, and is now the state of Chiapas, and has, with a slight interruption, shared the fortunes of that state, thus form- ing a part of the Mexican nation. The Government of Guatemala has officially recognized and admit- ted, although indirectly, on several occasions, that the state of Chiapas forms a part of Mexico, and yet it recently solicited the mediation of the United States in this matter, which mediation was offered to Mex- ico by a note signed b}^ the Hon. James G. Blaine, Secretary of State of the United States, and addressed to the Hon. Philip H. Morgan, United States minister in Mexico, under date of June 16, 1881. When the Government of Mexico informed the United States minis- ter residing at the capital of that country, as it did on the occasion of an interview held in the city of Mexico on the 9th of J\x\y following, that Mexico could not submit to arbitration her right to one of the states of the Mexican Confederation, since that was a fundamental point of her i)olitical existence decided by her constitution, the Hon. Mr. Blaine could not do otherwise than admit the force of this reason- ing, and in the communication which he addressed to Mr. Morgan on the 28th of Kovember, 1881, he said that the mediation of the United States was not offered for the purpose of deciding whether Chiapas and Soconusco formed part of the Mexican nation, but for that of settling the boundary question between Mexico and Guatemala on the basis that the state of Chiapas formed part of the Mexican Confederation. This principle (which, as I have already remarked, hiis been repeat- edly recognized by Guatemala herself) being accepted, the actual draw- ing of the boundary line between the former province of Chiapas and that of Guatemala, and between the Mexican states of Tobasco and Yucatan and the present Republic of Guatemala, would require a i)re- vious survey of that region, which is, to a great extent, uninhabited and unknown, and it would be impossible for such a line to be drawn unless such a survey should previously be made. Both Mexico and Guatemala have agreed to the appointment of a mixed commission to survey that region. That agreement was em- BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 87 bodied in a treaty which was concluded September 7, 1877, wherein Guatemala recognized, by implication, the fact that Chiapas is a part of the Mexican Confederation. The survey of the territory, through which the boundary line is to pass, being finished, it would be easy to draw that line, and probably Mexico and Guatemala would be able to reach an understanding on that subject. If this should unfortunately not be the case, and both nations should desire the appointment of an arbitrator or the mediation of a friendly nation, in order to settle the differences that might have arisen on this point, it would then be time to think of making arrangements to that end ; but to think at this time of deciding upon the proper course to be pursued in a hypothetical case, and one in which somewhat lengthy previous surveys would be required, would be, to say the least, wholly premature. I have, &c., M. ROMERO. DIFFICULTIES BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. Proposed Mediation of the United States. some official documents. jS'ew York: 1882. Document ISTo. I. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan, No. 138, dated June 16, 1881, printed ante, Document No. 20. Document No. 1 1. CONFERENCE BETWEEN MR. P. H. MORGAN AND SR. DON IGNACIO MARISCAL. Printed as an iiiclosure to Mr. Morgan's dispatcli to Mr. Blaine, No. 247, dated Au- gust 5, 1881. (See Document No. 27.) Document Xo. III. THE QUESTION OF LIMITS BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. [Estracts from a pamphlet containing the correspondence exchanged in 1874 between the minister of Guatemala in Mexico, Mr. Eamon Uriarte, and the Mexican minister of foreign affiairs, Mr. Jos6 Maria Lafragua. ] Printed as iuclosures Nos. 7 and 8 to Mr. Romero's note to the Secretary of State dated May 6, 1882, jjo-sf. Document No. 53. Document Ko. lY. SEAL OF THE MEXICAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. SECTION OF AMERICA. [Extract.] The minister of war lias transmitted to this Department, in a dispatch dated the 5th instant, a communication from the governor of Chiapas, dated the 1st of October last, in which he says that he transmits a copy, containing 14 pages, of the depositions made by the criminals, Samuel Palmer and Florencio Garcia, and of the investigation made concerning their statement that the President of Guatemala favors the filibust- ering projects organized in that republic against Mexico. From these documents it appears that Palmer and Garcia, the former a negro from Belize and the latter a Spaniaid, the manager of the coffee plantation of Don Joaquin. 88 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. Cardenas, near El Rodeo, Guatemala, formed a part of the band of invaders who sacked the town of Tnxtla Chico on the night of September 20, 1880, Garcia having acted as second in command. In their depositions they stated, among other things, that the expedition in question was organized aud armed within the territory of Gua- temala, with the knowledge of the commander of Malacatan, Don Joaquin Velasco, who promised the leader, Faustino Cstrdenas, that he would offer no obstacle, and that the plan had for object to overthrow the existing authorities of the state of Chi- apas, and to proclaim Don Pantaleon Domiuguez ; that the plan as well as the pro- clamation signed by Victor Fougier, an exile in that republic, were printed in Guate- mala, but that these documents were thrown into a river when the invaders were overtaken by the Mexican troops sent in pursuit. Garcia added that they also car- ried a box with bombs, though he did not know for what purpose. in the record of the investigation made last March by the jvidge of first instance at Tapachula, appear the depositions of Dr. Charles E. Mordaunt, an American citizen ; Jos^ Maria Chacon, resident at Tapachula; Timoteo Leon, a Guatemalan by birth but Mexican by naturalization; and Juan Maria C'outiuo, resident at Tapachula. Mordaunt testified that he knows from the statements of several exiles and of some Guatemalans that the president of that republic has aided and continues to aid the revolutionists; that having seen the invaders of Tnxtla Chico at the time of their first incursion, he saw them again in the town of El Rodeo, Guatemala, engaged in trade with a capital furnished them by the President of Guatemala according to their own statement, and that he knows by the evidence of his own eyes that, on the two occasions when the Department of Soconiisco was invaded, the arms and ammunition employed belonged to the Guatemalan army, that several Guatemalans accompanied the Mexican invaders, all of whom, on their return, were not molested but were aided by the said president. Chacon testified that the President of Guatemala, Don Rufino Barrios, not only fa- vors the filibusters but furnishes them arms, ammunitiou, and even explosive pro- jectiles. This he knows from having been in December of last year at Costa Cuca, Guatemala, with Basilio Saenz, of Tapachula, a fugitive from justice for crimes not political. Saenz informed him that President Barrios had given bim $400 in cash, and loaned him .|3,000 for two years without interest, on condition that he would head a party of filibusters who should take possession of Soconusco, causing to be signed in the towns petitions in favor of annexation to Guatemala. This Chacon believes to be true, because Barrios himself has proposed to give the witness money aud ofiicial positions with the same object of annexing Soconusco to Guatemala; that it is a no- torious fact that President Barrios gives aid and comfort to all discontented Mexicans who arrive at his capital for political reasons, on condition of their taking up arms against Mexico, and that the week before last two small parties of Guatemalan sol- diers invaded Mexican territory near Cuatepec, having penetrated two leagues within the municipality of Ayutla. Timoteo Leon testified that it is true that President Barrios favors the filibusters who invade Mexico, which fact he knows because they are habitually organized and armed in Guatemalan towns in the presence of the authorities, who do nothing to im- pede them, although they have at their command the telegraph by which they might give information. Lastly, Coutino gives a similar opinion, based upon the fact that the filibusters themselves have publicly boasted of the protection given them by President Barrios, and that Faustino C.lrdenas, the leader in the sack of Tnxtla Chico, having been previously under arrest in Guatemala, was set at liberty in order to invade Mexico, and that, in all the attacks made upon Tnxtla Chico, the point of reunion of the in- vaders has been at San Vicente Cananti, very near the headquarters of the com- mander of Malacatan, Don Joaquin Velasco, who aided tliem with money and arms, all which is public and notorious by the admission of the filibusters themselves. This document concludes with a dispatch from the judge, in which he excuses him- self for the delay in sending the record of his investigation. (Signed) FELIX GALINDO, Chief of the Section of Amei'ica. Mexico, November 10, 188L Document ISTo. V. [A brief sumniary of the contents of a book published by Seiior Don Matiaa Romero, bearing the title "Refutation of the charges made against the citizen Matias Romero by the Government of Guatemala."] . Among the principal complaints made by the Government of Guatemala to the Gov- ernment of Mexico, respecting difficulties on the frontier of Soconusco, are those re- ferring to the conduct of Mr. Matias Romero during the first two years that he resided on that frontier. These complaints were embodied in three notes, dated April 9, 12, and 14, 1875, addressed to the Mexican minister of foreign afl'airs by the Guatemalan BOUNDAKY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 8 if representative iu Mexico, by order of General Jos^ Eufino Barrios, President of Gua-^ temala, and printed as appendices to the " Memoir of the Mexican Foreign Office," bearing date December 4, 1875. Although the references made by the Mexican min- ister to these complaints iu the memoir in question were perfectly conclusive as to the degree of importance which should be attached thereto, Mr. Eomero sought and ob- tained from the foreign office, under dates of July 31 and August 2, 1876, permission for the publication of an extended refutation of the Guatemalan charges, as an ap- pendix to the foreign office memoir of that year. This document, which was issued from the government press, consists of a quarto volume of three hundred and seventy- seven pages, of which one hundred and sixty-three are filled with Mr. Romero's ref- utation, and the remainder with eighty-three documents illustrative of the text. This volume bears the title ' ' Refutation of the charges made against the citizen Matias Romero by the Government of Guatemala." Mr. Romero, who is well known in the United States as the efficient minister plenipotentiary of Mexico during the war of intervention in that republic, was subseqviently for several years minister of finances under Presidents Juarez and Diaz, member of the Federal Congress, and postmaster- general, and was recently instrumental in the organization in the United States of the Mexican Southern Railway Company, under the auspices of General U. S. Grant^ who accompanied him to Mexico in the spring of 1881. Mr. Romero begins his refutation by an analysis of the charges made against him, which he divides into seventeen heads, each of which is separately considered. The volume is divided into three parts. Part I is entitled " A statement of my conduct in Soconusco in respect to General Barrios and Giiatemala." Part II consists of a " Reply to the charges made by General Barrios," and Part III is devoted to a con- sideration of the conduct of General Barrios toward Mexico, especially iu reference to the frontier qiiestion. At the outset Mr. Romero cites the language employed by the cJiief clerk of foreign affairs, Mr. Juau deDios Arias, inthethe "Meraoirof Foreign Affairs," bearing date De- cember 4, 1875, and that of his predecessor, the lamented statesman, Mr. Jos6 Maria Lafragua, in four notes addressed to the Guatemalan minister, Mr. Uriarte, under dates of July 4 and 8 and August 11, 1875, all relatiug to the said charges. These communications explicitly declare that such charges are unjust ; that they rest upon insufficient and erroneous data, and that they are expressed in terms unsuited to dip- lomatic correspondence. Tlie Government of Guatemala was therefore formaly in- vited to exhibit proofs of the said charges, which invitation, it is needless to remark^ was not accepted. Mr. Romero then narrates at length the circumstances attending his settlement iu Soconnaco. Having resigned the Mexican ministry of finance on June 10, 1872, just before the death of President Juarez, on account of seriously impaired health, he thought it necessary to devote himself to active agricultural labors. His attention had been previously attracted to the department of Soconusco, whose agricultural resources and capabilities for improvement he had already been instrumental in pro- moting by several fiscal measures and by the publication of a memoir devoted tO' that subject. During a visit which Mr. Romero made to Soconusco, in September and October, 1872, his favorable impressions were confirmed. He then made the ac- quaintance of General Jos6 Rufino Barrios, now President of Guatemala, making him a visit in Quezaltenango, and establishing with him relations of confidence and even intimacy. General Barrios was highly pleased at the proposed establishment of Mr. Romero on the frontier of Soconusco, where he possessed, in Mexican territory, a hacienda called Malacate, which he offered for sale. General Barrios accompanied Mr. Romero on his return to Tapachula, the capital of Soconusco, where, at the in- stance of the latter, public demonstrations were made in his honor. At the request of General Barrios, Mr. Romero wrote a series of comments upon the Guatemalan project of a constitution, then under discussion. As the result of this first visit to Soconusco, although his resources did not permit the purchase of the hacienda of Malacate, he resolved to establish himself near Tap- achula, giving his chief attention to the cultivation of India rubber. He arrived there definitively with his family in February, 1873, and in the following month made a visit to the capital of Guatemala. He found General Barrios provisionally in charge of the presidency, to which he was formally elected two months later. The general received Mr. Romero with the greatest cordiality, expressed a desire that he should settle within the territory of Guatemala, offered him the necessary resources for the purchase of lauds, and expressed a desire to become his pai'tner in establishing a n^w coffee plantation on Mexican public lands adjacent to his hacienda of Malacate and to the Guatemalan frontier. The latter proposal alone was accepted by Mr. Romero, and an unsigned contract was drawn up. The confidence of General Barrios was at this time carried to the extreme of intrusting Mr. Romero with the drawing up of a decree establishing religious liberty in Guatemala in conformity with Mexican ante- cedents, and with the preparation of one or more editorial articles in defense of the^ provisional government of Barrios. 90 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. Returning by land to Socouusco, Mr. Romero visited the /iacienrfa of Malacate to in- spect the lands proposed for the cofi'ee plantation, and then devoted himself to the formation of his own ludia rubber plantation, called the Hular de Zuchiate, on lands adjacent to the sea. In August, 1873, he again visited Malacate iu company with the government surveyor, and eifected the denouncement and survey of a tract of public lauds adequate for the contemplated coft'ee plantation to the north of Malacate, ad- jacent to the reputed frontier of Guatemala, but taking care that the lands in question should be exclusively on Mexican territory. Contracts were made with the laborers resident in the vicinity for planting corn and for clearing the land destined for the coffee plantation, to which the name of " Cafetal Juarez" was given. President Bar- rios was duly and minutely informed by letters of all the steps taken in pursuance of his repeated requests. In January, 1874, General Barrios visited his hacienda of Malacate and inspected, in ■company with Mr. Romero, the lauds comprising the " Cafetal Juarez." He then ex- pressed a fear that a portion of those lands belonged to Guatemala, and indicated what he conceived to be the frontier between the two republics in terms differing from what had been assumed as such by Mr. Romero — namely, the course of the small river Petacalapa. As the result of his inspection of the lands. General Barrios with- drew from the proposed partnership, leaving Mr. Romero free to form the projected coffee plantation on his own account, under promise of efiQcacious co-operation from the Indian laborers resident within the frontier of Guatemala. During this visit of General Barrios to Socouusco he was informed that three Guate- malan exiles, residing at Tapachula, had formed a plot to assassinate him. Through the Intervention of Mr. Romero, those individuals were arrested and kept in prison for some weeks. They were afterwards liberated by the local judge, against the opinion of Mr. Romero, on the ground of lusuflBcient evidence. This circumstance highly displeased President Barrios, who habitually considered Mr. Romero responsi- ble for everything that passed in Socouusco. After the return of General Barrios, Mr. Romero continued his labors in the forma- tion of the coffee plantation called "Cafetal Juarez," counting upon the good-will of Barrios, repeatedly expressed in letters bearing date February and March, 1874. Various reports reached the ears of Mr. Romero that Barrios had stated that the said plantation was in Guatemalan territory, and that the cultivation should therefore not be permitted ; but the Guatemalan president denied iu his letters the truth of these re- ports. On the 9th of May, however, the alcaldes of the Guatemalan town of Tajomulco proceded to the "Cafetal Juarez," with two hundred Indians, and after reading an order from the political chief of San Marcos, Guatemala, cut down with their machetes all the young coffee trees, and carried oft' prisoners to Guatemala the two men in charge of the plantation, one of whom was kept four days in the public prison of San Marcos. Mr. Romero was naturally averse to believe that this destruction had been ordered by President Barrios. He immediately informed General Barrios by letter of the outrage committed on his estate, and received a prompt reply disavowing the act, And giving assurance that orders had been sent to the Indians in question to abstain from further molestation. The mayordomo of Mr. Romero, named Fermin Maldonado, on his return from his imprisonment in San Mtircos, received information that a party of the Indians who had committed the former outrage had again assembled iu a hiit at Altau^, within Mexican territory. Desirous to avenge the wrongs he had suft'ered, he collected eight or nine laborers from the coffee plantation, and made an incursion to Altan^. The Indians fled at his apj)roach, and he proceeded to burn down three huts and carry off four boxes of corn. He also caught one of the Indians of Guatemala, whom he sent prisoner to Tapachula, informing Mr. Romero by letter of what he had done. The huts were of the kind that may readily be constructed by three or four meu in a single day, and were accordingly valued at $1 apiece. The corn was estimated to be worth ■$8. The total valuation of the loss was therefore eleven or twelve dollars, but the event figures in the charges made by General Barrios as the burning and sack of a Ouatemalan town. Mr. Romero was ignorant of this act of his mayordomo, which he at once condemned on receiving information thereof. He wrote to the political chief of San Marcos offering to pay the damage incurred, and subsequently wrote in similar terms to President Barrios, disavowing all responsibility for the act of his mayordomo. Meanwhile the Guatemalan exiles in Tapachula, three of whom had already been arrested, as before mentioned, for an alleged conspiracy against the life of General Barrios, were secretly preparing an invasion of Guatemala. The political chief of Tapachula, having received information of the fact, consulted Mr. Romero as to what should be done, and, by his advice, the leaders were arrested the same night. As there was not, however, sufficient legal evidence to justify their continued imprison- ment, Mr. Romero wrote out a legal opinion to the effect that the President of Mexico should be solicited to expel them from the republic as " pernicious foreigners." This opinion, doubtless, displeased General Barrios, who desired more efficacious measures to be taken. An order was subsequently obtained from the governor of the State of BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 91 Cliiapas for sending the prisoners to the State capital, but Captain Tellez, in com- mand of a company of federal troops at Tapachula, refused to surrender them. The same officer co-operated with the prisoners respecting their projected invasion of Guatemala, seizing upon all the Guatemalan Indians in the vicinity to increase the ranks of his company. On the 27th of June the prisoners were allowed to give a ball in the house of Tellez, and, having intoxicated the federal troops, they were next morning placed under the orders of the Guatemalan exiles, nominally prisoners, for a filibustering expedition against Guatemala. They crossed the frontier the same day, committing various outrages and assassinations by the way, and on the following day were completely routed, near San Marcos, by Colonel Lopez, the political chief of that place, already mentioned. Three of the leaders were killed in action ; four others were taken prisoners and were executed at San Marcos two months later. An attempt was subsequently made by General Barrios to connect Mr. Eomero with this incursion. The facts were, that he had used all his influence to prevent its taking place, having even had an intervhiw with the Guatemalan exiles while prisoners, in which he endeavored to dissuade them from any step of the kind. Moreover, at the moment of the invasion, Mr. Romero was at San Marcos, Guatemala, where he had gone to see the political chief, Colonel Lopez, respecting the destruction of his coffee plantation, and he only escaped falling into the hands of the filibusters by the acci- dent of having taken a different road on his return. During this visit to San Mar- cos, Colonel Lopez avowed that the destruction of the "Cafetal Juarez" had been effected pursuant to orders of President Barrios, but he came to an understanding, apparently amicable, with Mr. Romero, as to the future conduct to be observed by both parties. Since Mr. Romero could not be proved to be directly responsible for the filibuster- ing expedition in question, General Barrios afterward undertook to hold him indi- rectly responsible, as having been the adviser of the sending of a Mexican federal garrison to Tapachula. It is true that, as early as September, 1871, before having visited Soconusco, Mr. Romero suggested, in an official document, the sending of such a force, and that, during the early part of his residence in Tapachula (September, 1873), he repeated the suggestion. This was, perhaps, the cause of the sending of the first installment of federal troops, consisting of but sixty men, who arrived in Novem- ber, 1873. Unfortunately, through the ignorance and inaptitude of their commander, Captain Tellez, these men were, for the most part, seduced into the filibustering ex- pedition against Guatemala, as above mentioned. The plan of sending such a force had, however, been warmly approved by General Barrios in letters to Mr. Romero. After the events above referred to, Mr. Romero solicited the sending of a more numer- ous federal force, under an officer of greater intelligence and confidence. In fact, a small battalion of federal infantry was sent from Acapulco, under the orders of Lieut. Col. Antonio Ponce de Leon, and arrived in Tapachula early in September, 1874. That officer had instructions to repel any invasion of Mexican territory by Guatemalans — instructions, doubtless, due in part to the destruction of Mr. Romero's plantation, which had created considerable interest in Mexico, and had been the subject of two official investigations. Colonel Ponce de Leon naturally wished to become acquainted with the line generally considered as the actual frontier with Guatemala, and invited Mr. Romero to accompany him. With an escort of ten soldiers they visited, in November, 1874, the " Cafetal Juarez," and adjacent localities, taking care not to pass the reputed frontier of Guatemala. Nevertheless, this reconnaissance gave great alarm to the frontier authorities of Guatemala, and was magnified by General Bari'ios into an out- rage against that republic. Previous to this event, and immediately after his return from San Marcos, in July, 1874, Mr. Romero, in fulfillment of a promise made to Colonel Lopez, addressed com- munications to the municipalities of Tajpmulco and Sibinal, the authorities of which had participated in the destruction of his property. In these documents he gave his reasons for considering the lands in question to be Mexican territory, and, without entering further upon subjects of controversy, offered to pay the damages caused by the reprisals made by Maldonado at AltaujI. These documents were sent by the muni- cipalities to Colonel Lopez, at San Marcos, and by him to General Barrios. They elicited an angry reply from Colonel Lopez, in which the tenor of these documents was treated as an offense of sedition against Guatemala, which should be dealt with by the courts, and it was insinuated that Mr. Romero was an accomplice of the recent filibustering ex}^ -edition. Meanwhile, Mr. Romero had resolved to desist from the purchase of the lands form- ing the coffee plantation, but his agent in Mexico had already made payment of the price to the Government, and an oificial title had been issued to him in August, 1874, by which the Mexican Government became the guarantee that the lands were really Mexican territory. The possession of this document gave him an unquestionable right to Mexican protection, but he nevertheless resolved not to solicit such interven- tion, and to leave the territorial question to be decided by a treaty of limits. Conse- quently, he did not make any demand for diplomatic redress, nor even address any 92 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. complaint ou tlie subject to the Mexican newspapers. From otlier sources, however, those paper's recei'^'ed information on the subject, anos- session which Guatemala maintains to have enjoyed, showing that there was a time so far back when that possession was interrupted. After the Mexican Eini)ire was conquered by the Spaniards Chiapas and Soconusco remained for the first few years subject to the colonial rule, as parts of New Spain. Both provinces were afterwards aggre- gated to Guatemala, which figured also for some jearsas a province of Mexico, till she finally established her audiencia. These changes are of no significance whatever ; as the whole continent being then ruled by Spain, the aggregation of one province to another was simply for the object of facilitating its administration, without cre- ating thereby new nationalities nor granting new rights to him who thought to have them over the whole country. It is to be noticed, how- ever, that Soconusco was considered, even during the colonial rule, as a government; that is, it was not made part of any of the other frac- tions composing the kingdom of Guatemala, till its importance having diminished on account of the abandonment in which it was left, it was reduced to a district of the intendeucy of Chiapas. It has there- fore been demonstrated that Chiapas and Soconusco belonged to Mex- ico and that Soconusco formed part of Chiapas at least since 1790. The independence of Mexico having been i)rochiimed for the second time in 1821, Chiapas was the first province of what was called the kingdom of Guatemala which made known its separation from Spain and its union to Mexico on the 3d day of September, proclaiming, on the 8th, its indei)endence in the most solemn manner. This act, performed with the most complete liberty, is the first ground of the rights of Mex- ico; the observation which has some time been made concerning the duty of Chiapas to act in accordance with Guatemala being of no value whatever. When the province of Chiai)as broke the link which sub- jected her to Spain, she recovered the full exercise of her independence, and by use of a perfect right incorporated herself to the Mexican Em- pire, as the other ])rovinces of the general captaincy did, and as Gua- temala herself did at last. Nobody doubted the riglit which she had to proclaim herself independent and call for a congress, nor that which Salvador performed in order to oppose her union to Mexico, even after that of the other provinces had taken place. Guatemala usurped, there- fore, rights which 'were not hers, when she included Chiapas in her act of union to Mexico, sigued on the oth of January, 1822, since she con- fesses, in that same document, that Nicaragua, Comayagua, and Chi- apas had been entirely separated from her. In view of the dilierence which was noticed between the conduct of Chiapas and that of Guatemala, which latter, on ])roclaiming her inde- pendence on the 15th of September, 1821, constituted herself as a separate nation; the authorities of Chiapas declared again its separation from Guatemala on the 2Gth of the same month, and on the 22d of October appointed a commissioner to go to Mexico to further the complete sepa- - ration from Guatemala, even in case the latter should submit herself to the Mexican Empire. This is the second ground of the rights of Mexico, (luclosure No. 1.) In consequence of such repeated proofs of adhesion, the governmen- tal Junta of Mexico decreed, in a meeting held on the 12th of Novem- ber, 1821, to ofier to the province incorporated to the empire and to the H. Ex. 154 — -7 98 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. Others (from Guatemala) which might afterwards do tlie same, all the protection demanded by their voluntary adhesion to onr Government, without compromising the places which may be willing to follow another course. This i)hrase is the clearest ])roof of the fairness of Mexico, since it shows that she di!DARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. frontier was enouj;b to i)revont there being thedesired liberty at the polls. The most noteworthy thing she did was to protest against the with- drawal of tlie Mexican troops, when some of those of Guatemala remained in Chiai)as. IS^o Mexican troops were, at the time in which the supreme junta declared its aggregation, in tins province or outside it for many leagues. With a vie w of avoiding that, the opinion of the representatives of Chiapas would be unduly inHueuced, the Mexican Government ap- pointed a commissioner to be present at the Junta, and invited Guate- mala to do likewise. The two nations wouhl in this way be witnesses of the legality of that supreme resolution. Guatemala refused its con- sent, notwithstanding that the junta informed it, on the 4th day of August,1824, of the arrival of the Mexican commissioner, alleging that nei- ther of the two nations ought to interfere in the decision. Mexico never pretended to interfere ; she only wanted to avoid another kind of inter- vention, in order that the jnnta,in the presence of the two nations, might proceed as it best suited them. The Mexican Government did then all it could to remov e all motives of complaint. These acts, maliciously In- terpreted, were then, however, and are yet the foundation of Guatemala's protests. (Inclosure No. 3.) The junta of Chiapas ordered registers to be opened in all the districts which, without any pressure, there not being any armed force or any other elements which might restrict its will, should have its opinion freely expressed, and the junta, after mature deliberation and conscien- tious study of the acts, declared, in a solemn meeting held on the 12th of September, 1824, the aggregation to Mexico which had been voted by a majority of the parties, representing a population of 96,829 inhabitants against G0,400 who voted in favor of Guatemala, and 15,724 who did not express any decisive opinion, but who, were they to be added to those who voted in favor of Guatemala, would always leave in iavor of Mex- ico a majority ot 20,705 inhabitants, as the population of Chiapas was then of 172,953 persons. Among the votes cast for Guatemala figured unduly those of the whole of Soconusco, when the truth was that in this department there was also a majority in favor of the union to Mexico. (Inclosure No. 4.) Chiapas thus ratified its final incorporation to the United Mexican States, appearing already in the first constitution of the latter as an integral i>art of the republic. It will not be out of our way to remem- ber that while Mexico had given so many proofs of its desire to see Chiapas act with entire liberty, Guatemala, besides the resistence she opposed and the declarations she made, as has been said, protected, at least in Tuxtla, even after the resolution of the junta, a movement against the aggregation to Mexico, made by the military force which was there, in open violation of the orders of the Mexican Government and of the same junta. But this movement had no favorable result, and on the 7th of October a junta met at Tuxtla and unanimously de- cided the aggregation to the Mexican liepublic. Two reasons have been alleged why the declaration of September 12, 1824, should be invalidated. The first is the presence of the Mexican commissioner, who is said to have exercised pressure in the proceedings of the junta. In the first place when the commissioner arrived at Cin- dad Real, on the 4th of August, the districts had already voted ; there- fore there was no pressure exercised, since the junta confined itself to count the votes, an act which nobody has ever dared to brand with the charge of falsity. The resolution, therefore, was not voted simply by the representatives of the districts, but by the districts themselves, the computing of the count having been made, not by the number of BOUND AEY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 101 the districts, but by the number of the inhabitants. This strengjthened the incorporation, which was truly made by a majority of those who were interested in such a solemn act. In the second place, supposing that the commissioner could exercise 0ny influence, Guatemala cannot complain, since she was invited to send also a representative, but declined such a prudent invitation. Mexico did all in her power to remove any doubt in regard to the legality with whi(;h a matter of such great importance should be decided. The second reason of alleged illegality consists in the presence of military forces. As I have said before, the Mexican minister declared that those Mexican troops were not in Chiapas, nor did SeQor Zebadua allege they were; and although that gentleman pretends the mere news that five hundred men would be stationed on the frontier was sufficient to dei)rive the inhabitants of Chiapas of their liberty, sti'l this argument cannot be seriously made, nor has it any value whatever when it is con- sidered that the whole thing never went beyond the sphere of a simple suggestion made for the piirpose that Central America should be per- suaded of the sincerity of the Mexican Government, which did not pre- tend to take any advantage of any kind. Hence, it is demonstrated that not only was the declaration of Sep- tember 12, 1824, entirely legal, but it ys^as so clear and free that it does not leave the shadow of a doubt in regard to the will of Chiapas. These facts, which appear in official documents, establish in the most conclusive manner the right of Mexico to the province of Chiapas, and close the door against all discussion, because none is possible in view of the spontaneousuess and firmness with which the incorporation was made. Chiapas was not a district of Guatemala, it was a province in every respect equal to Honduras, Costa Rica, Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala herself, which, in fact, had no greater rights than the rest that formed the captaincy-general. What can she allege to sustain her posterior protests against the annexation of Chiapas to Mexico, since the action of that province was like that of the others "? If Chiapas could not unite herself to Mexico by her own action, neither could the other provinces, which asked to be separated from the capital. ISoT could the latter act without counting with Salvador, because as their rights were the same, so were their obligations. Each province acted with entire liberty; and as Mexico respected the will of tlie |)eo- ple who would not unite, so Guateniala must respect that of Chiapas so definitely manifested. I now pass to the question of Soconusco. Under the government of the Aztecs Soconusco was a province of the empire, and during a long time under the rule of the Spaniards was one of the four governments which they established in the kingdom of Guatemala, but since 1790 it was a district of the intendency of Chia- pas. It therefore formed part of the latter in 1821 ; consequently it must suffer the fate of the province, without Guatemala being able to claim a special right to that territory or pretending to separat«^ it from the other districts. Now, when Chiapas prochiiined its union to Mexico, none of the parts which composed it manifested opposition, and Guate- mala herself consented, at least tacitly, as during the em[)ire of Iturbide the provinces which formed the captaincy-general, and which were an- nexed to Mexico; did it with all their districts; it being noticed that if any of them presented resistance they would have taken care to show it; and in that regard the gubern::tive junta used the phrase, without binding or comi)eUing the places which winh to unite ivlth other' governments. If, therefore, Soconusco fiid not tcish to unite u-ith another government., it is, without doubt, that in 1821 she was united, like Chiapas, to the Em- pire of Mexico. 102 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. When, ill 18-3, anarcli.y broke out in the ])rovince Socoiiusco suffered the conmiotion incident to the new condition of affairs; but she was not sei)arated from Chiajias, since, ontlie4rh of July, 1823, Don Manuel Escobar enteied tlie suitrenie junta as re]>resentative of the whole de- partuient ot Soconusco, and on the 31st signed the decree of hasea^ in whi(;h (Jhia])as is soleniidy declared " free and indei)endent of Mexico and all other authority, and in a condition to decide whatever she might think best, this declaration being communicated to the Governments of Mexico and Guatemala." We have, therefore, juoved that Soconusco was at liberty to unite herself to Mexico or to Guatemala, or to Ibim an iude])en(lent nation, but not to separate her destiny from that of Chia])as, in whose junta she was legitimately represented, and whose resolutions she obeyed without any difficulty. The supreme junta reassembled, and on the 9th of Feb- ruary, 1824, Uou Manuel Ignacio Escarra, as representative from Soco- nusco, came to it. The junta, on the 24th of March, having under consideration that the constitutioiud bases of Mexico and Guatemala were already known ; that botli were liberal and both established the federation ; that the form of government not being central, the distance to the respective capitalsdid not enter into the case, since each province should be constituted as it consiJered most to its advantage; that the i)eople were in a condition to calculate for themselves the advantages or disadvantages of their union with one rei)ublic or the other, " desiring to give to all the peo- ple the most irrefutable proof of the respect with which it looked upon their })ubHc interests and happiness, re-enacted what had been i)ro- vided by the circular of December of the year before, and hoping that without further delay all the distiicts should state frankly to which one of the nations they desired to be united, with the understanding that it being incumbent upon them to weigh the advantages or disadvantages of their action, the rej»resentatives who form this junta shall do, as or- gans of the general will, no more than solemnly declare what has been the decision of the i)eople, ui)()n the basis of the number of inhabitants, reporting to the nation in whose lavor the iucorjjoration has been de- cided, with authentic co]»ies ot all the documents and returns, and by these means, no town nor individual could believe that they had inter- fered with the rights of man in a matter so transcendeutly delicate to future generations. In consequence of the decision of the junta, the city government of Tai)achula resolved: That the peoi)]e of Tuxtla and Escuintla, as well as all the rest of the people of the (lepartment, should choose represent- atives and ])nbliely aniu)un(e the day of meeting. This meeting took place on the 3(1 of May, 1824, and was attended not only by the dele- gates but also by the distinguished persons and inlmbitants of Tapa- chula, and the (;ircular of the supreme junta was read in a loud and clear voice, its contents being explained, and it being shown that upon the decision of such a delicate matter the future destiny of the district must dei>eiul. in order that they should reflect upon the decision. They decided by a plurality of votes that they wished to be annexed to the federal Goveniment of the Mexican nation. (Indosure Ko. 5.) iJut, behold I without any Known motive and gixing way j)robably to extraneous intluenc.e, on the 24th ot JuI.n, of the same year, Ta[)achula made a new declaration separating herself from Cliiai)as and declaring herself to he apart of the supreme Government of the united provinces of Central Ameiic i. It was said that this was done in consequence of the decree of the general congress, and of a note of the minister of foreign relations of BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 103 Mexico ; but tliat cause was in every respect insufficient, because, in those documents, the liberty of the province of Chiapas, as slie was constituted had been gunranteed ; her arbitrary dismemberineut had not been authorized. Those documents did not designate the acts which the junta shouhl execute; nor did they revoke those already executed, ratifying only the recognition of the liberty of the province. A proof of the illegality of the declaration of Tapachula is that in the 4th ar- ticle it is i)rovided " to put a division under arms to sustain the decree." A useless precaution if the authors of it should have acted with the justification which governed the act of May 3. On the other hand, as Soconusco had agreed to the formation of the junta and sent its representative twice to it, the new declaration made without any authority was an unlawful, an unjustifiable rebellion. The junta, therefore, gave it no consideration, and its work being ended is- sued the solemn declaration of September 12, 1824, which legally again annexed Chiapas, together with Soconusco, to the Republic of Mexico. That act of Ta]»achula is the only title on which Central America re- lies; and to-day Guatemala pretends to establish her right to Soconusco. Article 1 of the decree of the 18th of August, 1824, expressly declares this ; it says : The province of Socouusco by virtue of its declaratiou is incorporaced. in the Re- public of Central America. The Government of Guatemala makes two arguments in defense of this declaration : (1.) That Soconusco washer province ; (2.) And j»rin- cipally that as Mexico contends that Chiapas was at liberty to separate lierself from Guatemala, so also it must be acknowledged that Soconusco was at liberty to separate herself from Chiapas. The first allegation is incorrect, because although Soconusco was a government of the old kingdom of Guatemala in 1821, it was only a district of Chiapas, and this is the name which was given it in the act of July 24. Consequently the social position of both parts was not as identical as was necessary in order that the rights of both should be the same; since, if this prin- ciple be admitted, the separation of each town, of each village, must be consented to, which would cause innumerableevils ; but, even supposing that absolute liberty, even admitting that Soconusco could be separated from Chiapas, the truth is that she did not do it in 1821, nor in 1823, when the separation of the o"ther provinces of Guatemala and the anarchy of Chiapas presented the most opportune occasion, and that, far from separating herself, she united more strongly her destiny with that of Chiapas, contributing to the formation of the supreme junta. Conse- quently not having made use of the right which was given her the first allegation of Guatemala is entirely destroyed. So is the second, if it is considered that the true the only origin of the constitution of a society is the legal vote of the people who compose it. Soconusco accepted, obeyed, and sustained the supreme junta; she was legitimately represented in it; exercised in the most solemn manner her right of election, deciding on the 3d of Maj', 1824, in favor of the annex- ation to Mexico. In short, she exercised all the functions which cor- respond to a free and supreme people like herself. What more could she claim ? She had done what the other districts of Chiapas did ; what the other iH'ovinces of Guatemala had just done; what those that had composed Xew Spain had done before ; what has been done and is done all over the world: the only thing which is possible to do when demo- cratic principles recognized once as sacred and the representative sys- tem is established as the most convenient government lor the interests of society. 104 ' BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. But if Soconusco was at liberty to choose she was not at liberty to re- verse the election ; this done, the act was in every respect consummated ; in attempting to reverse it no right was exercised ; an obligation con- tracted in the most solemn manner was revolutionarily broken, because the fact that Soconusco had to obey the junta was an obligation, and a very sacred one. Seiior Don Juan de Dios Mayorga, representative for Guatemala, in a speech made in the Congress of 1823 said : That " the junta should act in conformity with the mission wliich it had re- ceived from the peoi)le." Therefore, if it was obliged to act according to the will of the people, the people also had to obey the decisions which should be made within the legal jiowers of the junta; consequently Soconusco was obliged to obey the decree of annexation with all the more justice, in as far as it agreed with her own vote of May 3, 1824. But let us suppose for a moment that on that day Soconusco should have voted in favor of Guatemala. If the assembly, when the votes of all the districts were computed, had declared that the majority was in favor of annexation to Mexico, Soconusco was bound to submit; since in consenting to the creation of the junta and giving it its powers, it had contracted the obligation of submitting to its final decision. In no other way can the rejjresentative system be conceived ; if each part is considered perfectly at liberty to revoke the power conferred, to break the compact when made, the necessary consequences will be revolution, the triumph of power over right, and the dissolution of society. As I said before, the decree of the Mexican Congress on which the sec- ond vote of Tapachula was founded cannot su])port that really seditious act, because in declaring that Chiapas was free to decide her destiny it did not in the least limit the i)ower of the junta. On the contrary, Mexico in that decree recognized the junta, because it was issued after the junta had met, and that acknowledgment naturally carried with it a sanction of all the steps which the assembly might take in a matter so important. And as one of these had been to hear the opinion of the districts, and as that was done anterior to the decree, and this did not modify the situation of Chiapas in any respect, but rather contirmed the acts of the junta, this worked within its powers, performed its mission loyally, and should be obeyed by Soconusco and respected by Guate- mala. But both people, far from complying wi'th such sacred obligations, placed themselves in a plainly seditious position. Soconusco, breaking her anterior and voluntary promises, turned her back on the junta, and made the declaration of July 24, and Central America, without waiting for the decision of the legitimate representatives of the province, and forgetting her spontaneous declaration, issued on August 18, 1824, the decree in which it was declared tliat Soconusco was incorporated in the Central Republic. That decree was in truth an undue act, and all the more grave, since it not only attacked the right, in every respect un- questionable, that the supreme junta of Chiapas had of deciding the indei)endence of the i)rovince or its annexation to either of the nations, but it also put Central America in the most jierfect contradiction with itself. When, in 1823, the formation of the junta was communicated to her, the national constituent assembly resolved, on July 21 (see inclos- ure No. G) : That if at last Chiapa.s wished to be annexed to these United Provinces she wonld be re(reived with the greatest )>le;isnre, and then tlieir happiness would be complete; "but if the same Chiapas should think it more in conformity with her interests to re- innin separated, she shonlil not be opposed, for she can always entirely rely upon the friendship, the fraternity, and the services of the State of Guatemala. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 105' This solemn declnratioii contains three points of the utmost impor- tance. (L.) The confession tliat Chiapas was separated from Guatemala,, as it was left at liberty to remain, a sentence which confirms the legality with which the aniiexation to the empire in 1821 was verified. (2.) The most voluntary protest to abide by the decision of Chiapas, because "the United Provinces must respect the free will of those who are not resolved to enter into our compact." (3.) The most explicit acknowl- edgment of the supreme junta, whose wisdom and circumspection they justly commended. There is still more: The (xovernment of Guatemala sent to the Gov- ernment of Mexico on October 3, 1823, a communication, in which it says it has " the firm determination not to oppose the decision of Chiai)as if she wished to unite herself to Mexico." How, therefore, without wait- ing for the decision of the junta did that same Congress of Central America declare that Soconusco, by virtue of her declaration, became incorporated in the Central llepublic ? Was the unlawful and sediiious vote of July 24 sufficient to u-urp the powers of the supreme junta? The decree of August 18, 1824, broke the decisionof July 21, 1823; and it can be said that the latter comprised the province of Chiapas and the former only the State of Soconusco, because when it was made, no ex- ception to any part of the province was expressed, and Soconusco was comprised in Chiapas, as she had belonged to the old intendency, as she then belonged to the province, and as she had voted on May 3, as the other districts did. Even supposing that Soconusco was at liberty to^ reverse the first vote, Guatemala, not only for the respect which it owed the supreme junta, but for the respect it owed itself, was strictly obliged to wait for the decision of Chiapas. The resolution of July 21, 1823, ■was a compact as solemn as it had been voluntarj^ ; to break it only for a vote given in perfect rebellion was an act in every respect contrary to the principles of justice, and to wish to establish a right upon it was- then and is now an entirely unsustainable claim. The junta of Chiapas in September, 1824, protested against the decree of August 18 ; and the Mexican Government, by virtue of the right which the solemn declara- tion of September 12 of the same year gave it, remonstrated in March, 1825, against the usurpation of the district of Soconusco. As is seen, the contrast between the two Governments cannot be more complete. Mexico sought for the free expression of the will of Chiapas ; Guatemala refused to co-operate in that act of justice. Mex- ico received in the confederation Chiapas and Soconusco, by virtue of the lawful resolution of a junta, recognized by Central America herself. Central America decreed by herself that Soconusco belonged to her by virtue of an illegal and revolutionary act. Mexico did not then ap- peal to force, having the necessary elements to do it, aiul waited during many months that the conviction might produce a favorable result. Guatemala, on January 25, 1825, prepared to occupy Tapachula with her own troops, thus opening the door to new and very grave difficul- ties. This attitude, already really hostile, obliged the Government of Chia- pas to prepare in June, 1825, to march troops to Tonala, and the fed- eral Government hastened the march of General Anaya, since the in- tention of Guatemala was no longer doubtful. The Mexican troops by entering Chiapas did in no way offend Guatemala, as they situated themselves in territory unquestionably Mexican. The federal Go\ ern- ment was not obliged to give an account to Central America of her military movements, which were not subject to the will of a foreigu. country. So much the less when the arbitrary occupation of Tapachula 106 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. was a true threat to tbe trauquillity of Chiapas, which Mexico was -ol)lijieressed in support of them is without any founda- tion. Seiior Don Juan de Dias Mayorga, representative of Central America, suggested, first, that the question should be submitted to the decision of the congress of Panama. Sefior Don Lucas Alaman, the Mexican minister, declared, on August 22. 1825, that the means i)roposed were not acceptable ; because the general congress had not been ])leased to approve the stipulation of the treaty made with Colombia, in which it was desired to be stijjulated that the congress of all the American States should perform the functions of umpire. On the 24th Seiior Mayorga said to Sefior Alaman: As tbe point in question reduces itself to a dispute about tbe boundaries of each republic ; tbe object of a treaty is to regulate tbem, wbich treaty could be made, or let your Government send a minister to mine, or I can ask tbe corresponding instruc- tions to frame it, as my Goverument instructed mo tbat I can offer to present it within Jive moiilhs. Tbis treaty itself could contain the most firm and sure guarantees for the independence and integrity of tbe territory on wiiicli it might mutually be agreed ; it would be respected, and in this way all tbe necessary confidence for establishing a more solid friendship would be inspired. In tbe mean time the district of Soconusco should be free from the troops of either party, without prejudice to the rights of my Government, while its fate is being decided by the treaty which I propose. Seiior Alaman answered, on the 31st of August, the following, which, on account of the imiiortance that has been given to this incident by Guatemala, I think it well to insert here verbatim: By the communication of your excellency dated the 24th of last month, which I have communicated to the most excellent President of these States, his excellency has seen, with tbe greatest satisfaction, tbe means projiosed by the Government of your excellency of submitting to the decision of the congress which has to meet in Panama, the question pending between this Government and yours relative to the dis- trict of Soconusco, and, although he does not think tbis suggestion acceptable, he be- lieves, nevertheless, tbat other means more appropriate may be selected to terminate this question amicably. What your excellency has suggested meets the wishes of his excellency, who agrees that immediate stt-ps should be taken to frame a treaty, for the purpose not only of regulating the boundaries betwecin the two republics, but also of fixing upon a firm and solid basis their mutual relations in tbe future, for wbich, for the sake of brevity, it would be the best for your Government to give your ex- cellency the necessary instructions, thus avoiding tbe delay which would originate by the traveling of tbe representative of this Goverument who might be sent to yours. In the mean time the troops and military authorities of the United Provinces of Cen- tral Ameiica shall evacuate the territory in the district ossibly conceived, in view of the decrees of 1825 and 1839, which de(jlarele from acting ac- cording to their best interest. Furthermore, the dissolution of Central America authorized the con- duct of Soconusco, which, as appears from the act of July, 1824, did not unite herself to Guatemala but to the United Provinces of Central Amer- ica. Consequently, when those provinces were separated, when there was no central Government to represent them outside, when each one strug- gled to be independent without relying on the others, when in use of its particular sovereignty each one tried to enter on relations with foreign Governments, as Guatemala earnestly pretended at that time in respect to Mexico, Soconusco could rightly say that the agreement made in Tapachula had ceased, and consequently she was at liberty to decide her destiny again. And if this is so, by supposing that the vote of July 24, 1824, was legal, what will be said when its complete nullity is proved ? Guatemala can allege no right to impede the annexation of Soconusco, becau>e there was no agreement in 1825 ; because if there should have been one, it was violated, and because the only title which she could present at that time was totally void, and eveu supposing it valid, it became extinct on the dissolution of the federation of Central America, Why, therefore, does Guatemala complain of the occupation of Soco- nusco in 18421 In view of the declarations of that people, having only considered their suffV^rlngs and desiring to save the dignity of the nation, w^ounded for seventeen years by acts really unlawful, the Government of Mexico resolved that Colonel Aguayo should occupy the territory which after- wards was declared united to Chiapas. In doing this it exercised the light which the vote of May 3, 1824, and the declaration of the sui^reme junta gave it. The conjmunications of 1825 imposed no obligations upon it, and the conduct of Guatemala still more authorized it by sending troops to So- conusco and exacting taxes, thereby intringing upon tlie only points on which an agreement had existed, and which, morally at least, would 112 * BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. produce for her some obligations, through respect to the decree of her congress. Was the occupation of 1842 a crime for Mexico, and the often repeated violation of the neutrality a virtue? Did Mexico infringe upon the law of nations by occupying a district that was hers in fact and in law in 1821, which has continued to be hers by right since 1824, and which, even supposing legal, the second vote of Tai)acbula expressed again her will to bo united to the republic? Must that will only be respected when it is in favor of Guatemala! Did Central America comply with the obligations which were imposed npon it by the solemn declaration that it made to respect the decision of the supreme junta of Chiapas, which thought it more in conformity with her interests to remain separated from Guatemala? Was it a pi oof of that respect to declare that Soconusco belonged to it by virtue of an illegal act, and without waiting for the decision of the junta in which Soconusco was legitimately represented. Guatemala only relies upon the illegal vote of July, 1824; Mexico re- lies on the vote of 1821, on that of May 3, 1824, on the declaration of Sep- tember 12 of the same year, and on the solicitations of 1842. Who has therefore the greatest number of titles to sustain the possessions of So- conusco? Which of those titles have the best foundation? That of Guatemala is supported by the illegal disavowal of the junta and by illegal revocation of the previous vote, that is, it has a vicious origin, because Soconusco had freely recognized the junta and expressed its opinion on May 3. The decree of Guatemala, made on the I8ih of August, solely by virtue of that act, is also void, because Central America had recognized the junta and gave assurance that its decision would be respected. Was the second vote of Tapachula worth more than the first? Why did Central America so willingly accept it with- out waiting for the decision of the junta? The claims on which Mexico founds her right are, without doubt, the most solid. Nobody has ever doubted the vote of 1821. Guatemala did not remonstrate against the representation of Soconusco in the junta of Chiapas nor against the vote of May 3. The former and latter were, therefore, not only legal in their essence but were accepted by Guatemala, which only, on the 18th of August, resolved that the vote of July was superior to all, forgetting her ofiicial declarations. The resolution of the junta was, moreover, an act entirely' legal, and the declarations of 1842 are legitimate. The de- cree of President Santa Ana, far from being a usurpation, was only the result of a right which was supported by the will of the j^eople of Soco- nusco, expressed in so many different ways and with i)erfect liberty. In view of the occupation of Soconusco, Sehor Don Juan Jos6 de Aycinena, as secretary of the Government of the State of Guatemala, sent to the minister of foreign relations of Mexico a communication on the 12th of September, 1842, in which he defends the right of Guate- mala, and alleges the reasons which according to his judgment establish the pretensions so earnestly sustained since 1824. As the principal arguments of Seuor Aycinena have already been examined, and answered in this note, I shall only consider some si)ecial ones. It is alleged to establish the right to Soconusco a law of the code of the Indies, in which it is provided that the audiencia of Guatemala must be composed of certain provinces, Soconusco being enumerated among them. That proof does not hold good, because, as 1 have said before, the congregation or separation of the districts or provinces under the colonial rule only had relation to the administrative part. Two portions that were united became separated when their respective prog- BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA 11 3^ ress gave them a certain importance ; those that were separated be- came united when the decline of one made it less important/ Thus it happened to Soconusco, which was a province in the sixteenth century, and at the end of the eighteenth was a district in the intendency of Chiapas. She could iierself well have been the first province in the kingdom of Guatemala. It is certain that in 1821 she was only a district of Chiapas, which is sufficient for the question now before us. The argument founded on the laws of the Indies would be proof against the independence of the c lonies, which had to follow the destiny of the mother country. The true and only argument in cases like this is the will of the people. The argument which Seilor Aycinena pretends to establish on articles 10 and 11 of the Mexican law of June 17, 1823, is as wortliless as the preceding one. That law ordered the election of the constituent con- gress, and, as was natural, it (jonditionally included the province of Guatemala, not in conformity with the old territorial division, but con- sidering nominally those which had been united to the empire, it is certain that Chiapas appears in the list, but it is also certain that Soco- nusco or Tapachula, since under both names it was known, does not, an omission winch gives as a result that the argumeut is c>ntry means of her own acts and her ministers resident in (.'eulrai America. As Seiior Aycinena does not mention these acts by name, it is not possible to examine the reasons which caused them, nor to judge of the bearing which they might have on the present question. Some, per- haps, were convlitioral ; that is, they were to be executed under the supposition of some new agreement ; others may have been the result of the necessity to prevent the crimes that were committed in Soco- nusco, wheie the criminals of both nations had taken refuge. Of this species is the connnunication a(hlressed by Minister Almonte, on March 21, 1840, to the military commander of Chiajjas, for the i)urpose of ob- taining the extradition of condemned criminals, with the authority of Guatemala, and without breal^ing the neutrality. But let the ni'.mber and nature of those acts be what tht\y may, and also the language that may have been used ; the former and latter prove that Mexico tolerated an act, but they do nor. i)rove that she rec- ogiiized a right; they prove that Mexico did not meddle with the inte- rior aect to Chiapas. Guatemala in giving her consent that that department aud Soconusco may continue as theii are, that is, ap- nexed to Mexico, desisting from the protests which it has made upon this subject for highly political considerations, proposes that Mexico should satisfy, as seems just, this indebtedness, for which each section is responsible in soUdum, and in which many establishments and persons in this republic are interested. The proposition seems just and equitable. The article therefore is modified and substituted with the following draft of agree- ment, which, with this explanation, he asks that it may be inserted in the protocol: "The plenipotentiaries, &c., having on this day provided in the agreement of bound- 116 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. aries between Mexico and Guatemala tluit the Governiueut of Mexico shall release Chiapas from the obligation which she has ta share, as a province of the Kingdom of Guatemala in the time of the Spanish Government. For the purpose of terminat- ing this point it is stipulated as part of said treaty: (1.) Mexico shall give to Gua- temala $450,000 within one year, as the portion which bclougs to Chiapas and Socon- nsco under statistics ('xamineower ; consequently there was no supremacy of any kind, and on separating both preserved their resj^ective domain over public ])roi)erty, and the same rights they had to their respective territory. And as Soconusco, in 1821, did not belongs to the ])rovince of Guatemala, but toth at of Chiapas, it is with- out doubt that, having been annexed to Mexico, together with Chiapas, the destiny of that State was settled, and Guatemala has no power to exercise any right of any kind within its limits. On the other hand, Senor Pereda, in comparing the liquidation made by the de5)aitmental treasury of Chiapas with tlie one made in Guate- mala, said : "That even admitting the legality of the indebtedness, there was a balance in favor of Mexico due by Guatemala." This observation becomes very powerful, if it is considered that to day the amount would not be still $458,000, but a very much larger sum, owing to the accrued interest since 1854. Suppose for a moment that (Uiatemala had a per- fect right, it would be necessary for her to prove that she had paid the interest from 1821 up to date; because in any other way Mexico would pay a consideiable sum for unpaid interest, the settlemenj; of which might possibly be obtained under very favorable arrangements; since the total debt in 1821, including the interest, being $24ir),.527.50, the part corres])onding to Chiapas being $211,052.75, according to the di- vision, which, without giving her a hearing, was made in the auditor's ofdce of Guatemala, on February 24, 1854. Moreover, if, as is deduced from the statement of S<*fior Pavou, as well as the memorandum of Seiior Uriarte of August 21, 1874, and from BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 119 the communication of Senor Herrera, of January 14, 1882, the sum liqui- dated by the treasury of Ohia]}as is not included in the general debt of Central' America, there would be a notorious injustice in pretending that Mexico should pay a part of the debt of the other provinces, without the latter paying proportionally the special one of Chiapas, that has the same origin as the general one. It is seen, therefore, that under no circumstances can the Government of Mexico recognize a debt which Guatemala has no right to demand either for herself or by assuming the representation of the other provinces that formed her captaincy-general, because each one must only answer for the amounts which were specially charged on its own treasury, and to the security of which, as Seiior Pa- von said, teas specialli/ pledged the revenue of each province, which, on this account, was not obliged to answer for the debt of the others. Having the succinct examination which I have made of the ante- cedents of the question of limits bcjtween Mexico and Guatemala, and of the reasons wliy Mexico does not feel under obligation to pay the pecuniary indemnification that has been asked of her, it is well to explain the considerations which arise from the facts referred to. If these facts are examined impartially, and tlie observations that flow from them are studied, it will be impossible to find the reason on which Guatemala relies to sustain her pretensions in respect to Chiapas and Soconusco. Let the political or administrative relations of the provinces which formed the captaincy-general be what they may ; let the bonds which united those provinces be what they may, the former ceased and the latter was broken in 182L In proclaiming its independ- ence each province recovered the rights than had been totally taken from them by foreign domination, and became perfectly at liberty to constitute itself as might best conform to its peculiar interest. That freedom of action, which is a principle of unquestionable truth, is the recognition of the sovereignty of the people, the foundation of modern society, and the essential fundament of the Mexican federation, as it was of the federation of Central America. If Chiapas should have formed part of Central America in 1823, and afterwards should have separated herself as the other States did, would Guatemala have the right to prevent the formation of a new republic? Would she have a right to give her consent, imposing conditions and making protests °? Consent supposes superiority in the one who gives it ; those that are equal among themselves do not ask for consent to act, and Chiapas, neither to constitute herself an independent nation, nor to declare her-^ self a State of the Mexican federation, never had to ask the consent of Guatemala, as Guatemala did not have to obtain the consent of Spain in 1821. But even destroying all political piinciples, even supposing possible the inheritance of the illegitimate dominion which the King of Spain exercised in this part of the world, the right would not be in Guatemala, but first in the old captaincy-genei'al and afterwards in the federation of Central America. The circumstance, merely accidental, of the city of Guatemala having been the capital of both, as at some time Salvador was the capital of the second, is utterly insignificant in this case. The provinces were united by force under the Spanish scepter ; the States were voluntarily united by the federation. Why, therefore, has a con- quered province to have a right over one of her sisters in misfortune? Why has a free State to have a right, over a State equally free "? The captaincy -general — that is, the King of Spain — might in good will have been opposed to the independence of Chiapas, but he was not able to do it; consequently since September 3, 1821, the tie which united that 120 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. province with the others has been broken. The federation of Central America could not have any more rights than those which were conceded to it by the spontaneous will of the States that formed it in 1823. On July 21, of that same year Central America declared that — If Chia])as wished 1o be annexed to it, she would be received with thejireatest pleas- ure, and that it she should think it more in confbruiity with her interest to remain se])arat«'d, it would not oppose her, as she could and should eternally rely upon the fiiendshij), tVaternity, and services of the State of Guatemala. This sok^mn recognition of the supreme junta of Chiapas closed for- ever the door to all claim on the part of Central America, which not only did not ])reserve any rights, but rather contracted a formal obliga- tion to respect the decision of the junta and to be eternally the friend, the sister of Chiapas. And as this province, on September 12, 1824, de- clared a io he more in conformity with her interest to remain .separated from Guatemala and to he tiniied to Mexico, it is beyond all doubt that Central America had no right to resist the formation of that State of the Mex- ican federation. The union of Central America destroyed, the provinces were at per- fect liberty ; and in use of it each one constituted itself as it thought best, without the necessity of the consent of the others. What is, there- fore, the right of Guatemala ? It was the capital of the old kingdom ; but, as I have said before, this circumstance is in every respect insig- nificant. It is the boundary of Chiapa ; but vicinity does not give dominion, and this circumstance only proves the necessity of marking out the limits, which is what Mexico has been trying to realize for half a century. It is therefore demonstrated that Guatemala has no right to oppose the incorporation of Chiapa in the liepublic of Mexico. In regard to Socohusco, I have also shown that its incorporation was equally legitimate. I Mill only repeat, because it is the only title that Guatemala has presented, that even supi»osing the second vote of Tapa- chula, made in July, 1824, to be entirely legal, Guatemala did not ac- quire rights of any kind, because the vote did not unite the province of Soconusco to said State, but declared it '''■part n of So- conusco, mentions her proposition relative to submitting the decision of the question to the Cougressof Panama, bringing in thereby a new charge against Mexico, I must say that it was not the fear of laying before that respectable tribunal a matter whose justice is proved that caused the Government of Mexico to refuse, but it was the opinion so fully ex- 122 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. pressed by the national Conj^ress that rejected the clause in which the Republic of Colombia proposed that that Con^i>ress, representative of all the Spanish American nations, should liave the characterof umpire. So it appears in the text of the treaty. This reason of complaint, there fore, has no foundation. lu respect to the i)resence of the Mexican troo))S which, under Colonel Aguiiyo, Mcnt to pirrison Soconnsco in 1842, 1 have ahvady said, and I must repeat, that Mexico was called upon by the authorities and citi- zens of that district, and that she only made use of the right which the act of May 3, and the declaiation of September 12, 1824, gave her; it being certaiidy very notable that tlie name of obligatory agreement is given to a project which, as 1 have fully shown, never had the character of an international compact. In the preceding paragraphs it has been necessary for me to repeat the observations made before, for the purpose of | resenting all together the principal reasons on which Central America at one time grounded, and Guateumla now grounds, their complaint that the incorporation of Chiapa and Soconnsco was due to abuses on the ])art of Mexico, which, far from acknowledging herself responsible for such charges, has against that nation very important claims, which, without prejudice to the pres- ent negotiation, she shall duly present in just defense of the rights of the republic and of the interest other citizens. It is therefore proved that there were no such abuses In the incorpo- rations of Chiapa and Soconnsco ; but even admitting, without conced- ing, that there was some irregularity, what does this amount to in the face of the solemn ratitication founded on the acquiescence of the people of Chiapa and Soconnsco? The first for fifty one years and the second for thirty-three, have not made a single protest, have not ex])ressed a single complaint, have not indicated any dissatisfaction whatever for their annexation to Mexico. They have suffered, like the other Mexi- cans, the evils of civil war and of foreign invasions; they have enjoyed the benefits of liberty and felt the tyranny of dictatorship, and with their talent in council, and their blood in battle, they have contributed to the defense of the national interest, A State of the federal republic, dei)art- ment of the central republic, Chiapa has been, during the long period of our eventful political life, the same province that spontaneously united itself to Mexico on September 3, 1821. When, in 1847, the fed- eral Government was leduced to a few cities, without a treasury, with- out an army, and obliged to give way to the terrible law of war, why did not Chiapa se])arate herself from a people so aftiicted by misfortune? When, in LSlJ"), the federal Governmeut was pushed by ])ublic mis- fortune to Paso del Norte, why did not Chiaj);)., situated at the other extreme of the country, anossi- ble even to suppose that that resistance involves the idea of preserv- ing the rights which have been maintained up to this time, and the hopes which to this day have been kept alive. It is therefore in every way indispensable to put an end to a matter which has already done •evil to the two countiies, and which is so important for the future wel- fare of the two republics, which must live in the most perfect harmony. The j)olitical disturbances which took place in the Mexican Republic from 1854 to 1801. the commencement of the French intervention, and those which brought about this same intervention u]) to 18(i7, prevented Mexico from even discussing this question and attending in any manner to Chiapa and Soconusco, especially this department, which was really left during all this period at the mercy of the Government of Guate- mala. After the close of the French intervention and there-establishment BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 125 of peace, the G-overnment of Griiatemalci accredited, as its representa- tive in Mexico, Mr. Manuel Garcia Granados, who broached again this question, stating that Socouusco belonged to Gnatemahi. The Govern- ment of Mexico replied to liim, on the 20th of October, 1873, that Mexico could not admit any discussion in reganl to the legitimacy with which Chiapa and Socouusco were integral parts of the united Mexican States. The representative of Guatemala did not give any answer to this note. Mr. Ramon Uriart ■ arrived later at Mexico, with the character of envoy extraordinary of Guatemala, and presented, on the 21st of August, 1874, a memorandum wherein he tried to maintain that the in- corporation of Chiapa and Socouusco to Mexico was illegal, and pro- posed' a boundary line which left the greatest part of Socouusco on the side of Guatemala. I inclose you, marked number 7, a copy of Mr. Uriarte's memorandum. Mr. Jos6 Maria Lafragua, secretary, at that time, of foreign affairs, replied at length, on the 9th of October, 1875, to the memorandum of Mr. Uriarte, going into a detailed and reasoned discussion of all the incidents of this matter which is condensed in this note, and ending with proposing a dratt of a boundary treaty recognizing the line that had in fact existed between the old province, at present State of Chiapa, including Socouusco, and the republic of Guatemala, I inclose you copy of Mr. Lafragua's draft of the treaty and the frag- ments of his note of October 9, 1875, which refer to the foundations that he had to propose the said boundary line. The printed pamphlet which I sent to you with my note of the 9th of March, 1882, contains an ab- stract of this communication (Document No. III). The representative of Guatemala did not reply at that time to this proposal; but later on the 7th of December, 1877, the said Mr. Uriarte, who was yet envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Gua- temala at Mexico, signed a treaty, with the secretary of foreign relations of that republic, wherein it was agreed that a commission, composed of two sections of engineers, appointed, respectively, by each of the con- tracting parties, should make a i>reliminary study of the ground over which it was considered that the line was to be located, designating at once the points which were to be more specially studied and the geograph- ical position of which was to be hxed astronomically. 1 inclose you a copy of this treaty (No. 9). These points are the same which are contained in the draft of the treaty presented by Mr. Lafragua on the 9th of October, 1875, and it seems clear that the Government of Guatemala, on accepting the same, and the study of these points, acknowledged, though indirectly, that the boundary line was to pass over them, that is to say, that Chiapa and Socouusco were to remain, as they are, integral parts of the Mexi- can confederation. Mr. Montufar said, in the communication which he addressed to the Department of State, on the 2d of November, 1881, that this treaty had a hidden purpose. It seems to me that this censure does little honor to him and to the Government of his country, since he was secretary of foreign relations of Guatemala when the treaty was ratified by his Gov- ernment, although he personally may not have signed said ratification. This treaty had, however, no hidden design, but simply the object of making a preliminary study of the ground over which the boundary line was to be located. It is true that this study could have been made without the need of a treaty, but Guatemala preferred to do it by means of a treaty; and it seems strange that after having signed and ratified it she should assume the character of a person deceived and injured 126 BOUNDARY BETVVEKN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. thereby. Besides, the treaty referred not only to the preliminary studj of the ground, but contained also other stipnlatimis the object of which was to avoid any difficulty between the two countries while this study was pending. This reconnaissance couhl not be made within the time specified in the treaty, nor in the extension which was after agreed u[)OU, and although Mexico has tried to have said line extended again so as to flnish the pending reconnaissance, she has not succieeded in it, because Guatemala refused its consent. The Mexican couimissiou of engineers has, however, continued its reconnaissance on the ground, with the ob- ject of gathering the necessary data which would permit an intelligent discussion of this matter and the easy and prompt termination thereof. After the Government of Guatemala had communicated to the repre- sentative of the United States in that city her determination to cede Soconusco, or at least her right over that territory, to a foreign power, hinting that in this cession she wouhl prefer the United States, and in case tliey would not accept it, to offer it to an European nation, and after the Government of the United States, in compliance with Guate- mala's wishes, had offered its mediation to Mexico, Mr. Manuel Herrera, jr., envoy extraordinary and minister plenii)otentiary of Guatemala at Mexico, concerning whom General Barrios, president of that country, stated in his message, read at the opening of the present session of the Guatemalan Congress the 1st of March of this year, that he was fully authorized to sign a treaty which would terminate in a friendly way the questions pending with Mexico, said Mr. Herrera addressed a com- munication to the secretary of foi'eign relations of Mexico, on the 14th of January of the present year, inclosing the draft of a boundary treaty between both countries, the article first of which says literally as fol- lows: I. The rights which the Mexican Republic has or pretends to have over the State ofCiiiapa or its (lei)artnii'nt of Sockhusco shall not he either dirccrly or indirectly subjected to discussion. The republic of Guateuiala freely and spontaneously ti'ans- fers to that of Mexico the rights which she has or pret.uds to have over said territory of Chiapa, including Soconusco. It is true that in Article VI of said draft a pecuniary Indemnity is proposed, payable 1)y Mexico to Guatemala, in consideration of which she desists from all discussion concerning the rights relative to Chiapa and Soconusco; but besides, the Government of Mexico having stated, since the 0th of October, 1875, that she cannot pay any indemnity for a thing which belongs to her and which cannot with any foundation be a matter of dispute, there not being any reason or right whatever on which to ground it, the payment of an indemnity, supposing that one should be granted, would not affect essentially the question, and it demonstrates at the sauK^ time tliat tlie Government of Guatemala is disposed, at least if its official manifestations are to be credited, to acknowledge a fact founded on the free consent of the people, to wit, the legitimacy with which the State of Chiapa and its department of Soconusco are integral parts of the Mexican nation. I inclose you (No, 10) a copy of said draft. Summing up all the argumeutof the present note, the following points have been proved : 1. Chiapa was a province on terms of equality with the others which formed the captaincy-general of Guatemala. 2. Chiapa, on the 3d of Sei)tember, 1821, spontaneously separated from Guatemala and united herself to Mexico. 3. Chiapa, on the 12th of September, 1824, again united herself to the United States of Mexico, by the free vote of the majority of her in- habitants. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 127 4. Soconusco, in 1821, was a partido of the inteudency of Ohiapa, and as such united herself to the Mexican Empire. 5. Soconusco, in 1824, was lig-itimately represented in the supreme junta of Chiapa, and freely voted for annexation to Mexico on the 3d of May. 6. The act signed at Tapachula, on the 24th of July, 1824, was a rev- olutionary document, and was illegal from every point of view. 7. Central America^ recognized the supreme junta of Ohiapa, and offered to respect its determination. 8. The decree of August 18, 1824, by which the federal Congress de- clared that Soconusco, l)y virtue of htr pronunciamiento, had united with Central America, was a usurption of the rights of Mexico. 9. The notes exchanged between the ministers, Alaman, and Mayorga, did not constitute a legal agreement. 10. The decrev' of October 31, 1825, by modifying the essence of the propositions of tlie Mexican minister, left them without effect. 11. The neutrality in which Soconusco remained de facto was many times violated by Guatemala. 12. No act of Mexican authorities recognizing such neutrality could be valid, since any treaty required the apjirobation of Congress. 13. Mexico was under no obligation to respect such neuti ality. Con- sequently, when she occupied Soconusco in 1842, she infringed no in- ternational compact, and only made use of the right given her by the vote of May 3, and the declaration of September 12, 1824. 14. Soconusco, in 1842, was free to unite herself again to Mexico; for, even supposing legitimate the act of July, 1824, the district was thereby united to Central America, not to Guatemala ; therefore, when that fed- eration was dissolved, Guatemala had no rights of any kind. 15. The military pressure, the intrigues, and other abuses which Guatemala has imputed to Mexico are not proved, while, on the contrary, it is proved that in September, 1824, there were no Mexican troops in Chiapa, and that those commanded by Colonel Aguayo in 1842 were invited thither by the inliabitants of Soconusco. 16. Any supposable irregularity in the incorporation of Chiapa and of Soconusco has been entirely validated by the constant union of those regions during fifty-seven years in the first case, and during forty years in the second case,* in tchich lapse of time they have not presented a single complaint nor indicated any repugnance to continue attached to the Mexican Bcpublic. 17. Kespecting the public lands, the claim of Guatemala is entirely inadmissible, since she has no rights whatever upon the territory of Chiapas. 18. The debt of Chiapa ,is included in that of Medco, which is con- sequently not responsible for it to Guatemala; from whom she might, on the contrary, more properly demand a certain amount, as the differ- ence between that debt and the general one of Central America. 19. The delays of so many years in the settlement of this question are due to Guatemala, who has always opposed the tracing of limits, which has continually been urged by the Government of Mexico. As you will see, the detailed and justified statement which I have just made of the facts that brought about the present difficulties be- tween Mexico and Guatemala, serves to demonstrate the accuracy of the ideas expressed by me in the note which I had the honor to ad- dress to you on the 9th of March last, although I briefly outlined therein only the present state of this question, without going into details. I think proper, before closing this note, to state that I do not under- stand how a nation can offer to another the cession of a territory which 128 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. does not belong to her, and which she is not in possession of, but is- possessed by another which fonnds its position on such grounds as the free and spontaneous will of the people inl)abitiiig that territory. The foundation alleged to act thus, to wit, tliat Guatemala in order to get rid of supposed stratagems, wislies to interpose a more powerful nation than Mexico between her territory and that of her actual neighbor cannot be more insufficient, since following the same kind of reasoning of the Guateuuilan Government the more powerful the nation interi)Osed between Mexico and Guatemala, the greatest wonld be the dangers for the latter. Nothing demonstrates better the want of fairness in the conduct of the Guatemalan Government in this matter, than what appears from the documents published by the United States Senate and from those whicli I now send annexed to this note. The Government of Guatemala certainly stated to that of the United States, through its rejiresentative at that (;ity, that Mexi(;o had conquered two other provinces and wanted to conquer the rest of the country ; and that in order to prevent it, they solicitetl the protection of the United States, even offering them the ter- ritory in disi)ute, and if the United States did not grant her this protec- tion they wouUl have to ask it of some European Government. At the same time that this was done, the re})resentative of Guatemahi at Mexico stated to the Mexican Government that the only reason they had had not to recognize the legitimacy with which Chiapa and Soconusco were l)art of the Mexican Confederation, was a punctilio of self love and of national honor; but that they would make that acknowledgment if Mexico i)aid a sum of money of more or less importance ; and while the United States, in consideration of the efforts made by Guatemala, were offering to Mexico to act as arbitrators in the matter, the representa- tive of Guatemala at Mexico was trying to settle it, considering himself satisfied with the payment of a sum of money. Besides, the same Guatemalan minister at Mexico, who was fully au- thorized by his Government to settle this question stated to Mr. Mor- gan, as this diplomat informed the State Department in a note of August 11, 1881, that Guatemala would accept the arbitration of the United States, with the condition that it would be verbally stipulated that the President of the United States should de(;ide that Ghiapa belongs to Mexico, and Mr. Herrera added that this was simply a question of ])ride for his country, as he did not believe that it could in any case be de- cided in their favor, but that notwithstanding that they wouhl not give it up. The Hon. James G. Blaine, Secretary of State of the United States^ on receiving the above communication of Morgan, accepted the sugges- tion made therein, and in his note of November 28, 1881, wherein he reiterated to Mexico the otfer of mediation of the United States in this question, and proposed it already in the terms indicated by Mr. Morgan^ that is, with the understanding that no doubt was entertained of the right of Mexico to consider the state of Chiapa, which comprises So- conusco as one of its departments, as integral parts of Mexico ; this was not done, as Mr. Morgan ])roi)osed, by means of a verbal agreement^ but was consigned, in said communication, to writing, in order to give it more force. The consequences derived from these facts are too clear for me to think necessary to detain myself in enumerating them. I am afraid of having trespassed on your benevolence by making this long statement of the facts in which Mexico grounds her rights in this BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 129 case, but I have thought it my duty to do it, in view of the considera- tions which I stated at the commencement of the communication. I have the honor to renew to you, Mr. Secretary, the assurances of my very distinguished consideration. M. ROMERO. Hon. FkEDERICK T. FRELINaHUYSBN, <&c., &c.^ &c. [Tnolosure No. 1.] Two aeals. One cuartillo (3i cents). Seal fonrth. One cnartillo (% cents). Years 1820 and 1821. Don Engenio Jo86 Rniz, a notary pnblic of this city and secretary of the most notable council of the same, &c., certifies that this most notable council, accompanied by its president, governor, intendant, political superior chief, Don Juan Nepomuceno Batres, having jnstly taken in consideration the desired happiness of these inhabitants who oonstautly and publicly have declared their deliberate desire to embrace with their natural love the independence of this continent from the peuinsala, in accordance With what has been ordered by the heroic Generalissimo Don Agustiu de Iturbide, saviour and father of the country and religion, resolved on the 3d instant to proclaim said independence with proper solemnity and pomp, as it was done on the next day, with the attendance of troops and military music and a general peal, agreeing on the 6th instant to swear thereto on the 8th instant, a memorable day for all the inhabi- tants, as it appears from the following document : "In this royal city of Chiapa, on the 8th of September, 1821, and in this city hall at 8 o'clock a. m., the members of this notable council, presided by the intendant Mayor Don Juan Nepomuceno Batres met, to which the secular and regular prelates, the officers of all the departnii-nts and the military officers of these companies were incorporated. On the main table were placed the holy image of Christ and the book of the Gospel, which was read by the vicar-general, governor of the bishopric, on ac- count of the death of the most illustrious Doctor Don Salvador Samartin. Bachelor Don Lino Garcia and said governor intendant approached the table, and placing his left hand upon the holy Gospel and his right hand upon the hilt of his sword, said priest received his oath in the following terms: Do you swear before God, and do you promise by the cross of your sword to uphold the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion? I swear. Do you swear to achieve the independence of the empire without detriment %o the peace and union of Europeans and Americans? I swear. Do j^ou swear obe- dience to Sefior Don Feruand VII, provided he adopts and swears the constitution to be e'iforceresided by the governor intendaut ])olitical superior chief. The i)lan of the most excellent Senor Don Agnstin Iturbide was also read and like- wise the treaty resulting from the interview of the same with the most excellent Senor Don Juan de O'Donojn (of which the Board of Guatemala until now cannot have the least knowledge) ; with these precedents a long and protracted discussion began, the resnit of which was to resolve — That said Board has swerved from several of the principal articles of said plan; that in fact they are aiming at the division and separation of the Northern Empire; that before its unfortunate conquest the kingdom of Guatemala has always been a part of said empire-; that as there must be only one monarch for the sam.e empire the existence of several congresses or Cortes is incompatible; that it becomes doubt- ful in Guatemala, the very essential point of the absolute and general independence, notwithstanding the fact that a newspaper printed in said capital has taken for granted that the political liberty is absolute and does not admit more or less ; that likewise it repels permissions and restrictions, and all that is not the liV-.erty that a people have to dispose of itself, but bondage ; that it is considered that the Board did not approve that the cities and people of this intendance would anticipate by cutting the Gordian knot to proclaim the independence giving an example to this kingdom, which is presumed from the hastened mention made in the above referred-to agreement, of eo glorious an action while the political superior in chief and the most excellent provincial deputation have not been pleased to give an answer to the notice communicated to them on the subject; and, finally, that having promised by the sacred bond of an oath to submit themselves to the plan framed by the chief of the nation, they are not at liberty to swerve in the least from its ))rovi8ions, because finch conduct would not be approved by the said most excellent chief falling upon them, if not, the indignation, at least the disgust of the nation and of the northern armies of the three guarantees, because in such case they would be accomplices of the break of unity in the sentiments which ought to prevail in the whole empire ; against which as it appears said agreement is framed in consequence whereof, they have this day agreed by unanimous consent — Ist. That the province of Chiapa, that has spontaneously declared her independ- ence, does not recognize any other Government whatever but the Mexican Empire according to the treaties signed by the most excellent Messrs. Iturbide and O'Douoju, and for the present and until notice is received of the deliberations of said first and worthy imperial chief, the circulation and fulfillment of said agreement addressed by the political superior chief of Guatemala to this Government and intendance and to the first constitutional alcalde is stopped, withdrawing all copies scattered in the hands of the people. 2d. That, with copies of said papers and an authenticated testimony of this letter, this be brenght to the knowledge of said most excellent Senor Don Agnstin de Itur- bide with the above-said object and with a view that he may give his orders with in- structions about the principles and method to be adopted in the conduct of the events of the day, and its further consequences. 3d. To answer to the political superior chief inclosing a coi)y of the same act so that, having in view also the conference of the most excellent Messrs. Iturbide and and O'Donojn, he may be pleased not to disapprove the o[iinion and general view which he has expressed upon such an occurrence. 4th. To send communications inclosing a similar copy of said act and conference to the councils ofthejurisdiction of this Government and intendance for their information and -^Nith a view to fully preserve the unity of sentiment in the pursuit to uphold our general and absolute independence. This proceeding closed the present act, which was approved with open doors and in the presence of numerous peoi)le who attended oc- cupying the streets, the porches, the yard, windows and even the hall of the library above referred to, awaiting the deliberation and resolution to be taken upon the sub- ject. In testimony whereof the following gentlemen have written their signatures: Juan Nepomuceno Batres, Juan Maria Lasaga, Jos^ Diego Lara, Julio Jos6 Flores, Fausteno Antonio Zenteno, Juan Miguel Robles, Jos6 Nicolas O'Suna, Esteban Gordillo. On behalf of the people as their syndics and representatives: Jos^ Vives, Julian Posas, Manuel Ignacio Eznaurriza, Moriano Robles, Fr. Vicente Vives, Fr. Manuel lUan. On behalf of the community of Santo Domingo: Fr. Galo Esteban Petit, Luis An- BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 131 tonio Garcia, Bonifacio Fernandez, Jose Cuende de Vall with the forces lie may have under him or to dissolve them, de])ositiiig the arms at Ciudad Re;il under the care of its munieipality ; and other events wliicli are related, and wiiich occurred at tlie samejirovince, have lirought forth, even before the decision of the junta of Chiapas concerning its union to Mexico was pronounced or known, tlie i)rotests of nullity niadr! against it that have been ad- dressed to this supreme (xoverniiKUit, wliich cannot disregard ihem, iisthey are founded on considerations and on farts which have to i)e borne in miiul. This serious matter was a few days latrr occjoying ihe at tention of tliis (ioverainent, \\ hen they received BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO ANJL) GUATEMALA. 13 :^. yesterday the cuiumtniicatioii wherein the juuta of Cindad Keal reports the proceed- ings held deciding- its union to that repnl>lic. All Ihia has been laid before the Federal assembly, and when this decides what they may think just I shall comumnicate to yourexcollency the resolution of both posN^ers. In the mean while the reasons herein stated seem worthy of the cousideratiou of that supreuie Government. The ris^ht of a proviuee that is goiu"^ to decide its des- tiny, stating whetber it wmits to be uuitod to this or that nation, is very plain. Neither Mexico uor Guatemala can in that case disarm it or station troops on its fron- tier. The Government of Guatemala, convinced of this, has wished to abstain itself from all interference in the declaratiou of the pt'ople of Chiapas. No forces have been sent nor a commissioner ai>pointed; they have, on the contrary, ])rotostod against the presence at Cindad Real of the one that your excellency's Government thought fit to appoint: they have also protested against the order given by the ministry of war to its commandant to evacuate Chiapas and to deposit the arms in the care of the muni- cipality of Ciiidad Real, the opinion or votesof which ai e well known ; they have pro- tested against the order to station Mexican troops on the frontier of said province. A part of your excellency's note of the 4th of August last, which I received by the succeed- ing mail, informs me that said forces did not come to the l>oundary of Chiapas. But the intelligence that the Mexican Government had decided that they should come to the frontier was enough for tlu: people to cease being free, precisely in the act in which their liberty was most necessary to them. It was published in one of the gazettes of Don Agustin Iturbide's Government that a numerous and disci])lined division of hve thousand men, commanded by Count de la Cadeua, had cross.^d the large river of Tehauantepec, bound to Guatemala. Neither the intelligence was true nor the division reached Guatemala. Bat that indication was sufficient, as also the certainty that Don Manxrel Terau, who is now at the head of the ministry of war, had gone to Cindad Real as commissioner of said Iturbide, to consider that the people had no libert,y to make memorable declaration whether they should remain entirely independent or permit their aggregation to Mexico. The Government of Guatemala does not compare that of Don Agustin Iturbide's with the one which now rules the destinies of that nation, and if my preceding note alludes to the commissioner sent by that chief it is only in order to state that if it was thought that the people had then enjoyed no freedom for the reasons al>ovo stated it would be convenient that they should not again be considered without it. Summing up all the considerations stated in this note, the Government of this na- tion expects that that of Mexico should agree not to interfere, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of Chiapas, nor to change the condition in which the province was at the date when its junta made the declaratiou, i>ersuaded that that of this reinablic will likewise abstain itself from interfering in the affairs of said people, and that the resolution and decision of these powers should be opportunely communicated. The executive has instructed mo to state the above to your excellency, and I have done so bv his orders, protesting to you the respects of my verv high consideration. MARCIAL ZEBADUA. Mexico, November 15, 1824. To the Minister of State and lielations of the United Frovinces of Central America : I communicated to his Excellency the President of the republic your note of the 4th of last October, and informed of the contents thereof, he orders me to answerthat although it is true that the supreme executive power, his immediate predecessor, or- dered that the troops that were in the province should be disarmed, that Guate- malan and Mexican troops should be stationed in their respective frontiers, and that commissioners from one and the other party should go to Ciudad Real, all with the object of giving the people of Chiapas full liberty to declare to which of the two republics they wanted to be annexed, and that the commissioners of both Govern- meuts together, with the local authorities of said capital, should tranquilly and disin- terestedly witness that declaration, a very useful and even necess try measure for the welfare of both nations, as this Government has already stated to that of Guatemala, none of these steps .so politic and impartial had due effect, with the exception of that of the coniniissioner by this Government, to which place was appointed Don Jos6 J. Buslaujente, who waited at Ciudad Real for the one to be apjtoinfed by Guatemala, and if this did not go, it' was not certainly the fault of Mexico uor of Guatemala, which perhaps did not think it necessary, as you state in the note to which this is a reply. It is notorious that not a Mexican soldier was to be stationed at the frontier of this i-epublic; it is not less true that the armed forces of Guatemala which gar- risoned it before have remained there uji to the present day, and that the Commis- sioner Don Jose .Javier Bustamente has in anv way restrained or Vjeen able to restain 136 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. the will of the people of Chiapas, being only, as it is public and notorious, an im- partial and mnt(3 witness of the declaration of said inhabitants, in accordance with the repeat(!d orders of my Govern mcnt. It is evident, and it cannot escape the wisdom and high penetration of that Govern- ment, that the majority of the jicople of Chiapas pronojinced themselves in fiivor of Mexico ; that there was not even a Mexican soldier not only in the fr' ntier, but in many leagues IVom it, and that there Iseing armed forces from Guatemala in said prov- ince what more eoiihl he desired in order to believe that the future fate of the district depended from the decision upon so delicate a subject, ia order that would reflect about the decision to be given by i)lurality of votes, which was that they desired to be aggregated to the federal Government of the Moxicau nation. After this formality the board adjouiued, signing this act before me, the under- writer secretary, those who knew how to write. Pedro Chacon, Jacinto L6pkz, eugenio c6ud0ba, fuancisco soliz, Manuel C6rdoba, Mokiano Antonio, BOKTOLOMl^ DE ApARICIO, FeLIPK iTUKlilDE, NOKBEKTO CONISALES, ISIDORO CODENA, CiRioco Akriola, Fiburcio Castellanos, Makcelo Nicolas y Vallejo, Francisco Antequeko, Leonardo Fuentes, Sevkro Couteno. Felipe Coijdenas, Secretary. A true copy of the original document. I certify that these are true, corrected, and amended co|iies. PEDRO CHACON. Felipe Cordenas, Seoeiary. Washington, D. C, May 6, 1882. A true translation. (;AYETAN0 ROMERO, Secretary ad interim. [lnclosure No. 6.] UKNKRAL MINISTRY. DEPAIiTMENT Ol' STATE. The follo\\'ing communication has be»ni addressed by the national constituent as- sembly to the supreme executive power, on the 2'lth instant : The national constituent assembly, iu its ses.sion of the 2lst instant, have thought BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AXD GUATEMALA. 139 proper to give the followiug report from the Hjiecial conimi.ssiou a])poiiited to give iu- forniation in regard to the subject of the report: Sir: The invitations addressed to the authorities of Chiapas by some of the gener- als of the liberator army of Mexico, and the celebrated decree of the provisional government of these provinces of the 29th of March last, have caused the formation of general board of the authorities, corporations, and principal neighbors, which seated in Ciudad keal on 8th of April last. lu order to )ireserve the iuiUvisibility of the province, and with a view to legally ascertain whether her compact of nnion to the Mexican State was broken, and whether the province ought to continue incorporated to that State, or to be nnited again to these provinces of Guatemala, a provisional congress was called, which held its tirst sessions on the 4th, 8th, and 9th of June last, and composed often delegates, representatives of so many districts. Those of Istaco- initan and Tapachula did not attend. Tlie question above uientinued was proposed and dismissed, and resnt was five votes for declaration of the rupture of the compact with Mexico, and the other five for the contrary. Iji consequence of this a new reso- lution, carried by eight votes, gave to the board the character of jtrovisional execu- tive board in charge of the government of the province until it is decided whether she goes back to her former union with Guatemala or continues with that of Mexico. This is the ]mrport of the acts and communications to which it is necessary to reply as soon as possible, having in view the harmony and fraternity due to that province, and the consideration which her provisional government deserves. It would be very desirable that our brother, the inhabitants of Chiapas, having in view the neces.sity, convenience, and reciprocal advantages of the union of that province with these ones, and also the wonderful results which a similar union produced in English America, they would decide at once to renew the ties of fraternity and close friendship with us; but this must be the result of the deliberation and conviction of the interested par- ties; meanwhile tlte united pro rinces ought to respect the free will of those provinces that have not conclude:! as yet to join us in this compact. Under such principles it seems that our Goverumeut oughts to reply iu the name of the new Central State of America to the supreme board of Chiapas that: The assembly and the supreme ex- ecutive Power of said State are informed of the resolutions of said board; that they commend the prudence, circumspection, and careful consideration that said board have given to the fulfillment of their commission ; that if at last Chiapas would be willing to join these United Provinces, she will be receiv'ed with the greatest pleasure, and the provinces will consider their happiness as complete: and that if said province of Chiapas would consider more suitable to her interests to continue her separation, this will not be an obstacle to the mutual friendship^ fraternity, aitd even the services of the Gtiatemalan State. The supreme executive power, entirely agreeing with constituent national assembly, resolved to communicate this to your excellency, in order that the province of Chi- apas be persuaded that her incorporation to the united provinces of Central America would be coi'dially welcome, and that in case she decides to continue her separation they will preserve the most perfect friendship with a sister province that shared with them the vexations of the Spanish Government. All which I commuaicate to your excellency for your information. God preserve your excellency many years. Palace of Guatemala, oOth July, 1823. JOSE DE VELASCO. Most Excellknt Supkeme Government Boakd or the Provixoe of Chiapas. Washington, D. C, May 6, 1882, A true translatiou. CAYETANO EOMEKO, Svcrciary ad ivterim. [Inclosure No. 7. Translatiou.] Legation of Guatemala, Mexico, August 21, 1874. Sir : As was agreed in our last conference, I do myself the honor to send your ex- cellency Uhe inclosed memorandum, hoping you will bo pleased to appoint a day arid hour when I may present myself at your office to continue the discussion of the project of bases for a preliminary convention upon the boundaries between Guatemala and Mexico. This occasion aliords me the pleasure of renewing to your excellency the assurances of my distinguished consideration. R. I'RIARTE. To His Ex<',ellency Mi. Jose Maiua LAFKACa'A, Miimler of Foreign Affaim of the Mexican Republit;. 140 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. Memorandum presented bi/ the undersigned, euvoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Guattinala, to his ixcilleyicy Mr. Jose Miiria LaJ'ratjua, minister of foreign affairs of the Mexican Hepuhlic. Legation of Guatemala, Mexico, August 21, 1874. After examining with tlie greatest care all the documents found in the archives of the legation in my charge concerning the various (luestious pending between Gua- temala and Mexico, I now fulfill the duty of submitting to the enlightened considera- tion of your excellency the present niemoranduin as a basis for the conferences begnn on the 22d of last July. I would waive all mention of the obstacles hitherto encountered in bringing to a happy conclusion the treaties proposed between the two republics, and especially that concerning territorial limits, if it were not for the fact that in official documente Guatemala has been charged with unwillingness to conclude such treaties. This ap- pears from the memoir presented by your excellency to the Congress of the Union last year, and more explicitly from tl]e documents concerning measui'es proposed for the development of the agricultuml wealth of Soconusco, presented by the finance de- partment to the Congress of 1871. In this latter document it is stated tliat Mexico has always been ready to enter into friendly and equitable treaties with Guatemala, but that the latter power has refused to sign them under the belief, or, at least the hope, of some time recovering the State ot Chiapas. This is inexact. A rapid glance at the protocols of the conferences held at different periods between the commissioners of the two countries will demonstrate that Guatemala has not only been ever ready to negotiate treaties with Mexico, but that she has carried her condescension as far as is possible for a nation desirous of the closest harmony with her neighbors, without prejudice to her own dignity. With respect to the question of limits, for example, Guatemala proposed in 1832 the arbitration of a friendly nation, which was declined by Mexico. Some years later, in 1854, Guatemala went to the extreme of renouncing her indisputable rights to Chiapas and Soconusco, without demanding any indemniticatiou, and, if the negotia- tion was not carried out it was because Mexico declined to recognize and pay the debt of those States to the ancient " kingdom of Guatemala." Nearly the same thing took place respecting the treaties of commerce and extradi- tion of criminals, two of which were successively negotiated in 1831 and 1850, with- out having bet-n ratified by the Mexican Government. Guatemala lias just given the latest proof of her sincere desire to tern)inate a ques- tion which has been pending for half a century between the two countries by sending the undersigned to this city. If on the part of Mexico, then, there exists the same desire as your excellency has been pleased to ijitimate to me, nothing will be easier than to (haw closer, by means of equitable conventions, the ties of friendship and fraternity which ought always to bind together two neighboring republics which have the same origin and identical interests. As the first to be done is to agree upon a preliminary convention to fix the basee according to which should be traced the dividing line from the coasts of the Pacific to those of the Northern Sea, the undersigned sees no objection, respecting the ques- tion o/ Chiapas, to take as a starting point the project discussed in Guatemala be- tween Messrs. Pavon and Pereda in 1854; that is to say, thit Guatemala will rec- ognize the incorporation of that State into the Mexican territory on condition that Mexico will proceed to settle the debt which that province had contracted with what was formerly the " captaincy- general of Guatemala." The case is not the same respecting Soconusco. I waive for the present the narra- tion of the acts by virtue of which that former district of Guatemala now forms a part of the United States of Mexico. Force does not constitute a title, and, if with respect to Chiapas, no one can doubt the justice with which Guatemala might demand its restitution, in regard to Soconusco it is abundantly evident that the violation of the neutrality in which it had been agreed to maintain that province can never be for Mexico a title of domain, but rather strengthens, in the eyes of international law, the titles which Guatemala has ever had for considering it an integral part of her ter- ritory. But, as I have already said, it is not my intention to record the history of those unjustifiable acts, and I will only call your excellency's attention to the difiS- culties presented by the tracing of any dividing line segregating Soconusco from the territory of Guatemala. The clearer the demarkation of frontiers between adjacent countries the fewer dis- putes will there be between frontier authorities, and all questions originating in the lack of precision of the dividing lines will be completely obviated. For this reasoB it has latterly become the custom among civilized nations to adopt as such bounda- ries (legif'es of longitude or latitude. Since this is not possible in the present case of the limits between Guatemala and Mexico, the line should be drawn as straight as possible, in view of the broken character of the region through which it must pass. The department of Soconusco, on the southern coast, forms an angle entering the t«ir- BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 141 ritory of Guatemala, of which the base is the river Ciutalapa, i^roceediug from the bay of Zacapulco as far as the towns of Motocinta and Mazapau, and the vertex be- ing formed by the mouth of the river Tilapa, iu the bay of Oc68, Consequently the base for the demarkatiou of the line from the Pacific Ocean should be the bay of Zac- apulco, tracing thence a straight line to the river Dolores, the recognized limit of the State of Chiapas. Guatemala could not accept the imperfection of a line starting from the bay of Oc6s, going thence north to Tajomulco, then receding eastward along the mountain chain of Tajomulco, and finally descending the river Blanco to Maz- apan. From the river Dolores to the Northern Sea the undersigned proposes for basis for the tracing of a line the actual possession, with the understanding that a scientific commission should be appointed by agreement of both governments, in order to make the necessary surveys, and mark the definitive limits between Guatemala and Mexico in accordance with the bases above suggested. Eespeciing treaties of friendship, commerce, and extradition, and a postal conven- tion, the undersigned abstains from speakiug of them in the present mejuorandum, 80 as to proceed with order, making due separation between the subjects which have been intrusted to him. R. UKIARTE. Washington, D. C, May 6, 1882. A true translation . CAYETANO EOMERO, Secretary ad inierim. [Inolosure No. 8.] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mexico, October 'J, 1875. Sir : By direction of the President of the republic I now proceed to examine the aote of your excellency, dated August 21, 1874, and the accompauyiug memorandum, on the contents of which I have made to your excellency some observations in private conferences. * * * Entering upon the examination of the serious matter in question, I must immedi- ately remind you that on October 20, 1873, I had the honor to address to Mr. Manuel Garcia Granados, then representative of Guatemala, the formal declaration that the Government of Mexico does not admit any discussion upon the legitimacy of the pos- session of Chiapas and Soconusco by the United States of Mexico. As that note was not answered, and since your excellency afterward arrived here in the high capacity of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, the Government of Mexico nat- arally believed that Guatemala desisted from the question formerly raised by her as to the incorporation of Chiapas and Soconusco, and that the mission of your excel- lency had for object the much desired settlement of boundaries. But the note and memorandum of your excellency reopen this discussion, and conclude by proposing to Mexico the loss of almost the whole of Soconusco, as well as a part of Chiapas and the payment of the debt for which that state is alleged to be responsible. It would sufiice for the Government of Mexico to refer to the formal declaration contained in the note of October 20, 1873 ; but, with the only object of preventing that decision from being deemed capricious or arbitrary, I proceed to state to your excellency the reasons which legalize the possession of Chiapas and Soconusco, with- out thereby modifying the sentiments expressed in 1873. The present exposition will set forth the sum of the rights which Mexico considers beyond question, and which she is resolved to sustain in the just defense of those important parts of the national territory, worthy for a thousand reasons of the esteem of our citizens and of the effi- cacious protection of the Government. * * * It is consequently proved that there were no such abuses (as have been alleged by Gautemala) in the incorporation of Chiapas and Soconusco ; but even admitting, without conceding, that there was any irregularity, what does it avail in view of the solemn ratification based upon the acquiescence of the people of Chiapas and So- conusco? During fifty-one years the former, and during thirty-three years the lat- ter,* have not made a single |>rotest, have not expressed a single complaint, or maniv fested any dissatisfaction on account of their union with Mexico. They have suffered, like other Mexicans, the evils of civil war and of foreign invasions ; they have enjoyed the benefits of liberty and felt the tyranny of dictatorship, and, with their talents in council and theii blood in battles, have contributed to the defense of national in- terests. * This was written in 1875. Now, in 1881, the possession by Mexico has lasted fifty- seven years iu one case and thirty-nine years in the other. 142 * BOUNDARY BET'.vr.EN MKXICO AND GUATEMALA. As a Stiitc of the Federal Republic, as a Department of the Central Republic, Chi- apas has reinaiued. during the lonf>- period of our checkered political life, the same province which spontaneously united itself to Mexico on the Ml of September, 1821. When, in 1847, the Federal Government was reduced to a few cities, without an army and obliged to yield to the terrible law of war, why did Chiapas not separate from a nation so prostrated by misfortune? When, in 1865, the Federal Government was carried, by public misfortune, to Paso del Norte, why did not Chiajias, situated at the other extremity of the country, at a distance of frIOO leagues, separate from a na- tion almost completely subjugated by a foreign power f These and other periods afforded extreme facilities for Chiapas, if, in her territory, there had existed any sentiment hostile to Mexico, to manifest it, or ro indicate any desire to abandon the mother country, which she freely adopted as her own, and to whose fortunes, pros- perous or adverse, she has remained united with the most perfect libertv. If the State of Chiapas were situated in the center of the republic, it might be said, carry- ing suspicion beyond the limits of probability, that her hands were tied by her very position, since any movement on her part might be suppressed in a single day. But, being situated at the extremity of the country, and separated from the center by 300 leagues of really difficult roads, her unshaken tidelity is not the effect of fear, but the worthy fruit of a sentiment as noble as it is spontaneous. What reasons, said I in the note dated October 20, 1873, can be alleged in presence of so firm a will? What title can avail more than so constant a fidelity? What right more solid than that founded upon such a loyal and zealous patriotism ? In fact a simple doubt would be an oft'ense the more cruel when more undeserved, and this is one reason why the Government of Mexico cannot admit any discussion upon the possession of Chiapas and Soconusco.* Before entering upon the examination of the prr:iect of limits I ought to reply to a charge unjustly made against the Republic of Mexico, attributing to its reluctance the delays experienced in this important business. From 1825 until the present day Mexico has constantly proposed the immediate tracing of the limits. This appears from the notes of Mr. Alaman and the protocols of Messrs. Manuel Diez de Bouilla and Juan Nepoinuceno de Pereda, envoys of Mexico in that republic. Guatemala, on the contrary, has ever avoided the tracing of limits, desiring the maintenance of the statu quo, and thus postponing indefinitely the solution of so important an affair. # # # » * * * These official documents fully prove who has been at fault in this delay. Mexico has constantly sought for the tracing of the limits, which she has considered as the only means of closing the door against claims which, though perchance of slight im- portance at the outset, are magnified by the lapse of time into affairs of great mo- ment. Guatemala, on the contrary, has constantly refused the tracing of limits, and has always labored for the preservation of the statu quo, thus leaving open a wide door for quarrels between private individuals, which subsequently become conflicts between governments. Would the scandals of Bejucal, and so many others, which have given occasion to complaints, and even now demand the attention of the two countries, have taken place if the dividing line had been clearly fixed? But all the efforts of Mexico have been sterile in presence of the zeal with which Guatemala has sustained her fancied right to Chiapas and Soconusco. Hoping some day to recover these regions, or to obtain a pecuniary compensation for them, she has refused to put an end to an uncertainty harmful to both nations, and proposed the negotiation of treaties of a different character, which can be of no utility as long as the material possession, subject by law to the authority of each government, remains undefined. It is true, as your excellency says, that in 18.54 Guatemala agreed to the incorporation of Chiapas aiul Soconusco, but she did not consent to the actual tracing of the limits, insisting, as before, upon the maintenance of the statu quo, as may be seen in Article I of the memorandum by Mr. Pavon : "The limits between the two republics shall continue to be xvhat they now are." This phrase clearly expresses the invariable idea * There are several reasons why Mexico could not, even if she would, enter into any discussion upon the legitimacy of her loug-continned possession of Chiapas and Soco- nusco. The most apparent is that the constitntion of the Mexican Republic enumer- ates Chiapas (including Soconusco) among the States of the Union. Consequently there is a constitutional impediment, (juite unsurmountable, for the Government of Mexico to discuss before an arbitration or otherwise the untimely qnestion now raised by Guatemala. She urges that the said Government, to gratify some long-cherished fancies of Guatemalan politicians, should submit to trample upon the national consti- tution (and forget, its dignity) by discussing, without any authority to do so, a point settled alike by that instrument and by time, the great legitimator of all possessions in the world, even when their title is less clear than that of Mexico to her present State of Chiapas. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 143 of Guatemala, namely, not to truce her limits, and thus leave subsisting all the causes of difficulties, and aUthe elements of future conflicts, between tUe two nations. More- over, the deference of Guatemala in 1854 had for its basis the proposed payment of a debt which Mexico can not recognize, and a claim upon unoccupied lands which can not even be discussed, since it has no foundation whatever. It is, in fact, difficult to discover the reasons which Guatemala has had for refusing the settlement of her limits, for it is not possible even to imagine that this refusal involves the idea of maintaining the rights hitherto alleged and the hopes hitherto cherished. It is, therefore, abso- lutely iud'spensable to jjut; an end to a controversy which has caused such evils to both countries and threaten others still more serious for the future welfare of two republics needing to live in the most i^erfect harmony. Summing up all the argument of the present note, the following points have been proved : 1. Chiapas was a proviuce on terms of equality with the others which formed the captaincy -general of Guatemala. 2. Chiapas, on the 3d of September, 1821, spontaneously separated from Guatemala and united herself to Mexico. 3. Chiapas, on the 12th of September, 1824, again united herself to the United States of Mexico, by the free vote of the majority of her inhabitants. 4. Soconusco, in 1821, was a partido of the intendency of Chiapas, and as such united herself to the Mexican Empire. 5. Soconusco, in 1824, was legitimately represented in the supreme juntaof Chiapas, and freely voted for annexation to Mexico on the 3d of May. 6. The act signed at Tapachula, on the 24th of July, 1824, was a revolutionary doc- ument, and was illegal from every point of view. 7. Central America recognized the supreme junta of Chiapas, and offered to respect its determination. 8. The decree of August 18, 1824, by which the federal congress declared that Soco- nusco, by virtue of her proniinciamento, had united with Central America, was a usur- pation of the rights of Mexico. 9. The notes exchanged between the ministers Alaman andMayorga did not consti- tute a legal agreement. 10. The decree of October 31, 1825, by modifying the essence of the propositions of the Mexic.an minister, left them without effect. 11. The neutrality in which Soconusco remained de facto was many times violated by Guatemala. 12. No act of Mexican authorities recognizing such neutrality could be valid, since any treaty required the approl)ation of Congress. 13. Mexico was under no obligation to respect such neutrality. Consequently, when she occupied Soconusco in 1842, she infringed no international compact, and only made use of the right given her by the vote of May 3d, and the declaration of September 12, 1824, 14. Soconusco, in 1842, was free to unite herself again to Mexico ; for, even suppos- ing legitimate the act of July, 1824, the district was thereby united to Central America, not to Guatemala; therefore, when that federation was dissolved, Guatemala had no rights of any kind. 15. Tlie militarj' pressure, the intrigues, and other abuses which Guatemala has im- puted to Mexico are not proved, while, on the contrary, it is proved that in Septem- ber, 1824, there were no Mexican troops in Chiapas, and that those commanded by Colonel Aguayo, in 1842, were invited thither by the inhabitants of Soconusco. 16. Any sapposable irregidarity in the •incorporation of Chiapas and of Soconusco has been enlireli) ralidatcd hy the covstantunion of those 7-ef/iovs during fifty-one years in the first case, and daring thirty-three years in the second case* in tvhich la])se of time they have not pre- sented a single complaint nor indicated any repugnance to continue attached to the Mexican Republic. 17. Respecting the public lands, the claim of Guatemala is entirely inadmissible, since she has no right whatever upon the territory of Chiapas. 18. The debt of Chiapas is included in that of Mexico, which is consequently not responsible for it to Guatemala, from whom she might, on the contrary, more properly demand a certain amount, as the difference between that debt and the general one of Central America. 19. The delays of so many years in the settlement of this question are due to Gua- temala, who has always opposed the tracing of limits, which has continually been urged by the Government of Mexico. The facts being thus cleared up, and the right of Mexico to Chiapas and Soconusco being solidly established, I proceed to treat of the question concerning the adjust- * Now, in 1881, these periods are, respectively, fifty-seven and thirty-nine years. 144 ' BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. ment of limits between the frontier States of both republics, in order to terminate, in a practical manner, this prolonged subject of controversy. I renew to your excellency my very distinguished consideration. J. M. LAFRAGUA. To his Excellency Mr. Ramon Uuiarte, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the liepublic of Guatemala.* Draft of a boundary treaty heticeen Mexico and Guatemala. Ist. The starting point to trace the boundary line between the two republics will b© the spot where the ranch of La Encontada used to be, and if there is no sign to point out that place, six kilometers from the bar of Ocos will be measured towards the southeast, and the end of that measure will be the beginning of the following trace : 2d. From said end a right line will be traced towards the north as far as its inter- section with Tilapa River, following as boundaiy the course of said river as far as the spot called Caballo Blanco. 3d. From said spot another right line will be traced as far as its intersection with Petecalapa River on the national road going from Tuxtla Chico, town of Mexico, to Malacatan, town of Guatemala. 4tli. From the mentioned pass of said river on the road from Tuxtia to Malacatan, the boundary line will follow the course of the river as far as its head. In case of donbt as to the head of the Petacalapa River, a right line will be traced, of fifty kilo- meters, to the northeast of the intersection of the national road from Tuxtla Chico, to Malacatan with Petacalapa River. 5th. From the end of said trace of fifty kilometers a right line will be drawn to a point situated in the middle of the distance between the summit of the volcano of Tajomulco to that of the volcano of Soconusco or I'acona. Cth. From said middle point between the two volcanoes another right trace will be made to the summit of the volcano Tocoiiil, aud from there another right trace as far as the intersection of the Nenton River on the way from the village of the same name of the department of Huehuetenaugo in Guatemala to that of Zapatula in the department of Comitan of the Mexican territory. 7th. From the intersection of the Neuton River, in the above-mentioned spot, an- other right line will be traced to a point fifteen kilometers distant towards the east of the summit of the Isbul Hill. 8th. The Governments of Mexico and Guatemala shall appoint, reapectivelj , a scien- tific commissioQ of two or more persons, who, separately and under the conditions which their respective Governments may deem neceHsary to i>rotect their interests, will survey the boundaries of both n^piiblics in the States of Tabasuo, Ytu-atan, and Campeche, making the nece.s.sary maps and gathering information and data, for which purpose the Government of Mexico will furnish the commission of Guatemala and the Government of Guatemala will furnish tlie Mexican commission with such infor- mation aud (loiMimi'iiis as each of tli^in may possess in relation to the ]>ouudarie8 in said States; all this in order to facilitate as far as possible the definite demarcation of the boundaries between the two rei)ublics. 9th. Said commissions will terminate their work within a year from the day in which they arrive to the starting point, which will be the one situated 15 kilometers from the summit of the Isbul River toward the east. Each Government will inform the other of the day in which their respective commissions will begin their work, which will begin within three months from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty. 10th. In case the boundary line passes through lands belonging to private persons, each fraction will be subjected to the laws of the nation to which it belongs, accord- ing to it« geographical position. 11th. Of the grants of lands embraced in the 1)oundary line will be recognized as lawful only those issued before the 1st of July, 1872. The grants issued after that date will be lawful only in that portion of land belonging to the nation that made the grant, the grant of the other portion being annulled. Mexico, 9th October, 1875. J. M. LAFRAGUA. Washington, D. C, May 6, 1882. A tme translation. CAYETANO ROMERO, Secretary ad interim. 'This dispatch has not been answered by Guatemala. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 145 (Inclosure No. 9.] Memorandum or ohservations made in regard to the draft of a boundary treati/ submitted by Stiior Fereda, minister plenipotentiary of Mexico, to the plenipotentiary of Guatemala. The good will existing between the contracting parties, and the mutual desire that prompts them to put a happy end to the negotiation now pending, is a guarantee that the explanations given by one of the parties will be satisfactory to the other. With this belief it is necessary to give certain explanations that were omitted before in the course of the negotiations. 1st. Chiapas and Socimusco were an integrant part of the kingdom of Guatemala, and their separation and annexation to Mexico after the iudependeace are question- able facts up to the present date, and not agreed to by this party, as there are re- monstrances and other documents exchanged between the two Governments in regard to this subject. 2d. In such status it would be strange that without examining these questions that have been pending for many years (the question in regard to Chiapas being dif- ferent from that w^hich concerns Soconusco), a so-called boundary treaty were made, finally providing for the abandonment by Guatemala of the rights she has considered to have to the integrity of her territory, without even expressing the reasons for this cession, and without receiving such compensations as a treaty of this kind ought to provide. 3d. Snch treaty, even in case the plenipotentiary of Guatemala would agree to it, would undoubtedly be rejected by his Government and by the public opinion ; that is, it would be an impossibility, and would not contribute in the least to strengthen the bonds of friendship between the two countries. 4th. It must be considered that Guatemala, in treating this question with Mexico, has to consider the representation of the kingdom of Guatemala and to be responsible for the results under any circumstances, replying, if is necessary, to any interpellation from the other Central American States, which do not agree with the principles adopted in Mexico and supported by Guatemala, if desirable to avoid aiiy cause of well-founded recrimination. 5th. Besides this, such step would be an outrage to the hopes and rights of the per- sons in Chiapas and Soconusco who have remained faithful to Guatemala; it would be as to dismiss them without rewarding their fidelity. Such abandonment is not made hy Governments from which they would not receive any credit. We have here documents which throw light on this subject, and it must not be supposed that we neglected its careful and due consideration. 6th. Considering all these difficulties, and with a view to obviate them, / have re- peatedly proposed to the plenipotentiary of Mexico to give up the idea expressed by him of making especiallj' the so-called boundary treaty, since the rights of Guatemala to Chiapas and Soconusco have not been considered, an acknowledgment of the statu quo as to the boundaries would not be out of question, which, sanctioned by time, supported by mercantile arrangements which will make disappear any opposition from the inhabitants, and Mexico giving the sum claimed to discharge these prov- inces of their share in the old debt, which will be recognized by Guatemala, will pro- duce substantially the same result, putting at once an end to the old difficulties, which wouldbe settled in that way. 7th. Guatemala in this goes farther than could be expected, since, in fact, the old question of Chiapas and Soconusco is settled and the welfare of these provinces se- cured, establishing a mercantile arrangement which will remove all cause of com- plaint and promote their wealth without detriment to Mexico. In regard to the four or five hundred thousand dollars claimed, it must be had in view that the interested parties are persons or public establishments of Guatemala, who, sooner or later, will have to come in for the whole or a part, since their right is indisputable, to any of the fractions which have the responsibility in common. If the principal subject was to be considered and the respective iudemuization claimed, Guatemala then could ask a larger sum by public lands and other things of public property, to consent in the segregation of those departments. Though this consideration must be had in view, existing among us, or at least on the part of Gua- temala considerarions of higher importance, what is aimed at is to remove difficulties, instead of increasing them. 8th. The sum claimed is limited to what it belongs proportionately to Chiapas, just as the others, creditors in general, have been dealt with, and nothing can be more equit- able. When the kingdom of Guatemala belonged to Spain its treasury recognized the mortgage debt upon the kingdom, as in the other captain-generalships, which debt was originated by deposits of money, annuities, chaplaincy, pensions, &c. Guatemala, in declaring her independence in 1821, solemnly recognized this debt, afterward re- iterated the recognition, and paid, now and then, some sums. How could it be ex- H. Ex. 154 10 146 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. pected that in making the abandonment of the rights she considers to have on Chiapas, the (inestion of the debt would not arise to be settled in order to i^rotect her interests ? Therefore, in the settlement of all these things, it is bnt natural that this qnestiou will not l>e omitted. 9th. As to the question of rights, it has been already said that Mexico can do in this subject what she deems proper without otfense to the treaties with other nations, as Guatemala has done without receiving any remonstrance. From another stand-point it must be bad in view that, during the time of the Span- ish Goveruinent, the tiixes levied in Mexico were greater than in Guatemala, on ac- count of greater richness of that kingdom, and for this reason Chiapas, that was accustomed to the low taxes of Guatemala, now ccmiplains, and her people is op- pressed by the exorbitance and increase of the Mexican taxes; and, in making an exception of this stipulation an agreement between Guatemala and Mexico, it seems natural that it will make the prosperity of Chiapas, and, consequently, that of Mex- ico, that now must grant subsidies to i)rovide for the misery of that department. On this point there is nothing to add, as I agree with the additions proposed by Senor Pereda in the conference of the lyth of July, to the articles 14th and 15th of the pro- ject of a treaty of commerce. 10th. Senor Pereda knows also the antecedents and friendly offers with which he was instructed when he came. From tliat time it has been a subject of solicitude to unite both Governments and both countries, making of the inhabitants of each ter- ritory a single nation, to prevent a common danger. The treaty, therefore, ought to be considered only with this view, because the commercial relations of Guatemala have not extended farther than Chiapas, which have been preserved, notwithstanding the obstacles that have stood in the way. Such are our views. If, unfortunately, the Government of Mexico do not hold these views we will regret it, but we will have no power to avoid it, losiug perhaps the best o))portuiiity to secure the weal and interests of this continent and prevent the dangers that threaten it. 11th. Senor Pereda will allow me to state that my reasons have not been answered, and that no reasons to serve as a foundation to the proposed boundary treaty have been alleged. I am inclined to think that all will be facilitated by including in the general treaty of coumierce and friendship some articles referring to this subject, which are those I j)ropose and which were already agreed to: 1. The boundaries between the two republics will continue to be what they are at present, and if there would arise n disyiute upon this subject in regard to private prop- erty, said dispute will be friendly settled between the two Governments, and the officers on the frontiers on both sides will remain to lend their aid in such cases with- out awakening the jealousy of the inhabitants or arising other questions of any kind. 2. Any person who before or on the date of this agreement would have engaged or supposed to have taken part in a political movement will not be disturbed on that account respecting the laws and authorities of the department. 3. Any political emigrant from either of the contracting parties will not be allowed to remain on the frontier, nor to cause troubles in the country he is from. 4. A convention made besides this treaty, providing for the establishment of the statu quo in the boundaries or the frontier will settle the liability and payment by Mexico of the respective debt of Chiapas to the old captain-generalship and the in- deuinization for the public lands of Soconusco. I desire to earnestly call the attention of Senor Pereda,' with the hope that he will do so to his illusLrious Government, to the necessity of refraining by means of an alliance between Mexico and Guatemala and of their illustrious chiefs, the enemies of the good principles in some parts of Central America, since, as it appears from what has occurred in the United States on the arrival of Barrundia, they begin to make some steps to open the doors to the enemies of our race, seeking the necessary means to commence their operations, making war to Guatemala that has been until now the skiff in which all their efforts to obtain a triumph have been wrecked. As this is all we can do on our part (Guatemala) all depends now iiMm Mexico. Senor Pereda will acknowledge this, and will be pleased to see what is best to be done in the premises; with the understanding that any conference will be fruitless of re- sults if the principles set down in this memorandum are not accepted, in preparing which I have tried to come to the maximum of sacrifices that we can do. Guatemala, September G, 1854. M. F. PAVON. Washington, D. C, May 6, lb82. A true translat'O'i. CAYETANO ROMERO; Secretary ad interim. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. l47 [Inclosure No. 10.] Sefior Pavon, after being informed, said that tie aL^^o bad stated from tbe beginning ,of the conferences that he did not find it easy, but full of difficulties, the conclusion of a boundary treaty according to the proposed terms, and much less the immediate appointment of the persons to mark the line ; because, apai't from the diiificulty of re- moving old questions, when it is intended to establish an union and alliance between Mexico and Guatemala, in circumstaucesof common danger to both countries, it would bring some coolness in the relations of both Governments, which must be avoided when higher interests are at stake. That Mexico is right when she asks the definite and irrevocable settlement of her boundaries with the United States of North America, whose tendencies are to usurp and invade gradually her territory, but she is not justi- fied in the case of Guatemala. That the reason why Guatemala rejects at present the idea of appointing experts is not to arise inquietude among the inhabitants of the frontier, beihg desirable that both Governments try to create a good feeling among them. That in this part, considering the antecedents of the question, without men- tioning disagreeable points in which Guatemala makes a great deal, she has decided in the negotiations pending with Mexico simply to recognize the statu quo in the bound- aries or frontiers of both countries, without ani/ alteration, as an antecedent which will facilitate some day, if it is necessary, the complete settlement of this question, which at present is not necessary, much less in case the close relations between the two coun- tries above referred to are established. Said relations must unite them, and to the prosecution of that end ought to tend their policy at present on account of the press- ing circumstances of the moment. That notwithstanding what he has stated he will examine Senor Pereda's project and will give his views in the next conference. In regard to the debt, he said that he considered this point as essential, since it is a lawful debt of Chiapas to Guatemala that the Mexican Government has rejected only because the reason of the pretension was not understood, and because thej- do not know the origin and nature of the subject upon which he intends to prepare a re- port that will be presented in due time to the minister plenipotentiary of Mexico for his consideration and that of his Government. This point can be treated and settled in a separate convention, notwithstanding that in fact all questions pending between Mexico and Gruatemala ought, in his opinion, to be considered as connected. Finally he said that all he has stated in this conference is according to the last instructions he has received, and as soon as possible he will meet again the plenipotentiary of Mexico to communicate to him what he may have to say about his memorandum of a project of a boundary treaty. Senor Pereda tlien said that at present he will waive to consider the statements just made by the plenipotentiary of Guatemala, but he will do it when his excellency will present to him in the next conference, his resolution on the project of a boundary treaty, according to the views taken on this subject. The conference then adjourned. MANUEL F. PAVON. JUAN NEPOMUCENO DE PEREDA. Washington, D. C, Maij 6, 1882. A true translation. CAYETANO ROMERO. Sercetary ad interim. [Inclosnre No. 11.] Treaiii between Mexico and Guatemala upon the appointment of a mixed commission of engi- neers 1o collect upon the ground all necessary information to fix the line of division bettveen both countries, DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND OP THE DISPATCH OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF AMERICA. The President has seen fit to address me the following decree : PORFiRio Diaz, President of the United Mexican States, to all whom it may concern, witnesseth : That on the seventh day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy- seven, there was concluded and signed at the federal city of Mexico a preliminary convention in regard to the boundary line between the United Mexican States and the Republic of Guatemala, by means of plenipotentiaries of the Governments of both 148 "boundary between Mexico and Guatemala. countries, duly and respectively authorized to that ettect, the tenor of which is as follows : The United Mexican States on one part and the Rei)nblic of Guatemala on the other, desirous of iironiptly and satisfactorily settlini^ the ditrtcnlties existing between the, two countries on account of the long pending (luestion about the boundary line, and believing that the detinitive and couvenieut solution of that question will rest on solid foundation, by means of the appoiutment of a mixed commission which will furnish both (Tovernments with the necessary data in order to enable them to enter into mutual arrangements, and thus determine the boundary line between the two Kepublics, have determined to conclude a i)reliminary convention to Ihat end ; And have therefore apjiointed their respective plenipotentiaries, to wit: The President of the United Mexican States, Ignacio L. Vallarta, secretary of state and of the department of foreign affairs. The President of the Eepublic of Guatemala, Ramon Uriarte, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of said Republic near the Mexican Government; Who having shown each other their respective full i)owers, and found them in full and due form, have agreed upon the following articles : Article I. m The high contracting parties wishing to proceed with the greatest i)robabilitie8 of success in determining the boundary line between the United Mexican States and the Republic of Guatenuila, have agreed upon sending a mixed commission of engi- neers, 80 as to make on the land in question the proper scientific surveys and furnish both Governments with accurate data upon which to base their ulterior negotiations. Article II. Said commission shall be composed of twelve eugiiieers, six of which shall be ap- jiointed by each of the parties in the following form : Two astronomical engineers and four topograjihical engineers. Said commission may have, besides, the assistants that may be considered neces- sary for the fulfillment of their mission. The respective appointment of engineers sha'l l)e made within two months from this date, and the engineers aiipointed by one and the other party shall without fail meet at Tapachula two months after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention or before, if it should be possible. Article III. In order to proceed definitely in the shortest possible time to determine the bound- ary line between the two Republics, the survey of the line shall be divided into two sections. The first shall comprehend the part comprised between the Pacific Ocean and the Izbul Mountain, and the second, the rest of the line to the Atlantic as deter- mined in Article IX. Article IV. In the first of the said sections the connnissioners shall scientifically determine the astronomical positions of the Ocos bar and the Izbul, Mountain ; shall make a topo- o-raphical plan of the land comprised between these two points, following therefor the -course of the actual boundary line and extending to one or the other side of the same as much as it may be necessary for the better clearness aud understanding of said plan. It is to be understood that the points of the actual boundary line at present in dispute between the two Governments, the plan shall comprise all the disputed land whoever may be the Government at present in possession thereof. In case of disagree- ment between the members of the commission as to the survey or non-survey of some determinate place, the survey shall be made, aud an entry should be made in the diary of the operations of the coinmission, stating the motives for that opposition. Their labors once finished, a report should be made in duplicate, to be sent, together with a copy of said plan, to the Governments of Mexico jind Guatemala. Both the plan and the report the iireseut article refers to shall be signed by all the members of the commission or at least by an equal number of engineers of both par- ties as long as they constitute a majority of the same. Article V. In the second section of the frontier, the commission, starting from Izbul Mountain will continue the survey, following the course of the actual boundary till they get as near as possible to the boundary of the Bacalar district, state of Yucatan, aud they may ■determine the astronomical positions of the points they may think convenient. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 149 Said commission in tlie survey of this second section of territory shall invariably observe the same rules laid down in the preceding article for the survey of the first section, both as regards the survey of the land and formation of the plans and as to 'the mode of proceeding in the disputed places and the making of the proper report. Article VI. The commission shall within the term of eight months, reckoned from the exchange of the ratifications (which terra cannot be extended) make the survey of the first section.of the line, and as soon as they meet at Tapachula will address a note to the Governments of Mexico and Guatemala informing them of snch a meeting. A term of six months is also fixed (which cannot be extended) for the survey of the second section reckoned a month after the first term is elapsed. This is not to be nn- derstood as meaning that if the commission should finish its labors before the expira- tion of said terms they could not immediately send their plans and reports referred to in Articles IV and V of this. Article VII. In order to enable the commission to fulfill more easily its chai-g-e and to finish the survey of the line as soon as possible, both Governmeuts agree to give their depend- ing authorities on their respective frontiers, orders to render said commission all nec- essary help and due assurances at the places they may have to visit. Article VIII. With the object of getting the data and information of the commission relative to the first of the sections in which the survey of the boundary line has been divided, the high contracting parties agree on suspending for six months, reckoned from the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention, the pending negotiations on limits. After the expiration of that time, said negotiations will be resumed in this capital, whatever may be the state of the labors of said commission. The same thing will take place if through any event this convention should not be carried out in whole or in part, as in that case, after those six months, the jiegotiations will be resumed as above said, with the data which both Governments may have, since the desire of the contracting parties is to terminate promptly the boundary question. Article IX. Should the negotiations be resumed with only the report of the commission on the first section of the line, the high contracting parties may agree at once through their respective plenipotentiaries on the survey of the boundary line all along their fron- tiers, in order to end and settle forthwith all the pending questions about limits, and this decision shall be communicated by common agreement to the mixed commission of engineers, so that they may suspend survey on the second section of the line, and the commission being considered consequently dissolved, and their labors as termi- nated, with the understanding that they are considered as made previous to ihe celebra- tion of the final treaty on limits. The reverse being the case the commission shall continue the survey in the terms contained in Article V without again suspending thereby the diplomatic negotiatioTis. Article X. During the suspension of the negotiations agreed to in Article VIII the contract- ing parties agree and solemnly bind themselves to respect, and give orders to their respective authorities to religiously respect the actual possessions, neither bringing up nor permitting to bring up any question in regard to boundaries, preventing all act of hostility both on the part of their depending authorities and also on that of their respective citizens. It is to be understood, however, that the stipulations of this article neither .justify nor legitimate the possessions in dispute between the two Rpublics, which possessions will remain with the contentious character they now have, and the respective claims therefor should be mutually made when the negotiations are resumed, in case both Governments may not agree on the survey of the line in the terms expressed iu Arti- cle IX, the object of the present convention not being, and it is not, to prejudge in any manner the question of the designation of limits. 150 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. Article XI. This convention shall be ratified in conformity with the constitution of both coun- tries, and the ratifications will be exchanged in the city of Guatemala within three months following thereafter, or before, if it should be possible. Done in duplicate in the city of Mexico, on the seventh day of December, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, the fifty-seventh of the independence of both nations. [L. SEAL.] ' I. L. VALLARTA. [L. SEAL. 1 R. URIARTE. The foregoing convention was approved on the thirteenth day of December, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, by the senate of the United Mexican States, with the fol- lowing modification : "The term fixed in Article VIII shall be suostituted by that of eight months." I therefore ratified it as follows: PORFiRio Diaz, President of the United Mexican States, to all whom it may concern, witnesseth : That on the seventh day of the month of December of last year a convention be- tween the United Mexican States and the Republic of Guatemala was concluded and signed in this federal city of Mexico, through the plenipotentiaries duly authorized to that efiect. (Here follows the text of the convention.) That the.foregoing convention was approved on the thirteenth day of the same month of December, by the senate chamber of the United Mexican States, with the follow- ing modification : " The term fixed in Article VIII shall be substituted by that of eight months." That I, therefore, Porfirio Diaz, President of the United Mexican States, by virtue of the authority granted me in the tenth fraction of the eighty-fifth article of the federal constitution, I ratify, accept, and confirm said convention with the modification made by the senate, and promise in the name of the same States to fulfill and observe it, and to see that it is fulfilled and observed. In testimony whereof I have made these presents, affixed my hand and the great seal of the nation, and visd by the secretary of state and of the dispatch of foreign relations, at the national palace of Mexico, on the twenty-fourth day of the mouth of January, of the year eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, the fifty-eighth of the independence of the United Mexican States. PORFIRIO DIAZ. J. L. VaLLARTA. [(iUEAT SEAL.] That the term fixed in Article XI of the foregoing convention for the exchange of the ratifications at the city of Guatemala having elapsed, it was necessary to make a treaty extending said term, and this was done through the plenipotentiaries duly au- thorized, concluding and signing the following on the twenty-fourth day of May of eighteen hundred and seventy -eight. The President of the United Mexican States on one part, and the President of Gua- temala, on the other part, considering that the ratifications of the convention made between both Governments on the seventh of Deceml)er of last year, 1877, could not be exchanged within the. term therein fixed, have agreed to make an arrangement fix- ing a new term for the exchange of the ratifications, and for the appointment and meeting of the engineers that are to form the mixed commission ; And have .-ippointed to that eftect their plenipotentiaries, to wit : The President of the United Mexican States, Jose Fernandez, cliief clerk of the de- partment of foreign relations, and the President of tlie Republic of Guatemala, Ramon Uriarte, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of said Republic in the United Mexican States; And said iiieuipotentiaries having shown each other their respective full powers, and found them in projjer and due form, have agreed on the following articles : Article I. The exchange of the ratifications of the convention of the 7th of December, 1877, shall take place in the city of Guatemala, at the latest on the 30th of September of the jireseut year ; or sooner, if possible. Article II. The engineers ap])ointed by both contracting parties shall meet without fail at Tapachula, on the first day of November next, at the latest, and their appointments shall be made vith tlie corresponding anticipation. BOUNDARY BEITWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 151 These articles are and shall be coDsidered. as if forming i)art of the said conveution of the 7th of December, 1877, and shall have the same force and vigor as if inserted therein. In testimony whereof we, the plenipotentiaries, have signed these presents in dupli- cate, affixing our seals in the city of Mexico, on the twenty -fourth day of the month of May, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight. JOSE FERNANDEZ. E. URIARTE. That this convention extending the term afterwards, was also approved by the sen- ate of the United Mexican States, on the twenty-fifth day of May, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight ; That I therefore ratify it as follows : PoRFiRio Diaz, President of the United Mexican States, to all whom it may concern, witnesseth : Whereas, on the twenty-fourth day of May, of the present year, a convention between the United Mexican States and the Republic of Gruatemala was concluded and signed in this federal city of Mexico, through the plenipotentiaries duly authorized to that effect, of the following form and teuor. (Here follows a text of the convention.) That the foregoing convention was approved by the senate chamber of the United Mexican States on the twenty-fourth day of said month of May. Therefore, I, Porfirio Diaz, President of the Uuited Mexican States, by virtue of the authority granted me by the tenth fraction of the eigkity-fifth article of the fed- eral constitution, do ratify, accept, and confirm said convention, and promise in the name of said States to fulfill and observe it, and to see that it is fulfilled and ol)served. In testimony whereof I have made these presents, put rny baud and affixed the great seal of the nation, and vis6 by the chief clerk in charge of the department of state and of the dispatch of foreign relations, at the national palace of Mexico, on the twenty-sixth day of May, of the year eighteen huudred and seventy-eight, the fifty-eighth of the independence of the United Mexican States. PORFIRIO DIAZ. Jos^ Fernandez.- [great seal.] That the President of the Republic of Guatemala, on the twenty-sixth day of April, eighteen huudred and seventy-eight, approved and ratified the convention on limits, signed the seventh day of December, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, with the amendment made by the Mexican senate. That the President of the Republic of Guatemala likewise approved and ratified the convention signed on the twenty-fourth day of May, eighteen hnndred and seventy- eight, extending the term fixed for the exchange of the ratifications of the convention signed on the seventh day of December, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven ; And that the ratifications of both conventions were exchanged at the city of Gaute- mala, on the fourth day of July, eigteen hundred and seventy-eight ; Therefore I order that it should be printed, published, circulated, and duly kept. Palace of the federal Government, Mexico, on the seventeenth day of the month of September, eighteen hundred and seventv-eight. PORFIRIO DIAZ. To the acting chief clerk in charge of the department of state and of the dispatch ted containing the declaration, that the said agreement did not prejudice the question about the right of property of Chiapas and Soconusco. I wished to show by this conduct the consent of my Government to the measures which might lead us to an amicable agree- BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 153 meut, and also to avoid future interpetations of a consent which Guatemala had uot giveu, uor could be cajiable of giving. Your excellency did not consider it possible to admit the additional article I had proposed, because, as you deigned to indicate to nie, Mexico could not make it feasi- ble to have her rights upon Chiapas and Socouusco discussed. I then regretted that I had to decline irremissibly the reform of the Uriarte-Vallarta treaty, and so much more did I regret it, as I found myself compelled to reject the only proposition Mexico has made. It is true that she has presented other><, but they were all founded upon tile maintenance of the statu quo, viz, upuu the condition that Mexico fshouLd, with- out discussion, maintain for herself the territories of Chiapas and Socouusco. If Guatemala, for very just reasons, had not accepted such jjropositions in which she would at least with complete frankness resign rights which she believes belong to her, she could not admit either that of refornjiug a convention, if by doing so, tacit ackuowi- edgments and implicit resignations would be exacted from her. We then remained iu the same situation: uncertainty about the rights and ob- scurity regarding the limits. Intimately interested in defining it, and understanding, because history with incon- testable facts tells me so, that this situation becomes more intolerable every day ; that it leads us to deplorable consequences ; that it separates what nature and tradition have united, and what Ave ought to tighten, — I reflected upon the way of breaking all obstacles which have arisen between nations to which the blood, language, laws, creeds, institutions, misfortunes, and glories exclaim, that they are brothei's. I find that I have succeeded in choosing this medium, and it could not be otherwise, as I was guided by the aim of the practical and honorable conciliation between both nations, none of which could be supposed to wish to be depressed or otiended in the least. I have attempted to establish harmony, if I may express myself so, between two incompatibilities. It Avould be incompatible with the constitution of Mexico, if the Government of said Republic would admit a discussion about the existence of one of her federative entities: and it would be incompatible for Guatemala, according to her constitution and to the code of honor of an independent nation, if, without just compensation, she should abstain from the discussion of rights which, for more than half a. century, she is trying to sustain, and for the safety of which she has in due time raised the voice of her protest. But as anything is attainable when an honest inten- tion guides the wishes, sooner or later a helping voice had to rise. It is Udt the increase of her dominion, but the respect of her laws, what interests Mexico ; and if we consult her self-love, the maintenance of her politics. What con- cerns Guatemala, is to save her honor, which is the first and the most sacred of her duties. In consequence conciliatory and practical ought to be an agreement by which Guatemala consents freely and spontaneously to respect the actiial state of things, abstaining from every discussion about the rights of Mexico upon Chiapas and Soc<)n^^9co, wtiile the United States of Mexico give her a compensation, not for the value of said territories, but for the act of brotherly abnegation with which she de- sists from all discussion. This princi]5ls being established, there is no obstacle to prevent the demarkation of the definite limits, which* may on the ground divide both nations, but will never have the power of separating them in their history, uot iu the fair future which destiny has marked out to them. In interviews of the 18th and 19th of August last year, I had the honor of present- ing to your excellency, as a basis of a treaty, those I have just mentioned, it being ex- tremely satisfactory forme to see that your excellency considers them to be practical and acceptable. In conformity with your excellency, and without special instructions regarding the arrangement I had proposed to you, because the full power I possess did uot refer to the same in any way, as I had conceived the idea for the first time, I communicated it to my Government, by the next mail, and your excellency knows that it met with approbation and I was fully authorized to carry it out. ,1 had the honor of stating the fact to your excellency in my note No. 248, of the 1st of October of last year, and your excellency, in your answer dated the 4th of the same month, has pleased to indicate to me that your Government was favorably disposed to open the negotiations I had proposed. As the determination of the boundary line is one of the points of our arrangement, and 1 was without the data necessary for its fixation, I agreed with your excellency, on the 3d of November, to write to Guatemala asking for an engineer to assist me, and thus to avoid all kinds of difficulties and loss of tim,e. My Government always consenting to all which might favor the definite negotiations, hastened to send to me the person [ had asked for, and so I said to your excellency in my note No. 305 of the 26th of December last. As I have stated at the beoinning of this note, your excellency has pleased to indicate to me that, as I had initiated the ar- raugements, it would be convenient that I should present to you a written project. The one I accompany is founded upon the same basis as my propositions made to your excellency verbally on the I8thaud 19th of August. Its Article I, by establishing that there shall be no discussion about Chiapas and 154 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. Soconusco, puts forever au end to the motive of the questions existinii; betweeu the two Republics, and of the difiSculties met with by the negotiators which have been our predecessors. Article VII, by omitting and absolutely canceling all reclamations which for credits and debts previ<.ns to their indepeiidence have been made, or should l)e attempted to be made, uuitually by Guatemala and Mexico, has put an end to (juite a long series of old reclamations, at the head of wliich appears the debt of the province of Chiapas in favor of Guatemala. Article VIII, in its tirst part, also ends all claims for damages and advances in- flicted between private parties until the 7th of December, 1877, at which date the Uriarte-Vallarta convention was signed. If it does not stipulate the same condition in its second part, it is because said convention being entered into, both nations, as well as their citizens, had to respect the statu quo established by the same, notwith- standing the same second part establishes the speedy and conciliatory manner of set- tling those claims which remain in force. Article VII establishes equitably the compensation or the onerous cause in virtue of which Guatenuila desists forever and ever from the discussions aforesaid. Several antecedents given by tiie history of Mexico would have authorized the representative of Guatemala to fix a much larger sum, and at shorter terms, and this would also be justified by the very prosperous state of the federal income ; but he has asked a small sum, payable in exiguous installments and at long terms, in order to make disai)pear even the least favorable interpietation of the disinterestedness of Guatemala and her wish to facilitate to Mexico the conclusion of the convention. From the part of Guatemala excels above all the noble thought that in her propositions she has not considered, nor does she consider, her interest at the expense of her sister. Articles IV and V determine in justice the future fate of the properties, which, be- longing now to Guatemala, might corresnond to Mexico, when the line is drawn, or vice r^ersa, they determine the law which shall rule, and prevent and render impossible future, although remote combinations, by which the discontent of one country or the other would like to endanger international peace. Article II indicates the limits which Guatemala and Mexico bind themselves to recognize and respect perpetually. In general the basis adopted has been the posses- sion which eitherof the two Republics maintains in order not to alarm the privatepro- prietors, as well as not to injure the interests created there for more or less time. The drawing of this line through the points marked is also an immediate and forcible con- sequence of the stipulations of Article I, in which, by abstaining from discussious, we respect the facts ; that is, we abide by the possession. The project I accompany diifers from it oiriy in the first section of the line, viz, in part of the river Zuchiate, because Guatemala does not possess actually the space between the mouth of said river and the barof Ocos, a distance of, more or less, 4,000 meters. But if we follow the course of said river, we soon I'each the possessions of Guatemala. This deviation is justified by the convenience of establishing a natural and almost indestructible limit, which cas- ually is the most proximate to the actual frontier of Guatemala. Article III only details the proceeding to which the engineers commissioned to draw the line have to adhere so as to occupy the least time possible. Articles IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, and XIV, which are somewhat unconnected with the question to be settled by the treaty, open a vast and fertile field to the relations be- tween both nations, as they extinguish old reminiscences which will be substituted by the fortunate harmony of friendly and common sentiments. Inexpressible would be the satisfaction of Guatemala if Mexico accepted the stipulations contained in these articles. ~ Article XV marks the possession which from this date lioth Governments are to re- spect mutually. It is but natural that such should be the case, because, as I have said before, the line drawn by Article II respects the actual possessions with the very slight varjation mentioned. Finally, Article XVI does not fix any term for the exchange of ratifications, and so prevents the difficulties which might arise from auy delay, and perhaps nullify the treaty. I entertain the pretension of believing that the Government of your excellency knows how to do jnstice.to the honest intentions of the Governtnent of Guatemala, and to my own in particular; and with all the sincerity of which I am capable, I solemnly declare to your excellency that the project I have the honor of submitting to your en- lightened and elevated consideration, is produced by the most fraternal and concilia- tory of intentions. We have passed nearly sixty years in fruitless debates, far from dedicating our- selves to the quiet enjoyment of family pleasures, inasmuch as Guatemala and Mexico form oue and the same family, and, far from enjoying the inheritance we have re- ceived, an adverse destiny has separated us. In the century of right all nations dispute about the honor of paying just homage to civilization, the cause of humanity ; the few exceptions registered by our contem- BOUNDAEY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 155 porary history have met with the unanimous reprobation of uiaakiad, and have, with- out any doubt, conquered the anathema of the future. Guatemala and Mexico have not the mission of putting a new cipher on the wretched catalogue of said exceptions. The world is expectant to see what these two young RepTiblics will do, and they will tell to the world that hatred cannot exist between brothers, and that there are abund- ant w;iys to arrange honorably faiuilj' ditiereuces. If it is possible, Mr. Minister, that we soon give so salutary an example, as I have said to your excellency on a previous occasion, the actual administrations of Guate- mala and Mexico will have acquired the most enviable of glories. I beg of your excellency to admit the sincere manifestations of the distinguished esteem and of the very respectful regard with which I am your excellency's obedient servant, MANUEL HEEEERA, Jr. [Inclosure No. 13.] Prnject of a treaty. The Government of the Republic of Guatemala and that of the United Mexican States being desirous of radically and definitively ending the boundary question which they have been discussing for some time past, as also the difficulties which have originated therefrom, and desirous likewise of establishing on a solid basis the close friendship which must unite both nations, and inspired by motives of high policy and more yet of international brotherhood, have decided to make a treaty to obtain such cherished and laudable objects, and to that end have appointed their respective plenipotentiaries, to wit, &c., &c., who, having shown each other their full powers and found them in due form, have agreed on the following articles : Article I. The rights which the Mexican Eepnblic has or judges to have over the state of Chiapas and its department Soconusco, shall neither directly nor indirectly be sub- ject to discussion ; aud the Republic of Guatemala freely and spontaneously trans- fers to that of Mexico the rights she has or judges to have over the said territory of Chiapas, including Soconusco. Article II. The boundary between the Eepublics of Guatemala and Mexico shall definitively and forever be determined as follows : 1st. From the western shore of the Zuchiate Bar at its mouth in the Pacific Ocean and along the same side of said river to its confluence with the Mixcum Eiver. 2d. From the confluence of the Mixcum and Zuchiate to the Tecpau Cuilco River, at the place where the road leading from the village of Cuilco Viejo to the Piuabete Mountain and the village of Tacana crosses it. 3d. From the Tecpau Cuilco River, at the place where said road intersects it to the Zapote, a place situated between Escunitla aud San Francisco Matecuitla. 4th. From Zapote to the confluence of the Cuilco and Topesala River. 5th. From the said conflueuce in a straight line to the top of the Izbul Mountain, on the side of which mountain the houses '' Gracias a Dios " are situated. 6th. From the summit of the Izbul Mountain continuing the above line in the same direction till it strikes the Usumacinta River. 7th. From the middle of the Usumacinta in its deepest chaouel, in case it should have several branches, to the first waterfall formed on crossingthe chain of mountains dividing the state of Campeche from the Republic of Guatemala. 8th. From the first waterfall in a straight line to the point where it intersects the meridiau 9 degrees east of Mexico, and the 19th parallel according to the geographi- cal and administrative chart of the United Mexican States made by Mr. Garcia Cubas in 1873. 9th. Following the 19th parallel to the sea of the Antilles or Gulf of Honduras, on the Atlantic. Article III. For the practical survey of the line agreed upon the Governments of Guatemala and of Mexico shall, after the exchange of the ratifications, appoint, each one, two topographi- cal and one astronomical engineers. Said Governments shall previously fix the day and place where the commission of engineers must meet for the commencement of their labors. The authorities of Guatemala and of Mexico shall give guarantees and aid to the commissioners who are to determine by common agreement the distances and manner in which the visible and durab e monuments marking the boundary line are 156 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. to be erected. All the expenses incurved iu by the survey, with the exceptiou of the salaries and maintenance of the commissioners, shall be common to both Governments, who will pay them iu equal moieties. The six commissioners shall divide their labors iu three sections : the tirst one composed of two astronomers, and the other two of one Guatemalan and itratu)n of the President of the United States, for the purpose of de- ciding any question which may require the employment of such a method and which is susceptible of being decided by it in determining the boundary of hoth nations. Notwithstanding, we cannot at the present time know if any such questions will arise, as this (juestiou has not up to date been discussed by Guatemala, except one which relates to its houndary with ourcountry, and this always under the precautions and from the second point of view which has been above referred to. I informed yon of this proposition verbally. Since commnnicating it to you 1 learn through several notes from you, and more especially your notes of the 2d and 28th of May last, that direct negotiations for arbitration are takiug place between you and Mr. Eomero. In your note of the 2d you communicated to me for my information a proposi- tion from Mr. Komero to you to submit the question of boundary to the arbitration of the President of the United States, and your proposed amendment of the second article. In your note of the 28th you inform me that there is a probability that the proposal of Mr. Romero will be withdrawn and that war will ensue. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 165 In reply I am instructed by the President to say that he would see a state of war on the continent of ISTorth America between two republics of common origin and language with profound solicitude and regret. No reasonable efforts on the part of this Government as a neutral friend to both will be spared to prevent it. It appears that the draft for a convention submitted to you by Mr. Eomero contained ten articles, and that you accepted all except the second article. You proposed to substitute your own draft for Article 2. The difference between you and Mr. Romero is, then, reduced to this article, and appears to be as follows : Mr. Romero's Draft. 2cl. Presidente de los Estados Uuidos designar^ les li mites eutre el Estado de Chiapas parte integraute de la (Joufeder- acion Mexicana y la Republica de Guate mala. Mr. Montufar's Draft. 2d. El Presidente de los Estados Unidos designar^ la linea eutre Chiapas y Guate- mala. I thought it my duty informally and unofficially to endeavor to ascer- tain the causes of the difference. 1 am told by Mr. Komero|hat Mexico has for years regarded, and still regards, the State of Chiapas as an in- tegral part of the federal republic of Mexico, in the same sense as the State of ISTew York is an integral part of this republic, and that he can- not give his assent to any scheme of arbitration which does not exclude the idea of submitting that question to arbitration. He adds that he has so informed you ; that he told you that in laying the projet before you he did it without authority from his Government, but that he thinks it will be acquiesced in by his Government, if accepted by yours. The interest which the President takes in the prosperity of Guatemala and the confidence reposed by you and your Government in the United States must be my excuse for these unauthorized inquiries of Mr. Ro- mero. While offering this personal explanation, I beg leave to renew the official assurance that the President will gladly lend his good offices to bring about a solution of this unfortunate question if a basis can be found that is acceptable to both Guatemala and Mexico. , Accept, «&c., FRED'K T. FRELmGHUYSEN. ]S"o. 58. Mr. Montufar to Mr. Frelinghuysen. [Translation.] Legation of Guatemala, 17 West Forty-Second S i reet, New York, June 9, 1882. (Received June 12.) Mr. Secretary: It was only to day that I had the honor to receive your valued note of the 5th. I once more give your excellency most sincere thanks for your kind mediation. v' Your excellency comprehends very well the sentiments of the Presi- dent of Guatemala. Tbey explain how great to my Government is the significance of a word from your excellency. 16G BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA By the steamer from Colon, which is due in ISTew York the 14th in- stant, I will recei\e instructions from my Government. Immediately I will proceed to Washington in order to express to your excellencj^ thanks personally, and to procure a point of coinci- dence between Senor liomero and myself, to the end that the question may be decided in the office of the Secretary of State of the United States. / This welcome opportunityaffords me the honorof repeating that lam, &c., LORENZO MONTFUAR. No. 59. Mr. Montfuar to Mr. Frelinghuysen. [Translation. — Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] Legation of Guatemala, Washington, June 15, 1882. (Received June 15.) Sir : The communication of your excellency of the 5th instant, which I had the honor to receive in New York, deserves my highest attention and respect. In it your excellency presents to me a parallel between the proposi- tion designated by Senor Romero as No. 2 and that which I jiresent in substitution. Your excellency tells me that Seiior Komero considers that Chiapas, as a State, belongs to Mexico in like maLuer as New York belongs to the United States. Sefior Romero will permit me to answer in this manner: New York was one of the thirteen colonies which became independ- ent of England, and no nation in the world has ever alleged that she does not belong to the United States. Chiapas belonged to Guatemala for three hundred years. • In the year 1824 she was declared a ])art of the Mexican Republic in virtue of an illegal plebiscite, inasmuch as the votes were not taken be- fore two comnn'ssioners, one of Mexico and the other of Gnatemala, as was agreed upon, but only before the commissioner of Mexico, a Mexi- can force being at the time imposed on the frontier. Soconusco belonged to Guatemala. A treaty between Mexico and Guatemala arranged, in 1829, that neither the forces of Mexico nor of Gnatemala shall enter Soconusco until a treaty toucthing boundaries shall decide the questions. In the year 1842 the Mexican General Santa Anna, breaking that treaty, entered Soconusco and annexed it to JNlexico. Here is the title by which Mexico possesses Soconusco. Very different is the title by which the United States holds the State of New York. After the outrage of Santa Ana, Mexfco declared that Chiapas and Soconusco should form a State of the federation, and therefore does not desire that it shall be submitted to arbitration to ascertain the right or title by which the Mexicans possess Soconusco. This is to sanction the law of conquest. Nothing is easier to a nation relatively strong than to take territory BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 167 from one that is weak ; and uothini? is more easy, after such territory has been taken, than to say iu a law that that territory constitutes part of the nation which has taken it, and consequently not to reduce the question to arbitration. The theories of Mexico are essentially doctrines which sanctify in the New World the law of force and the law of , conquest. Nevertheless, it is necessary to terminate this disagreeable and mourn- ful qaestion, and nothing will be more gratifying to Gnatemala than to terminate it under the influence of a mediator of a common friend — the United States. Would that the arbitration be not limited to this line, but lay down the entire divisional line between the Mexican States and the republic of Gruatemala, even although for this location two or three years more would be necessary. In November I had the honor to say to Mr. Blaine, and afterwards I had the honor to repeat to your excellency that Gnatemala places the matter in the hands of the Government of the United States. In this view your excellency may dictate the bases of the arbitration. Please settle with Senor Komero such bases, under the full confidence that I will subscribe to whatever you will settle. ,^, I am, &c., LORENZO MONTUFAR. No. 60. 3fr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Montufar. [Published heretofore iu Foreiftu Relations.] Depae^tment of State, Washington, June 27, 1882. Sir : The historical statements in your letter of the loth of June, in reply to mine of the 5th of June, in relation to the efforts of the Gov- ernment of the United States to bring about a good understanding be- tween Guatemala and Mexico, toucliiug the boundary disi)ute between them, have been read with much interest. I permit myself to say, how- ever, that they scarcely seem to touch the only questions which Mr. Mariscal's observations left open for the President's consideration. If Mexico were willing to accept the terms and conditions of arbitra- tion offered by you on behalf of Guatemala, the President would be much pleased to act as the umpire between the two Governments. On the other hand, if Guatemala is willing to accept the terms and conditions named by Mr. Romero, and desires that the President should act as such umi)ire, the President is willing to do so. But if the parties desire the President in any contingency to act as um])ire, it is manifestly im})roper for him to consider and express an opinion in advance in favor of either party upon the merits of the case, or upon the scope of the subject to be submitted. It will therefore be perceived that without a more definite statement as to the wishes of your Government on the latter point, the President is unable to act with a reasonable certainty that he is carrying out those wishes. ' Accept, &c., . FRED'K T. FRELINGHUYSEN. 168 I OUXDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. No. Gl. Mr. Romero to Mr. FreUntjImysen. [Memorantluni. ] * Legation of Mexico, Washington, July 20, 1882. The province of Cliiapas, including- its county of Soconusco, was, in the beginning of this century, subject to the Spanish captain-general- ship of Guatenial;!, which embraced, besides Chiapas, the present five Ceiitral American Ivepublics. On the 3d of Sei)teml»er, 1821, Chi;i])as proclaimed her independence from S])ain and her annexatiou to Mexico. On Se])tember 15, 1821 Guatemala proclaimed her indei)endence, and on September 20, 1821 Chia])a dechired her absolute se])aration from Guatemala. On the 2Gth of May, 1821, the Mexican Congress issued a decree, de daring that Chiapas was free to annex herself to Mexico or Guatemala and on Sei»tember 12, i824, the majority of the inhabitants of Chiapas ratified its final incorporation to Mexico, and in the iirst Mexican con stitution, of October 4, 1824, Chiapas was mentioned as apart of the Mexican Kejjublic, and has been so without interrui)tion. Soconusco, a county of the state of Chiapas, was also annexed to Mexico, but for some time remained in a quasi independent condition until 1842, when it again became and has ever since remained a portion of Chiai)as and therefore of Mexico. Guatemala (;laimed to the United States Government in 1881 that Chiapas and Soconusco, supposing them to be two difterent states, were legitimately a. i)ortion of her territory, and that Mexico had seized upon them and taken tliem forcibly by conquest, and asked the arbitration of the United States for the pnrjtose of adjusting that question. The late Secretary of State offered to Mexico the arbitration of the United States in said question, but the Mexican Government could not accept it. because it cannot admit that there exists any doubt as to, and much less submit to arbitration, her riglit to consider Chiapas with the county of Soconusco, as one state of the Mexican union, just as the United States Government could not admit of any doubt and nmch less of any arbitration as to their right to consider Texas and Calitbruia states of this Union, should this right be contended, for instance, by Mexico. The Mexican minister at this ca])ital, acting without instructions or authority from his Government, and as a personal oi)inion of his own, wrote, at the earnest solicitation of the Guatenuilan minister in Washing- ton, some bases, which Mr. Romero thought might be acceptable to the Mexican Gorernn)ent for the ])uij)ose of settling the boundary question under the arbitration of the President of the United States. The main feature of su(;h bases was that Mr. President Arthur should establish, the boundary line between the state of Chiapas and its county of Soco- nusco as belonging to INlexico and the Republic of Guatemala, in so far as the GuatennUan territory borders on said state of Chiapas. The Gnatenialan minister did not accept these proposals, because they settled in fa\-or of Mexi<;o the question of Chiapas and Soconusco, and therefore the Mexican Government has not decided anything about it. The proposal was limited to the state of Chiapas, because this state BOUNPARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 16& embraces the disputed territory, and because the marking of the line from the Pacific to the Atlantic would be quite an undertaking, requir- ing considerable longer time. To better illustrate the present condition of this question, the state of Chiapas is marked in the inclosed map in blue, its county of SoconuscO' in red, and Guatemala in green. 1^0. 62. Mr. Montufar to Mr. Frelinghuysen. [Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] Legation of Guatemala, Washington, July 21, 1882. Mr. Minister: I have the honor to inform your excellency that the President of the republic of Guatemala, who is now in this capital, has instructed me personally, and in the most special manner, to address myself to your exceleucy in the terms which I am about to set forth with reference to the boundary question pending between Guatemala and Mexico. My Government, in the interest of harmony and of the good relation- shij) which should be maintained between neighboring countries, de- sires to . avoid all the difficulties which might place themselves in the way of a speedy and amicable solution. v These difficulties have con- sisted hitherto in the discussion of the rights of both republics to the territory of Chiapas, including Soconusco. Therefore the President desires that this point may be no obstacle in arriving at an end of the business, and, believing that nothing would be so opportune as to have the United States of America, a power friendlj^ to the two countries, which gives them all the guarantees of impartiality and justice, and with respect to which there should be good reason to believe, too, that it i)os- sesses the unlimited confidence of both, consent to take upon itself to put an end to this controversy. He asks, through me, that the United States, by its mediation and in virtue of an arbitration, will do the re- public of Guatemala the inestimable service of giving a decision which shall fix the dividing boundaries between Guatemala and Mexico, in the sense above set forth. In order to attain this result, the President of Guatemala eliminates the difficulty touching Chiapas and Soconusco, which is the obstacle hitherto set i\p on behalf of Mexico, and consequently the boundaries which it pertains to the arbitrator to fix, are those between Chiapas and the republic of Guatemala throughout their proper extent. The President of Guatemala expresses to your excellency, through me, his desire that his Excellency the President of the United States of America will consent to accept the position of arbitrjitor in order to define this question within the proposed terms. It would be very grati- fying to him to know if the President will be pleased to accept this charge on this basis, so that he may thereupon inform the Government of Mexico of the request which he has thus made to the Government of this republic (United States), and to learn if it (Mexico) accepts, for its part, the suggestion and the arbitration proposed by Guatemala. In case of its acceptance (by Mexico), and the remaining details there- 170 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATi^MALA. upon being decided, tbe matter will forthwith be submitted to his ex- cellency's decision ; and in the remote contingency of its not being ac- cepted, Guatemala will have thus taken a step which unequiv^ocally demonstrates the sincerity of its intention to terminate this question, even though imposing upon itself a costly sacrifice. I take, therefore, the liberty of troubling your excellency", begging you to be pleased to honor me with a response which will show whether his Excellency the President of the United States of America will consent to accept the nomination which the republic of Guatemala offers to him for this delicate charge. If the response be favorable, as I am led to believe it will be, by tlie expressions which his Excellency the President, and your excellency likewise, have had the goodness to make to the chief of the nation wiiich I repiesent, and to myself, it will be duly an- nounced on behalf of Guatemala to Mexico, to the end that if it (Mex- ico) accepts and adheres to the suggestion, the matter may forthwith remain subject to the enlightened decision of his Excellency the Presi- dent of this republic. I have much pleasure in stating to your excellency that the Govern- ment of the republic of Guatemala will l)e profoundly grateful to that of the United States of America for the acts of noteworthy deference which its acceptance will imply. This gratifying opportunity affords me the honor of assuring you once more that I am your excellency's very faithful and respectful servant. LOKENZO MONTUFAK. Ko. 03. Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen. [Translation.] Legation of Mexico, ^Y((shington, July 22, 1882. (Received July 22.) Mr. Secretary : I have the honor to inform you, referring to the conversations which we have recently had with respect to the boundary question now ])ending between Mexico aiul Guatemala that, at the in- stance of Mr. Montufar, the representative of Guatemala at this cap- ital, I made inquiry on the 25th of May last, of the Government of Mexico, as to whether it desired that the said question should be dis- cussed with the Guatemalan minister at Washington. The department of foreign relations of Mexico answered me the next day as follows : It is not deeiried proper that yon slionld treat wirli Mr. Montufar wliile tbe ques- tion is being discussed bere with Mr. Herrera, and wbilc the present circumstances continue to exist. The secretary of foreign relations of Mexico wrote to me in explana- tion of the sense of this "telegram, under the date of June 10, 1882, as follows : This department addressed tbe aforesaid telejj;ram to you because Mr. Herrera had assured it tliat President Barrios had sent instructions to Mr. Montufar not to enter into any negotiations with you in relation to our ditilicnl ties with Guatemala, and be- cause it was not impossible that Mr. Montufar had so informed you. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 171 The secretary of foreign relatioDS of Mexico, in a note bearing date of the 1st instant, referring to the desire expressed by Mr. Montufar to discuss said question at this capital, wrote to me as follows : In reply I Lave to inform you that until the Government of Guatemala shall have notified that of Mexico officially/thiough Mr. Herreia, that Mr. Montufar is authorized to negotiate, the overtures of the representative of Guatemala in the United States, whatever they may be, cannot be taken into consideration. I think it proper for me to inform you in reference to this matter that the President of Guatemala had fully authorized Mr. Herrera, minister of Guatemala'in Mexico, to treat concerning the boundary question with the Mexican Government. I avail, &c., M. EOMEEO. No. 64. Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Montufar. [Printed heretofore in Foreign Eelations. ] Department of State, Washington, July 24, 1882. Sir: I have had the honor to receive your note of the 21st instant, in which, with reference to the questions heretofore discussed between Guatemala and Mexico concerning the boundaries between them, you state that the President of Guatemala, being in this capital, has in- structed you to ax>ply, through me, for the exercise of the good offices of this Government in bringing about a conclusion of the difficulty between the two countries within the terms expressed in your letter. ,.As I understand those terms, the Government of Guatemala, in the interest of harmony, removes altogether its claim advanced to the pos- session of Chiapas, includiug Saconusco, and desires that the President of the United States will signify his assent to the proposal of Guatemala that he shall act as arbitrator in tracing the boundary line between Guatemala on the one hand and the State of Chiapas — including, as stated, Soconusco — on the other, and not elsewhere. Understanding the question thus, the President directs me to say that if an agreement be reached between Guatemala and Mexico, tendering to him the post of arbitrator for the determination of the boundary line, on bases of submission, to be specified in such agreement, he will have great pleasure in accepting the high trust proposed. Your note leads me to believe that, with the announced elimination of the question of territorial right to the disputed district, and the offer to narrow the scoi)e of the arbitration to the physical determination of a boundary line, the negotiation between yourself and Mr. Romero has progressed so far toward a pacific and harmonious solution that the re- maining details of a settlement will ofter no difficulty. / Accept, &c., FKED'K T. FEELINGHUYSEK. 172 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA Tin.— FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE BOUNDARY QUESTION THROUGH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE UNITED STATES. No. 65. Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen. [Trauslatiou. — Published heretofore iu Foreign Relations.] LEaATiON OF Mexico in the United States, XcAc York, Augttst 14, 1882. (Received August 16.) Mr. Secretary: I have the honor to inform you that on the 12th instant, in this city, I signed, in my capacity as the representative of Mexico, together with the representatives of Guatemala, viz, General J. Rnfino Barrios, I*resident of that Republic, Hon. Manuel Herrera, jr., minister of Guatemala in Mexico, and Hon. Fernando Cruz, formerly minister of foreign relations of Guatemala, a convention containing the stipulations which are to serve as the basis of the final treaty for the settlement of the boundary question between the two countries, which is to be signed at the city of Mexico within six months from that date. The boundary question between Mexico and Guatemala has thus been amicabl}^ settled. In accordance with this basis it may happen that both the contract- ing parties will have recourse to the President of the United States, requesting him to act as arbitrator on those points with respect to which they may be unable to agree. I avail, «&c., M. ROMERO. No. m. Mr. Davis to Mr. Romero. [Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] Department of State, Washington, August 23, 1882. Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 14th instant, by which you inform me that on the 12th instant, in New York, a convention w^as signed by yourself and the official representa- tive of Guatemala, which contains the stijiulations whereon to base a final treaty for the settlement of the boundary question betw^een Mex- ico and Guatemala, to be signed at the City of Mexico within six mouths from that date. It is a matter of congratulation to the Government and people of the United States that a divergence between two neighboring (countries has by these amicable means been put in the w^ay of a just settlement, hon- orable alike to both. In resi»ect to your further statement that under the terms of adjust- ment it may hap]>en that both the contracting ])arties will have recourse to the Rresident of the United States requesting him to act as arbitra- tor on those points with respect to which they may be unable to agree, I may observe that on the 21st of Jul}' last Senor Montiifar, then the BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 173 envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Guatemala at this capital, addressed this Department, inquiring- whether, in the event of an agreement between his Government and that of Mexico looking to the tender of the position of arbitrator between the two countries to the President, the trust would be accepted ; and that on the 24th of July Mr. Frelinghnysen replied to Seiior Moiitufar that "if an agreement be reached between Guatemala and Mexico, tendering to the President the post of arbitrator for the determination of the boundary liue, on bases ot submission to be specified in such agreement, he will have great pleasure in accepting the high trust proposed." Expressing personally the pleasure it has afforded me to learn from you that the boundary question between Mexico and Guatemala has been thus amicably settled, I avail, &c., JOHN DAVIS, Acting Secretary. No. 67. 3fr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen. [Translation. — Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] Legation of Mexico in the United States, Washingto7i^ September 27, 1882. (Received September 28.) Mr. Secretary: I have the honor to inform you that I have received a telegram from the secretary of foreign relations of the United States of Mexico informing me that the final boundary treaty between Mexico and Guatemala, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, has this day been signed at the City of Mexico, in accordance with the preliminaries which were signed at New York by me, as the representative of Mexico, and by General Barrios and others, as the representatives of Guatemala, on the 12th of August last, to which I referred in the note which I had the honor to address to you under date of August 14. In apprising you of the amicable and satisfactory termination of a grave question which had been pending for many years between two American Republics, and which might have been attended with unfor- tunate consequences to both of them, I think it proper for me to send you, for your information, a copy of the preliminaries signed at New York on the 12th of August last. I avail, &c., M. ROMERO. [Tnclosare. — Translation.! On the part of the United States of Mexico, Mr. Matias Romero, envoy extraordi- nary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of Mexico at Washington j being duly authorized by his Government to treat with the representatives of Guate- mala; and on the part of the Republic of Guatemala, General J. Rufino Barrios, con- stitutional President of the Republic of Guatemala, being fully authorized by the Guatemalan National Assembly, by a decree bearing date of April twenty-eight, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, to settle the boundary question pending with Mexico; Mr. Manuel Herrera, jr., envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Guatemala near the Mexican Government, and Mr. Fernando Cruz, formerly min- ister of foreign relations of the Republic of Guatemala, the associate of General J. Rufino Barrios in the discharge of the duties of the aforesaid settlement, having met 174 BOl.NDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. in the city of New York on the fourteenth day of August, one thousand eiyht hun- dred and eighty-two, dechired that the Government of Mexico and that of Guatemala, desiring to teri'ninate amicably the difficulties which had existed between the two Republics, and with a view to establishing a solid basis for the fraternal relations which were thenceforth to unite them, agreed upon the following articles, as prelim- inary to a final treaty concerning boundaries on that portion of their frontier which compromises the state of Chia|)as: Article I. The Republic of Guatemala abandons the discussion which it has maintained rela- tive to its right to the territory of the state of Chiapas and its department of Soco- nusco. Article II. The final treaty relative to the boundary between Mexico and Guatemala shall be concluded on the" basis that Chiapas and Soconusco are to be considered as integral parts of the United States of Mexico. Article III. The Republic of Guatemala, being satisfied with Mexico's appreciation of the course pursued by her, and with the recognition that the lofty purposes which have inspired the arrangements made in the foregoing articles are worthy and honorable, will re- quire no pecuniary indemnity or other compeusatiou on account of the preceding stip- ulations. Article IV. In the event of the two contracting parties not being able to agree with respect to the fixing of the boundary, either in whole or in part, between the state of Chiapas and its department of Soconusco, on the part of Mexico on the one hand, and on that of the Republic of Guatemala on the other, or in case the commissioners who shall be appointed by each Government to draw, conjointly, the dividing line, shall difter on any point or points relative to such drawing, and in case it shall be necessary to ap- point an arbitrator to settle such difierences as may arise ou this account, both Gov- ernments agree to do so, and to request the President of the United States of America to act as such arbitrator. Article V. Actual possession shall serve as a basis in the drawing of the dividing line. This, however, sLall not prevent both parties from abandoning this basis by common con- sent, for the purpose of following natural lines, or for any other reason, and in such case the system of mutual compensations shall be adopted. Until the dividing line shall have been drawn each contracting party shall respect the actual possession of the other. Article VI. The Government of the United States of Mexico and that of Guatemala pledge themselves to sign the final bouudar • treaty, in the city of Mexico, ou the basis con- tained in this convention, within six months, reckoned from this date, at the latest. In testimony whereof we sign this convention in duplicate, no ratification thereof being necessary, inasmuch as it merely establishes a basis for the final boundary treaty, that treaty being the one to be submitted to both Governments for their approval, according to the constitutions of the two countries. M. ROMERO. J. RUFINO BARRIOS. MANUEL HERRERA, Jr. F. CRUZ. Washington, Sepiemlcr ^Qth, 1882. A copy. CAYETANO ROMERO, Sec. ad interim. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 175 No. 68. Mr. Davis to Mr. Romero. [Published heretofore in Foreign Eelations.] Dbpautment of State, Washington, October 2, 1882. Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 27th ultimo, stating that you had been informed by telegraph by your Government of the signature on that day of the treaty defining the boundary between Mexico and Guatemala, from the Atlantic to the Pa- cific. You also do me the favor to furnish a copy of the convention. In reply, I have the honor to state that the infbrmatiou thus commu- nicated is, in the highest degree, acceptable. If the instrument, as con- cluded, shoukl go into effect it will put to rest a controversy dangerous to the peace aud welfiire of two neighboring republics, in whose pros- perity and happiness the United States cannot fail to take a lively in- terest. I avail. &c., JOHN DAVIS, Acting Secretary. No. 69. Mr. Cruz to Mr. Frelinghuysen. [Published heretofore in Foreign Eelations.] San Francisco, Cal., October 14, 1882. (Received October 25.) Sir : In pursuance of instructions from his excellency the President of the republic of Guatemala, I have the honor to address your excel- lency, for the purpose of informing you that, as his excellency told your excellency he intended to do, he addressed the Government of the United States of Mexico, in order to bring about a settlement of the boundary question, which was pending with Guatemala, and in order to stipulate that it should be decided by the arbitration of his Excellency the President of the United States of America. A frank and friendly understanding having been reached with the representatives of the Mexican Eepublic at Washington, the preliminary basis of a treaty was signed at New York on the 12th of August last. According to said basis, the dividing line between the republic of Guate- mala aud that of Mexico will be drawn, the province of Chiapas and its department of Soconusco being considered as an integral part of the territory of the United States of Mexico. According to the same basis, when the line is drawn, actual possession is to be respected, and if the two Governments cannot agree, a commission will be appointed to draw it; aud according to said basis, in case of a disagreement, recourse will be had to the Government of the United States of America, in order that his Elxcellency the President may decide it in the capacity of arbitrator, without appeal. In the preliminary convention it was also stipulated that, within six months from the date on which it was signed, the final boundary treaty should be signed in the city of Mexico, and the minister of Guatemala 176 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. in that republic has already sent telegrams stating that the final treaty has now been signed. His excellency General Barrios was awaiting this information, in order to communicate ic to your excellency's Government, but not having as yet received it, and having made all the preparations to return to this country, he has deemed it his duty to transmit this information concern- ing all that has taken place. On his arrival at Guatemala, and when the treaty shall have been received, the department of foreign relations will send your excellency a copy thereof, and likewise of the preliminary basis decided upon at New York. The President entertains the pleasing hope that the matter will be satisfactorily settled, and bethinks that it will perhaps be unnecessary to trouble his excellency tbe President of the United States of America to act as arbitrator in the case. He nevertheless trusts that if it shall be necessary to have recourse to him, according to the stipulations of the treaty, he will be pleased, as he promised, to do the two countries the great favor of settling the question by his arbitration whenever they may solicit it. I avail myself of this occasion to offer your excelleuc}^ aud your Government, in the name of the President of Guatemala and also in my own, the wannest thardcs for the kind welcome that was extended to us on our arrival in this hospitable country, and for the attention which the Government was pleased to show to the chief magistrate of the Guatemalan nation, and I have the honor to assure you that I am, with the most distinguished consideration, your verv obedient serv'-»nt, FERNANDO CEUZ. No. 70. 31r. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen. [Translation.] Legation of Mexico, Washington, January 16, ISS3. (Received January 17.) Sir : Although I presume that you have received from the rei)resen- tative of the United States in Central America a copy of the message sent by General Barrios, President of Guatemala, to the general assem- bly of that republic ou the 1st of December last, giving an account of the manner in which the boundary question between his country and Mexico has terminated, nevertheless, believing that you have not the English text of that do'cument, I herewith inclose two copies of an edi- tion that has been published in English, which copies have just been received by me. A perusal of the ujessage of General Barrios will clearly show, Mr. Secretary, the justice with whicli the Mexican Gov- ernment acted in the question concerning boundaries which it had liending with Guatemala, since the reasons assigned by General Bar- rios in favor of the treaty concluded with Mexico in regard to this mat- ter are the same that have always been given by the Government of Mexico when this question has been discussed, and particularly, those which I had the honor to communicate to you in the correspondence which took place on this subject between the Department of State and this legation. I have, &c., M. ROMERO. BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 177 Message of General J. Rufino Barrios to the National Assembly of Guatemala. Gentlemen of the National Assembly: On the 24th of April last I had the honor of addressing the representatives of the nation, pointing ont the very grave evils that were, being bronght upon the country by the indefiniteness of the bounda- ries of its territory with that of the United States of Mexico, and in order to solve this inveterate qiiestion -which had so greatjy occupied the attention and so seriously com- promised the position of the republic, I resolved to leave no means untried. While doing so I practically and conscientiously consulted the interests of our country, feel- ing persuaded that by so doing I should render it a most inestimable service, aiid I re- quested, in the event of its being thought expedient, that very ample and especial authority, conferred by decree, should be given to me, to put an end to the dispute, in the manner I shoukl deem most conducive to the welfare of the republic. I asked for this authority, in view of the importance of the steps to be taken, and for this reason I did not wish to proceed in the matter without the full knowledge and con- sent of the assembly, and only by virtue of the ordinary powers conftrred on the ex- ecutive liy the constitution ; and you, gentlemen, considered well founded the arrange- ments set forth in the message I addressed to you for the jiurpose, and on the 2dth of the same month issued the decree conferring on me such unlimited authority. Under provision of -this decree, and availing myself, so as to be able to absent myself from the territory of Central America, of the leave of absence granted to me for one year, in order to rest from the fatigues of the Presidency, I started from this capital for the United States of America at the end of June, and having returned early in November last, after settling the dispute, I uoWj'in compliance with my promise, come to render you account of the negotiation concluded, and for this reason you have been convoked to an extraordinary session. Offlcial communications from the ministers of Guatemala accredited to the United States of America and to Mexico convinced me that grave complications would arise if the boundary question were treated and became the subject of negotiations in two places simultaneously, by two different persons and on two distinct bases, apt to en- gender grave complications, and in order to remove any such, and arrive at a satis- factory solution, it seemed to me indispensable that there should be joint action, by dealing myself direct with the matter, while listening at the same time to both rep- resentatives of the Government. I considered my personal intervention unavoidable, and the result has clearly proved that I was not mistaken. I proceeded to the United States, and at once became aware that the dispute had run and was running a serious risk of drifting into a real conflict ; that 1 had arrived at a critical moment, and that but for my timely arrival it would have been impossible later on to stem the torrent of difficulties and calamities in which the country would have been involved. Whatever the incidents of my trip may have been, I am glad that I left at the right moment, and without wishing to boast, I feel convinced that without my presence nothing would have been done, and that we should now have to confront a chaos of discord and confusien. The reports from the minister of Guatemala at Washington stated that he had held conferences in that capital with the plenipotentiary from Mexico ; that they had already agreed to a project for submitting the dispute to arbitration ; that in accordance with this project the Government of the United States was to act as umpire ; that the said Government accepted such mediation, and all idea of a treaty in Mexico had to be abandoned. The dispatches from Dr. Manual Herrera, representative from this re- public to the United States of Mexico, stated that the treaty proposed by him relin- quishing the possession of Chiapa and Soconusco in consideration of an indemnity would be accepted by Mexico ; that this was the course that ought to be adopted ; that the matter should be brought to a conclusion in that place, and that arbitration was impossible. Things could not continue in this condition any longer, and there- fore on leaving for the capital of the United States of America, I telegraphed instruc- tions to our representative in Mexico to meet me there, so that we might discuss the matter and bring it to a termination. In order to expedite matters, I held a conference as soon as possible with the Sec- retary of State of the American Government, declaring to him that the Goverameut of Guatemala was anxious to put an end to the pending boundary question with Mexico ; that in order to terminate the same, this republic relinquished its rights to the ownership of Chiapa and Soconusco, the only point that so far had stood in the way of an arrangement ; and that on this basis Guatemala desired the arbitration of the President of the United States. As the minister of this republic had given as- surance that the arbitration had already been proposed by him, and by the represent- ative of Mexico, and accepted by the Government of the United States, I was cer- tainly somewhat surprised to ascertain that on behalf of Mexico no such proposition had been made, nor had the project been agreed to ; that consequently all had to be commenced over again, inasmuch as it was indispensable that Mexico should equally express a wish of arbitration, so that the President of the United States might take H. Ex. 154 12 178 BOUNDARY BETWP:EN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. upon himself a it',s})on.siliility, which he was good enonj^jh to declare in deference to both conutries he would not decline, provided that both parties near to the dispute gave liiin authority to that elfect. As what I heard was not in a<'eord with the in- formation tnruisiied to me by our representative, I persistently etween the two countries, the claim to CLsiapa and .Soconusco, the only obstacle that had hitherto stood in the way, was waived ; that on this basis the Govern- ment of Guatemala desired that the President of the United States as ariiitiator, aiul with such preliminary formalities as he might think tit to iirescribe, should fix the line of division iietween the two countries, and that through the minister of Guate- mala in Mexico tlte proi)osition of Guatemala shonld he nuule known to that Govern- ment, a proposition which, if acceded to, would put an end to the dispute, ami if de- clined would serve as evidence to all the world that we, on our side, had spared uo means of conciliation, and had made every jiossible concession. Later on, after returning to Mr. Matias Rnftiero, the jjlenipotentiary of Mexico, a visit ho had paid me, I spoke to him about the business in hand, and he exjiressed to me the most favorable disposition to settle it on the terms I had sngge^ted. He at the same time declared, however, that he was, so far, without authority from his Gov- ernment to treat ; that the bases which had been uiuler consideration on the 17th of April, and which already stipulated the abandonnu-ht of Chiapa, had been pre- sented by him in a private capacity, and delivered eoutidentially to the minister of Guatemala without instructions, and not in any official niaimer, and he therefore would have to ask for instructions and. powers Irom his Government, which he would do by telegraph. On the '24th of July the Secretary of State at Washington on his part answered the note that had been addressed to him, signed l)y the plenipoten- tiary of Guatemala in the United States, stating in his reply th;it it would attbrd the President great pleasure to accept the distinguished mark of confidence reposed in him, whenever Guatemala and Mexico, agreeing upon bases, shonld jointly solicit his intervention as umpire, to decide the dispute concerning the boundaries, a dispute which in his ox)iniou, the claim to Chiajja and Soconusco being (lis[)Osed of, and re- duced- to the establishment of boundaries, evidently led to a peaceful and harmonious solution. It would be useless to go into the details of the conduct observed a short time af- terwards, by the dii)lomatic representative of Guatenuila in Washington, and the at- tention of the assembly to such miserable trifles; the country knows me, and already has judged and characterized his conduct; and were 1 to seek to justity mystdf, it ■would seem as though I thought my own could be suspected, I must, however, before stating to you the conditions of the negotiation concluded about the im])ortant ques- tion of frontiers, make it })uhlicly km)wn on this solemn occasion that 1 received constantly at the hands of both the Government and the peojile of the United Siates every ])roof of esteem and consideration, the memory of which I jues-'rve w ith atfec- tionate gratitude, in token of the sympathy and respect I feel for thit generous and noble nation. Mr, Romero, the plenipotentiary of Mexico in the United States of America, received from his Government the necessary powers for the discussion and .igning of the con- vention respecting the bound aiies with this rei)ublic, on the basis of consider! Ui; Chiapa and Soconusco as an intergial part of the Mexican Confederaticm, Meanwhile Mr. Herrerea, minister of Guatemala to Mexico, arrived in New Yoik; so that, after several prolonged conferences the substantial bases of the arrangement for })Ultiug an end to the dispute were agreed upon, and signed in that city on the Ivith of August. Therein it is declared that the governments of Guatemala and Mexico are desirous of bringing to an amicable terminiation the difficulties that existed between the two republics, and that it is their earnest wish to lay down solid tbnndations for the re- lations that should bind them to one another, and keeping these })recedents in view, the preliminary articles for a definite boundary treaty on that part of the frontier compiised by the State of Chiajja were drawn up. These articles read as follows : I. The republic of Guatemala withdraws from the discussion it has maintained re- lative to the rights it possesses to the ternfory of the State of Chiapa and its depart- ment of Soconusco. II. The definitive treaty of boundaries between Guatemala and Mexico is to be BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 179 made oi] the basis of considering Chiapa and Soconnsoo integral jjarts of the United States of Mexico. III. The republic of Guatemala, satisfied with the due appreciation that Mexico entertaius of its conduct, and with the acknowledgment that the exalted motives which inspiren the agreeineut set forth in tlie preceding articles are wortliy and hon- orable, will not exact a pecuniary iudemnity, nor auy other compensation on account of the foregoing. 8fipulatio"8. IV. In case the two contracting parties should not be able to agree, as to the par- tial or total deniarkation of boundaiies, between the State of Chiapa and its depart- ment of PoconTisco on the part of Mexico, and the republic of Guatemala on the other part, or the commissioners that each must name to determine jointly the deniarkation of the dividing line, should differ on one or more points concerning said deniarkation, and it should become necessary to nominate a third party to adjust the dilhculties that might arise on this head, both governments agree to do so, and also to request the President of the United States of America to act as third party or umpire. V. In the deniarkation of the dividing line, actual ])ossession shall serve as the basis of the general rule; but this shall not prevent such basis lieing depaited from, by both parties, conjointly, for the purpose of following natural lines, or on any other account, and in this case the system of mutual compensations shall be adopted, pend- ing which drawing of the dividing line each contracting party shall respect the act- ual possession of the other. VI. The goveronienis of Guatemala and of the United States of Mexico, solemnly engage to sign the definitive treaty of boundaries, on the basis set forth in tlie present convention, in the City of Mexico, at the latest within six months reckoned from this date. By virtue of these conditions Guatemala can no longer allege any right to the ter- ritory of the State of Chiapa and of its department Socouusco, which, on the bound- aries being established, must be held to be an integral part of the United States of Mexico; nor can Guatemala by reason of this stipulation exact pecuniary indemnity or other compensation. I present to you, gentlemen, in all its nakedness, without any reserve, without any artifice, this point which constitutes the concession made by Guatemala, for I do not wish to conceal it ncr to disguise it in any way, anromulg;ition of the seven coustitiitive laws, by which the Mexican States were converted into departments, Chiapa was one of them, nominat- ing its deputies to the general Congress and its senators ; that in the following years, when the legislative authority was exeicised by popular assend)lies, Chiajja elected its de|»uti(;s, who were its representatives in the Congress, and that when ihe dictator- ship held rule it was submitted thereto. They tell us that the independence from Spain being establif-hed, the jirovinc^s of the captaincy-general of Guatemala, to which jttrisdiction, acconting to the laws of the Indies, Chiapa and Soconusco had certai'dy appertained, remainecl independent of one anoth- r, and that vkhilst some could, and wished to form by themselves sovereign republics, others wished to, and could unite with other nationalities, as was done by Chiapa, and as was done t)y Guatemala it- self ; that the incori)oration of Chiapa and Soconusco was prior to that of Guateuiala and indejiendent of it, aud therefore if the latter, on account of the abdication and absence from Mexico of the Emperor Agustin Iturbide, chose and was at liberty to separate itself, Chiapa might continue irrevocably united to Mexico; and as the first co-operated in foiming,anew confederacy with the other provinces of t'eiitral America, so coitld Chiapa form part of the Mexican Federation. They tell that Chiapa has always ])0ssessed its political constitution as part of Mexico, the last one being that of the 4th of January, 1858, and that on the contrary the Federation of Central America itself, by decree of 21st of July, 1823, declared that if Chiapa desired to unite with them, it would be received with the greatest ))leasure, which imi>lies the acknowledgment of the legality of separation. They call our at- tention to the fact that, since the year 1824, Chiapa has obeyed the laws of Mexico, and has had recourse to its tribunals; that it has always shared the destinies of that nation, participating in its misfortunes, and cotitributing with its money and with is soldiers to the sup])ort of the wars it has carried on; that it has at all limes been sub- ject to its rule, be it the rule of liberty or the rnleof dictatorship, aud that ne\er, how- ever fraught with danger the times may have been, not even in the days of anarchy, nor during the war with the United States, nor duriug the last war waged against the French intervention, has Chiapa endeavored to separate from Mexico, notwithstanding the fact that its position and remoteness would have facilitated with separation, for the latter could have been effected witl) greater ease and less risk and liability than that of any of the remaining States: and that recently in the very days when the boundary question was being discussed on all sides, and by the press with the greatest warmth, Chiapa has made the most energetic protests against the idea of belonging to Guate- mala, and had put forth the most explicit and decided declarations of its wish to con- tinue lorraing part of the Mexican Republic. They bring to our notice that the ut- most that can be pretended is, that Chiapa had been one of the States of the Federa- tion of Central America; but that Guatemala alone and for itself could not lay claiir to that right, whilst the federation lasted from 1823, because itpossessed no sovereignty nor international re])resentation ; aud that, although the alliance was dissolve*! iu April, 1839, and the dissolution was confiimed by the decree of 1847, iu which Guate- mala declared itself a sovereign repnl)lic, the rights held by the federation were not transmitted to it. They answer tis that there are no conclusive proofs that the junta of Chiapa did not act of its own free will; that Mexico was not to blame because Guatemala did not send in proper time the commissioner who on its behalf was to have been present at the voting; and that whatever compulsion, whatever pressure might have been brought to bear, their influence would have been evanescent, ceasing as soon as they disappeared ; whilst Chiapa constantly and under every circumstance has persevered in its determination of not forming a part of Guatemala, but of Mexico. As regards Soconusco in particular, they point t and obey the resolution of the majority, which was in favor of Mexico ; that the decree of the federal Congress of the United States of Central BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 181 America of the 18th of August, 1824, cannot be appealed to, for it only remained as a document, because Socounsco had the intention of entering into the federation as a State, and not of becoming a department of Guatemala; and that it would have re- gained its independence on the dissolution of the federation ; and that against thia declaration, which had no force of obligation for INfexieo, Ohiapa protested in Sep- tember, 18"24, and the federal Governnieut made a reclamation in BLarch, 1825. To the preliminaries of that year, and the occupation by General Santa Anna, in 1842, they urge in opposition that the Government of Central America had sent troops in January, 1&25, to take ndlitary possession of the tov/n of Tapachnla; that the posses- sion of Soconusco could not remain tor an indefinite period in the anomalous position in which it had been left by the preliminaries, merely under municipal rule, unless it were that there was a prospect of arriving at a speedy arrangement, which was counted upon at the time of agreeing to the preliminaries, for Soconusco would only have served as a refuge for malefactors, being so to say out of the pale of political author- ity ; and lastly, supposing even that thi-re had been some irregularity in the records of the,i«inta of Chiapa, or in the occupation of Soconusco, all this would have been remedied, not only as being acts committed long ago, but also by ratification founded on the acqnit-sceuce of Chiapa, which duriug a period of sixty-one years has not jiro- tested, and of Soconusco, which also has abstained from doing so during a period of forty yf-ars. Whoever reflects coolly and dispassionately on this matter must come to the conclu- sion that, with all the antecedents stated, and considered in all tlieir aspects, it was not so easy as any political visionary might suppose to make the rights of Guatemala triumph in a well reasoned and calm discussion, and prove that Chiapa and Soco- nusco , and which this republic never owned before. On the contrary, all the advantages were on the side of Mexico, which not only is our superior in poi))ilation, in resources and in wealth, but against which we should have haoses also the real and undisturbed possession of a property. A cession has been made of a thing the republic never possessed, nor ever could hold; a thing which conid not even conveniently be held; an illusory and ephemeral right has been surrendered, the right to dispute the ownership of Chiapa and Socou- usco, a right not only Utopian, but even mischievous, inasmuch as it created ft state of restlessness among us, undermining confidence abroad, and breeding ill-will between tw^o neig-hborly ami fraternal countries; and all this without ever being able to ])ro- duce any result favorable to Guateuiala, only jeoparding that which it actually pos- sessed, merely for the sake of the barren glory of keeping up the privilege of leaving open an unprofitable discussion about a thiug it never had owned and never could become the owner of. In order to form a correct judgment as to the justice of these ideas, it is necessary to bear in mind that the territory of Chia])a and Socouusco adjoins undisputed terri- tory possessed by Guatemala. If the land in (piestifm had been situate in the center of Mexico, not adjoining territory ])ossessed by Guatemala, it would have been of less importance to leave the question in abeyance, for although such a state of uncer- tainty would have produced other grave inconveniences, w^e should at least not have been exposed to the risk of losing the certain in the pursuit of the doubtful and im- possible, nor of provoking conflicts that might have ended iu ruin and disaster for Guatemala. But the boundaries between this republic and Mexico wei-e never settled, for when- ever Ihey were treated of, the dispute al)out Chiapa and Socouusco sprang up ; Mex- ico insisting that these should be considered as part of her territory, wliile Guate- mala invariably denied this; hence it resulted that the boundaries renuiined forever undecided ; that in consequence of this und(^termined state of affairs the limits of So- conusco continually made greater inroads on the territory of Guatemala, and that districts aud villag'es which iu 1821, and even in 1H4'2, were recognized as indisputa- bly belonging to Guatemala now are Mexican; and that at every moine.nt some new dispute and some new pretcuisiou arose, and that day by day the area rightly belong- ing 10 Giuitemala came to be curtailed, an area which has been specially comniitted to the supervision of the executive, whose duty it is to watch ovei' it, preserve it in its integrity, and of -which it must render the .strictest account. E\ery act which Guatemala might look 111)011 as an encroachment would have given rise to explanations and claims, but these would not be taken into consideration, be- BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA, 183 cause it would be contended that the territories involved in tlie discussion belonoed to Mexico, and in sujiport of sucli affirmation appeal would always be made to the uucerUinty of the boundaries, to the non-existence of a clear and decided line, and to the obscurity arising therefrom entangling matters in a most intricate maze. And such claims and explanations would go on exciting feelings of resentment ; they would breed animosity, would involve eventually the greatest difficulties and conflicts, whose bearings not those will best know how to measure and appreciate who lead a theo- retical life in imaginary spheres, exposed like the ancient and learned King of Spain to lose his lauds while contemplating the movements of the stars of heaven, but those who daily experience the toil and are brought in contact with the practical difficul- ties of government:, those upou wliom all responsibility resfs, aud who in the hour of risk not only have to be the first to face the danger of auysituatioQ, but have also to an- swer for the property of the citizens, aud the blood of soldiers, wiiich would fall upon the heads of those wbo should rashly and inconsiderately provoke a struggle in sup- port of a doubtful cause, in which no advantage could be gained, even should success attend it, and which would be hopeless in the end. It mattered nothing to Mexico that the question should be prolonged to all eternity, inasmuch as that country was in time-honored aud peaceful posessiou of the terri- tory in dispute ; Mexico did not run the risk of having its possession curtailed, but, on (he contrary, there was tho probability tha it would continue to increase. Guate- mala not only did not hold )iossessiou, but was exposed every daj' to new losses, hence it became a matter of vital importance to bring the dispute to a termination; it was urgent ami not to be put aside, and it behooved us, therefore, to act, and work with- out rest with this object before us. My mind has often been disquieted by these considerations, and I have been unable to listen with a smile of di-dain to those who intrenched themselves behind the na- tion:.! honor in order io cry out against the idea of giving up Chiapa and Soconusco. It was claimed that the national honor would not allow us to give up the right to a stri]) of laud which had never been in our possession, but yet could consent to our contempiaiing with iiiditlerence the loss of that which we actually held, a loss which would continually increase, aud which would have resulted from and as a natural con- sequence of the iudeterminateness of the frontiers, and through the maintenance of an illusory, chimerical, and ridiculous right ! They- who thus invoked the rlignity of Guatemala, who in this manner are so jeal- ous of its national honor, who make this boast of patriotic pride, ^;hould, instead of clamoring senselessly, have abandoned their homes aud their families, take up arms, aud march to the frontier, commencing in the hrst place by the conque-t of all that which was in our positive possession, and has been lost only through persisting in as- serting a claim that offered no advantage, and was impossible to justify. But that false patriotism, tit only to give rise to difficulties, never dors anything for the good of the country; it shirks all obligations, avoids all risks, abstains from all sacrifice, aud, creating an atmosphere of uneasiness, only hampers the action of those who can do good, of those who resolutely devote themselves to the study of and pro- motion of the welfare of the repul)lic, those linally who, attaching more importance to practice aud to deeds than to words and formulas, consult conacieutioiisly the true interests of the nation. Since, then, this barren question had to be ab.indoued, it was a thousand tines better to at lea.st avoid a pecuniary indemnity. It should never be said that our si- lence had been Ijouglit with money, nor that we had made an unworthy cession in exchange for a hamlful of gold. If not right or houorabh-. to yield in the dispute, it certainly could not be made so by receiving m compeusaitiou any amount whatsoever, and if it was sound ]>olicy, prudent, and necessary to the interests of Guateautla to put an end to the discussion, bur>ing forevei' iii, oblivion the pretensions we had hitherto advanced, it had to be done in a^ manner entirely decorous, without anything that could be looked ou as a sale of territory, without anything tluic wiMi a semblance of trutii miglit give rise to the swriseless sus[)icion that they who bore i)art in the ne- gotiation had stained their hands by contact with coin, and iiualiy without anything that could detract from the merit uf Guateinalai, aud could make it appear as a s liable comnu)d!ty. The republic, and the Government in its name, have withdrawn from the dispute, because it behooved them to withdraw; no sale was made, for none could rightly be made; for if to maintain the right to Chiapa and Soconusco had been really one of those questions of honor and dignity in which any compromise is impossible,' that honor and dignity would not have been presers'ed l)y any payment, but it would rather have been still more tarnishi-d and degraded, aud whether with or without in- demnity never should we have yielded. I take no notice of nor am I intimidated or in the least influenced by what the sys- tematic enemies of my administration may say. They disapprove of my conduct, and by the use of miserable intrigues have placed difficitlties in my way, in order that I might not be able to attain the solution I fortunately have reached ; they will cry 184 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. out that my conduct is dishonorable and wanting in patriotism. Their criticisms, instead of" disconcerting me, cause me the most lively sutisfaction. If the stej) I have taken had been damaging to the interests of Guatemala, if it had been dishonorable for the Government and for myself, they would have endeavored to assist me, they would have applauded me, and would have caused the greatest praises to he shftwered upon me. Tliey disayiprove and vituperate because they are aware that this step in- augurates an er.i of peace and tranquillity for Guatemala, because; they are aware tliat it creates for me a claim to the gratitude and esteem of my fellow citizens, and that, thanks to it, our history may some day inscril)e mj- name in ihe book in which are inscribed the naTues of those who have served their country well. Let enemies, then, censure and find fault with me ; it neilher takes me by surprise, nor do I de])]ore it ; on the contrary, I wished for it, and am glad of it. It was but natural that they should disapprove of my condiutt if it does away with the mad intrigues they were concocting by talh self-love and a false sense of dignity, I had clung to a fantastic right, and thus brought u]>()n thu country real evils and positive ruin ; if with the mad (irojecl of couiiuering what \n e had never pos- sessed, nor couhl ]iossess, and which finally it would not t ven have been in our inter- est to possess, I had plunged the country into all the horroi's of a struggle in which all the advantages would have been against us. They, my friends, would be justified in calling me to account for tlieir inine' rties destroved; they would call me to account for the priceless blood of the- sons of the country uselessly shed; they would call me to account to the widows and orjihansof an innumerable number of victims, and for the desolation and mourning of the people, and then with right the avenging image of cuu' native land would rise alio\ e the ruins to execrate my name and to cuise my memory, if, following the dictates of a foolish misconcep- tion, I had plunged it into an abyss of disgrace whilst iuvoking its honor — I had sacrificed the lives and fortunes of its sons, watering its soil with wasted blood, and niiqjing the hist symptoms of well being, that were l>eginiiing to spring forth in lux- uriance from the seeds of liberal ideas. Now, I have the satisfaction to feel that I am very far from being censured by my fi lends; I have had to make sacrifice, but this sacrifice nu'cfs with ample ccmpeMsaiion in their good opinion and esteem, and the got)d accruing from it tv the country 1 adore and to which I am thoroughly de- voted. I have just said that m order to solve this question I had to make a sacrifice, and I must now add that it has been the greatest sacrifice of my life, and that to make up my mind to it, I had to use over myself an extraonlinary amount of command and of resolute self-denial. No, after meditating on the stibjcc-t and putting aside all pre- possession and i>rejmlice, I couhl not have the slightest (huibt as to t!i<' necessity and ex)iediency of the measure I adopted, but yet there crowded on my miud all the diffi- culties it might occasion me, all the versions that might l)e put forward, and all the wretched detractions that would be sure to fi How me. Our politicians had asserted that the right of Guatemala to Chiapa and Soconusco was irrefutable; that this right ought to be vindicated ; that national pride demauded that no concessit>n should be made on the subject, and that this right should never be given u|), nor the title arising therefrom. And this oi)inion was filtrating and spreading amongst the men of BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 185 the country, who already, without examiuation, entertained it and communicated it from one to another. A o;reat majority, without being familiar with the dispute, without sTudving its antecedents, without taking into account all the circumstances connected withit, without a clear appreciation ofthematter, without takingthetrouble to examine it from its origin and to master all its detnils, indorsed such opinion, and in this manner a sort of tradition was being formed, echoed by every one who busied himself about it ; a tradition from which even my administration has not been ex- empt. With this antecedent before him, one who should speak of maintaining the rights of Guatemala to a territory unknown to nearly all, and the history of which was completely foreign to him, would flatter public vanity by appearing to sustain the honor of the nation ; while any one who, on the contrary, looking at the dispute from its true aspect, should seek to put an end to it, giving up all discus- sion about the ownership ot Chiapa and Soconusco, would expose himself to calumny, to the accusation of want of patriotism, and why should I conceal it ? Be accused, perhaps, of weakness or of treason. While, therefore, on the other hand, a conscien- tious appreciation of the real interests of the country was well calculated to counsel the abandonment of this useless dispute, and thereby securing the boundaries, as well as the tranquillity and the prosx'erity of Guateuiala, there would, on the other, be raised, to stifle any action to that effect, the voice of personal convenience and self- interest, and whosoever undertook to present the matter in its true light, and patrioti- cally dare to carry out such a bold and decisive measure, would expose himself to the grave danger of losing bis popularity. I have done, gentlemen, what hitherto no Government had the resolution to do; I have withdrawn from a contest from which neither Paron, nor Luis Batres, nor Aycinena before me have dared to withdraw. I shall not allow myself to be com- pared with any of the leaders of the servile party, who brought so many misfortunes upon the country, who with their blunders and their ill-deeds provoked the separa- tion of Chiapa, and who, by joining the Mexican Empire, sanctioned such separation, thereby making patent their own abasement and failing sense of dignity. The serv- ile party in 1851, in the conferences that preceded tbe projected treaty with Don Juan N. de Pereda, had already recognized the incorporation of Chiapa and Soconusco } if that treaty was not concluded, if the dispute was not brought to an end, if the solu- tion that I have now arrived at was not reached then, if there was introduced, so as to set it on one side, the claim for the payment of the debts of Chiapa, as the necessary condition for the abandonment of the rights of Guatemala, with the clear intention that the other stipulations should not be accepted, it was not in comxdiance with a feeling of national delicacj^, nor because this conduct arose from a generous impulse not to curtail the teiritory, nor to wound the pride and self-respect of Guatemala. It was as though that party, being condemned to cause only misfortunes without hav- ing the courage to repair them, and to be unable to render any service to the country, or to do anything that should deserve imjjerishable gratitude, the Government had become apprehensive that by such a measure its unpopularity would reach its climax, and the measure of public indignation would pass all bounds. I have not shrunk from facing these dangers, however great the struggle within me may have been. Often has the consciousness of my duty battled within me with the fear that the people might misinterpret and not sanction my proceedings, that it might withdraw from me, not. power, for which I have no ambition, and from which I have so often wished to retire, but its esteem and confidence, and. might look upon me, though only for a moment, as disloyal to the interests of the country. I thought for one thing that the baseness of my enemies might go so far as to cry out that I had been bought by Mexican gold, and that I was capable of lowering mvself to their level of venality and for money sell the soil, thereby depriviiig Guatemala of a real and poaitive right. I reflected that they might tax me with weakness, imagining as they have already imagined a thousand absurd plans about selling the teirilory to the Government of the United States ; that there was on my side a weak yielding, or that my residution was the Impulse of the moment, due to imaginary refusals and fan- cied obstacles. I came to reflect that this step more than any other might be made use of by malevolence and calumny, to spread inauspicious interpretations and sense- less conjectures that would represent me as untrue to the cause of the republic, and as trami)ling under foot the rights of the people. I thougbt that perhaps an unjust opinion might declare itself against me, tarnishing my name for having done what I consider the most precious service ever rendered to my country; and I thought that this dishonor might fall on the innocent heads of my children, sharers of my heart, and the delight of my life, to whom I do not aspire to bequea! b either riches or power, but the precious heritage of a spotless namii and ihe gratitude of the couutrv, earned by the conduct of their father, ever patriotic and loyal. And I wish that they may always be able to lift up their heads with the pride of innocence, that no one may be able to point at them on account of auy infamous action of their father ; that on look- ing over my history they may always find it worthy of respect and consistent, so that they may respect my name and bless my memory as that of a faithful servant of 186 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. Guatemala, 'and that they maybe able to take pride iu beinuthe sons of one wlio waa a good son of his coimtry! I did what ncitlier Paron, nor Batres, nor Ayciiieua did, because I believed that I ought to do it, and because, having before my eyes the idea of duty, I always act as I believe I should act, without paying atteutiou to what others did or left undone. I do uot propose to clear myself from the charge that may arise, iusiuuating that I may have been bought, for there are imputations so infamous that one fears contact •with their iulaniy while taking notice of them tor a moment, were it but to trjimple them iu the dust, for, like the viper, they sting tlie toot that crushes them. To those who may accuse me of weakness and may believe that I was prompted while in the United States by some untoreseen incidents, I will answer with the testimony of in- numerable political aud personal friends, some of whom even belonged to the previous administratiou, who are all of them fully aware of the resolve that I arrived at for some time past, aud who know that when I asked fur special authority at the hands of the assembly, it was with the lirm intention of giving up Chiapa aud Socouusco, and they will contirm that I have debated the suliject with them at length, adducing in support of my resolution the same ideas, and the siime arguments I now have the honor t'f submitting to the assembly. I may furthermore reply to them that in of- ficial notes from the secretary of foreign affairs, directed to the then minister of Guatemala iii Washington, prior to my (leparture from this country aiid by my iu- strnctious, it was stated that in conformity with what was expressed in other dis- patches, Guatemala had always been and ^till was most sincerely desirous that an end should be piit to the dispute pending about the botiudary of its territoiy with that of the United States of Mexico; audit it could be solved by arintration, the earnest and long-entertained wishes of the GovernnuMit would bf< realized. It was there also stated that the Government did uot feel the least uneasiness as to the con- ditions that might altacli to the verdict to be given by the umpire, for even though the same might nu)ve adverse, there would at any rate have been obtained the great boon that, while doing away with any accusations, founded or not. for the future the boundaries of the two countries would be clearly deiined, the continual ditliculties to which their uncertainty gave rise renuived, and with it the constant eneroaehments would be stopjied that were taking place all the time u[iou that portion of which Guatemala had held uninterrupted possession. By this note which had been pub- lished improperly, since it was directed to the legation by the minister of foreign affairs, aud ought not to have s(^eu the liuht without special orders and instructions, it was clearly set forth what the leanings atid intentions of the Government were, and it was made patent that its conduct was consistent, aud that what was stated publicly was iu perfect accc^id anus and fraternal nations are thus saved the danger of enmity, arising from a mere frontier question, and the risk of staining their soil \^ith blood in a Iratricidal struggle for a strip of land of com- paratively little importance to either of them. When the time comes for me to deliver up the Presidency, I shall be able to leave it in tranquillity ; I shall not return Chiapa 'and Socouusco to the nation, for I did not receive them when I came into po^ei-; what I did receive and shall not return is the wretched legacy of the boundary dispute with Mexico, a source of uneasiness and disturbance to the country. If my not returning such a legacy of calamity be a reproach, I shall bear the burden of it cheerfully. Gentlemen, on submitting to yoii all the documents in which the treaty entered in- to is set forth allow me to entreat you to examine them calmly, and to let the most entire liberty preside over your deliberations, without partiality or considerations of any kind. Do not be swayed by a wish to be agreeable to me, for I may have been subject to an cn'or of judgment and may be swept away at any moment. Be solely guided by the wish to serve your country disinterestedlj^ and courageously, for it may at any time demand of yourselves or of your sons an account of the resolution that you may arrive at. There is committed to your decision the most important business ever submitted to the assembly. If, in representation of the country, with your hands placed upon your hearts, you in your consciences approve my conduct, I shall feel an indescril>able satisfaction : but before doing so reflect that yon will share w'ith me all responsibility inseparable from it — that yon will identify yourselves with me beibre the tribunals of public opinion and of history, which will judge this question in the future, and inscribe therein either glorious lines of praise, or lines of disgrace and of shame for all who shall have shared in the trausaction. There is tiiue yet for reflection. Act with tirmness and loyalty, without considerations that later on couhl only be alleged to cover you with leproacli. If, unfortunately, the step I have taken does not merit your approval ; if you consider that it injures or dishouurs the country, in my owu name and iu the name of Guate- mala, I entreat J ou to condemn it energetically and freely, so as not to bear conse- quences it may entail and not to compromise your reputations, through an act of foolish comj)liance or pusilauimous weakness, and not to allow the countrj' to be dragged nto a thing involving shame or indignity which woukL bring on you eternal self- reproach and a tremendous respousiuility. If your votes are opposed to the negotiation, I will take refuge in the rectitude of my conscience. I shall raise my forehead without a blush, for my only motive has been the welfare of Gualemala. I -shall iie free from all reproach, for I have done all that was in my power to avert the evils that may befall us through leaving this dis- pute unsettled, and am resigned to submit calmly the share I bore iu this matter to the impartial judgment of posterity an