THE PARAGUAYAN QUESTION.
THE ALLIANCE
B E T W E E N
i!AZIl, THF 11G11TIl E VFEDEIATIOl ID UBUGUAY,
VERSUS
THE DICTATOR OF PARAGUAY.
CLAIMS OF THE REPUBLICS OF PERU AND BOLIVIA
IN REGARD TO THIS ALLIANCE.
NEW YORK:
HALLET & BREEN, PRINTERS, 58 & 60 FULTON STREET.
1866.








BRAZIL,
THE STATES OF LA PLATA
AND PAIRAGU-AY.
ORIGIN AND CAUSES OF THE WAR BETWEEN THOSE SOUTH
AMERICAN STATES AND PARAGUAY.
The questions of a country, in relation to its international
rights, are seldom well understood, if they do not affect the
general interests, and are but of a secondary importance to
the great Powers in the working of the foreign policy which
most immediately concerns them.
It is not, then, strange that certain organs of the Press in
the United States should not rightly understand the war
carried on by Brazil, the Argentine Republic, and Uruguay
against the present Dictator of Paraguay; the motives which
led those three American States to combine and unite in an
alliance, offensive and. defensive, to repel a common enemy;
and the end which they proposed to reach by means of this
alliance.
It is necessary to go back to the origin of the struggle,
and examine the course of events, to explain the present state
of affairs, and the new developments which, with the help of
Divine Providence, and for the good of mankind, are now
taking place in that section of South America.
Brazil and the Argentine and Uruguay Republics formed
an Alliance, on the 27th of August, 18283, to remove all and
any causes of difficulty in their international relations.
The articles of this agreement were confirmed and ratified




4
in the treaties entered into between Brazil and the aforesaid
republics on the 12th of October, 1851; and in the treaty
of friendly relations, commerce, and navigation of 7th of
March, 1856, between the Empire and the Argenline Confederation.
The violation of the first-named treaty by the iron dictatorship of General Don Juan 3Manuel Rosas, gave occasion
for the other treaties and the principles subsequently adopted in 1859, to secure the entire and absolute independence
and sovereignty of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay in
her foreign relations.
Said treaties establish the equilibrium of the La Plata
countries, which, according to the declaration of General Lopez, present Dictator of Paraguay, was endangered on the
30th August, 1864, by the mere fact that the Government of
Brazil, with the assent of its other ally, demanded just satisfaction from the Government illegally in power at that time
in Uruguay, for the atrocious offences committed against
Brazilian subjects there residing, in disregard and in open
violation of the existing treaties.
The incident to which we have just alluded, and which
interrupted for a while'the intimate and friendly relations
between the Empire and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay,
ended, however, very satisfactorily, by the agreement signed
in Montevideo on the 20th February, 1865, by which the
alliance between Brazil and the States of La Plata became
still more firmly established.
This question solely affected the States already mentioned,
and did not affect the security or the interests of the Republic of Paraguay, which was, in fact, so remote from the theatre of events, and with which the Empire was in perfect
peace.
In the meantime, without the least provocation and without any previous declaration of war, and in truth, caring
nought for the equilibrium of those States, General Lopez
took this difficulty as a pretext for ordering the treacherous
detention, at Assumption, of a Brazilian steamer, on board




5
of which was the President entrusted by the Imperial Government with the administration of the remote and important Brazilian Province of Matto-Grosso; and, also,, used it
to disguise his real intentions of surprising that Province by
invasion.
The manifesto addressed on the 26th of January of last
year by the Brazilian Government, through its Minister in
Buenos Ayres, to the Foreign Powers, made evident how unjust and unheard of was this audacious proceeding on the
part of the Government of Paraguay.
To Brazil it is that Paraguay was indebted for the recognition of her independence by several European and American
Governments, at a time when her political existence was
seriously threatened by the dictatorship of General Rosas,
governor of the Argentine Provinces.
Many a time since the independence of Paraguay was
established, has Brazil had cause to demand reparation for
the continued offences committed against her in despite of
the nlost solemn treaties; she has, nevertheless, always acted
with the greatest moderation, ever willing to enter into new
agreements, to settle by friendly means the question of boundaries, and also the free navigation of the entire river from the
La Plata to the upper Paraguay.
The last treaty upon these questions is dated February
28th, 1858.
From that date to the year 1864, there was a cessation of
difficulties between the two countries, and just as Brazil was
flattered with the idea that the two countries were becoming more united, and their mutual relations more firm,
Paraguay, during that that term of tranquility, was lying in wait
for the opportunity of invading and perpetrating all manner
of atrocities against the neighboring Province of Matto-Grosso,
to decide in this summary manner the question of boundaries
about which it had never been possible to come to an agreement, on account of the exaggerated demands of its government, as is proved by all the negociations since the year
1853,




6
The world is still horrified by the acts of barbarity perpetrated in that Province by order of the Dictator of Paraguay,
without any consideration to age, sex, or helplessness; entire
populations being shot down like wild beasts in the rivers
and forests as they fled from the fury of the enemy.
Are not these more than sufficient causes to justify Brazil
in a war which she neither sought nor provoked but accepted only to recover her rights, to drive the enemy from her
country, and to avenge the innocent blood of her children
sacrificed to the whim of the most ambitious of tyrants.
Exercising her legitimate rights, Brazil then commenced
hostilities by blockading the ports and the communications
of Paraguay. These hostilities could not be extended through
the territory on the left bank of the river Parana, without
permission from the Argentine Republic, and this permission
was refused.
This permission was likewise refused when asked by Paraguay, upon which the government of that State, disregarding
all international rights, invaded the territory in question,
capturing, also, two Argentine steamers, and occupying, on
the 13th April of last year, the capital of the Pro-Vince of
Corrientes and its surroundings, which then became the
theatre of the same outrages that had before been committed
in the Brazilian territory.
These acts of unexpected hostility compelled the Argentine
Government, in its turn, to accept the war thus commenced
against her  without  warning, and without the least
provocation  on her part,  and  thus  the  interests of
Brazil and of the Argentine Republic became identified;
both countries had to avenge the wrongrs and offences committed against their sovereignty and independence; and by
a chain of unforeseen circumstances both were united in that
glorious campaign whose object is the triumph of civilization
against barbarism, and whose standard is the great cause of
humanity.
The concurrence of General Don Venancio Flores is explained by his former alliance with the Governments of Bra



7
zil and the Argentine Republic, and by the unwarranted interference of the Dictator of Paraguay in the internal affairs
of the Oriental Republic.
TREATY OF ALLIANCE OF MAY 1ST, 1865.
The three Governments, having the same causes of complaint and the same interests to defend, could not do otherwise than unite in their own defense; and to that end, on
the 1st of May, 1865, they entered into a treaty of alliance,
which was already in existence defacto, owing to the acts of
Dictator Lopez.
Annexed to the treaty is a protocol of the same date,
which serves as its complement.
The public has not yet been put in possession of certain
secret notes, which, without doubt, will explain fully, the
views and intentions of the high contracting parties at the
time of signing the said treaty.
We believe that the most fastidious person will be entirely
satisfied with the context of the said treaty.
As the treaty to which we allude has already been published, either through oversight or intentionally-it now
matters little which-we here transcribe literally the main
conditions, as they are known to the public, to the end that
they be better understood:
"ART. 6.-The allies solemnly bind themselves not to lay
down their arms unless by common consent, nor until they
have overturned the actual government of Paraguay [i. e. Lopez]; neither shall they separately treat of nor sign any treaty
of peace, truce, armistice or agreement, whatever, to end or
suspend the war, except it be mutually agreed to.
ART. 7.-As the war is not waged against the people of
Paraguay, but against its government, the allies may admit
into a Paraguayan legion all the citizens of that nation who
may wish to aid in the overthrow of said government, and
will furnish them with whatever they may need, in the form
and under the conditions that shall be agreed upon.




ART. 8.-The allies bind themselves to respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the republic
of Paraguay. In consequence, the people of Paraguay shall
be enabled to choose whatever government and institutions
may suit them, without having to submit, as a result of the
war, to incorporation with any of the allies or having to
accept the protectorate of any of them.
ART. 9.-The independence, sovereignity and territorial
integrity of the republic of Paraguay shall, in accordance
with the preceding article, be guaranteed collectively by the
high contracting parties for the term of five years.
ART. 10.-It is agreed between the high contracting parties
that the exemptions, privileges or concessions which they
may obtain from the government of Paraguay shall be common to them all — gratuitously, should they be so obtained,
and upon common conditions, should they be gotten conditionally.
ART. 11.-After the present government of Paraguay shall
have been overthrown, the allies shall proceed to make the
necessary arrangements with the newly constituted authority
in order to secure the free navigation of the rivers Parana and
Paraguay, so that the laws or regulations of said republic
may not obstruct, impede or tax the transit across, or navigation along,'said rivers by the merchant or war vessels of the
allied States bound to points within their respective territories, or within territory which may not belong to Paraguay; and they shall require proper guarantees to secure the
effectiveness of such arrangements, but on condition that
such arrangements concerning river policy-whether as regards the aforementioned rivers or the Uruguay as wellshall be drawn up in common accord between the allies and
whatever other littoral States may, within the period agreed
upon by the allies, accept the invitation that may be extended
to them.
ART. 12.-The allies reserve to themselves the right of
concerting the most. suitable measures to guarantee peace




9
with the republic of Paraguay after the overthrow of its
present government.
ART. 13.-The allies will, at the proper time, name the
plenipotentiaries who shall represent them in conference to
make whatever agreements, conventions or treaties may be
necessary with the new government that shall be established
in Paraguay.
ART. 14. —The allies shall exact from said government
payment for the expenses caused by this war-a war which
has been forced upon them; and also reparation and indemnification for the injuries and wrongs done to their public as
well as to their private property, and to the persons of their
citizens previous to any express declaration of war; likewise
for the injuries and wrongs caused subsequently, in violation
of the principles that govern in the laws of war.
The Oriental Republic of Uruguay shall, moreover, exact
an indemnity proportionate to the injuries and wrongs which
the government of Parnguay has done her in this war, into
which it compelled her to enter for the defence of her rights
threatened by said government.
ART. 15.-By a special agreement it will be provided for
the manner and form of the settlements to be made under
the preceding article.
ART. 16.-In order to avoid the discussions and wars which
arise out of questions relating to territorial boundaries, it is
agreed that the allies shall require of the government of
Paraguay to make a special treaty with etch one to define
their respective boundaries on the following bases:
The Argentine Republic shall be separated fiom the Republic of Paraguay by the rivers Parana and Paraguay, up
to the point where said rivers touch Brazilian soil, such
points, in the case of the Paraguay river, being on its right
bank at the Bahia Negra.
The Empire of Brazil shall be separated from the Republic
of Paraguay, on the side of the Parana, by the first river
below the falls called the Seven Cataracts, which, according
the new map of Manchez, is the Ygnrey, running the line




10
from the mouth of the said iriver Ygurey, along its whole
course to its source.  On the left bank of the river Paraguay
it shall be separated by the river Apa, from its mouth to its
source. In the interior they shall be separated by the Maracajui range of mountains, the eastern slopes of which belong
to Brazil, and the western to Paraguay, between the two
points at which the shortest straight lines can be drawn
respectively from the said range to the sources of the Apa
and Ygurey.
ART. 17.-The allies mutually guarantee to each other the
faithful fulfilment of the agreements, conventions and treaties
that it may be necessary to make with the government that is
to be established in Paraguay, in accordance with the stipulations of the present treaty of alliance, which shall remain
in full force and vigor until those stipulations be respected
and fulfilled by the Republic of Paraguay.
In order to obtain this result they agree that, in case
one of the higher contracting parties fails to obtain from
the government of Paraguay the fulfilment of its agreement, or that the latter government attempt to annul the
stipulations agreed to with the allies, the others shall actively use their efforts to obtain their fulfilment.  Should
these be useless, the allies shall join together all their means
to render effective the stil)ulations made with them.
ART. 18.-This treaty shall remain a secret until the principal object of the alliance be obtained.
PROTOCOL.
Their Excellencies the plenipotentiaries of the Argentine
Republic, of the Oriental republic of Uruguay, and of his
Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, having convened in the office
of Foreign Affairs, have agreed:
1st, That in execution of the Treaty of Alliance of this
date, the fortifications of Humaita shall be demolished; and
it shall not be permitted to erect others of a like nature that
might impede the faithful execution of said treaty.




11
2nd. That, it being one of the necessary measures to
guarantee a peace with the government which shall be
established in Paraguay, that there be left in Paraguay
neither arms nor munitions of war; such as may be found
there shall be divided in equal parts among the allies.
3rd. That the trophies or booty which may be taken from
the enemy shall be divided among the allies capturing the
same.
4th. That the commanders of the allied armies shall concert the measures necessary to carry into effect what is
herein stipulated."
In the stipulations above referred to, there is nothing to
be wondered at; it is in the interest of all American nationalities that these stipulations should be fully carried out.
By assisting the Paraguayan people to shake off the tyrant's yoke, the allies open to them the way to progress and
civilization.
Raising them from slavery, the Allies substitute for the
present brutalizing system of servitude, the aspirations of a
free people.
There is no design against the independence and sovereignty of Paraguay, the only end being to overthrow a tyrant, whose political existence is inconsistent with the enlightenment of the age.
The end of the Allies is only to restore the nationality of
another American people, giving them the peace and security
constantly threatened by the treachery which is the basis
of the traditional policy of the present governor of that
republic.
Neither is there any design of forcing on that people a new
government, or of interfering with any form  by which they
may prefer to be governed.
The independence, integrity, and sovereignty of the Paraguayan people is collectively guaranteed to them  in all its
plenitude; it is not allowed to any of the Allies to exercise
the least Protectorate over the Republic as a result of the
War.




12
The Allies, far from designing to usurp territories that do
not rightfully belong to them, are only defending their own
rights, as we shall hereafter show.
ANALOGY WITH THE TREATY OF THE QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE
BETWEEN CHILI, PERU, BOLIVIA, AND ECUADOR, OF 23D
JANUARY, 1865.
There is a remarkable coincidence between the clauses of
Article 8 of the treaty of May 1st, 1865, with the clause of
Article 2 of the treaty of' the quadruple alliance contracted
by Chili, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, on the 23d of January
of the same year.
The end of the high contracting parties in this last-named
treaty was to provide for their exterior security, to maintain
peace among themselves, and to promote other common interests.
We cannot here enter into the consideration of the policy
which dictated the agreements of the Allies; nor discuss the
question whether these are the best means of making closer
the ties of friendship and good understanding between the
different nations and governments, with the view of avoiding
all future war.
The alliance was entered into to the end that it should
have its due effect, especially in the cases foreseen in the following paragraphs:
"1st. Should any design be formed to deprive one of the
high contracting parties of part of its territory, with the
purpose of holding it, or ceding' it to another power.
2d. Should its form of government, its constitution and
political institutions be annulled or altered.
3rd. Should any of the said contracting parties be compelled
to a protectorate, sale or cession of its territory, or should any
other acts be committed against its sovereignty ana independence."
This treaty, however, can have no application to the present war provoked and carried on by Paraguay against Brazil




and the Republics of La Plata, which on their part only repel
an unjust aggression.
The Republic of Paraguay, so ftar as is known, took no
part in this agreement, and consequently can have no part in
the rights and obligations proceeding therefrom.
And even though Lopez should have taken part in it, his
cause would be defeated by Article 1st., and by the spirit of
the alliance of 1st May, which tends expressly to put down
any acts of ambition and usurpation on the part of any of the
American Powers which shall interrupt that peace which it
is so important to maintain on this Continent, to secure its
social improvement, to strengthen its institutions, and to
place it in an advantageous position against any foreign aggression.
PRECEDENT THAT JUSTIFIES THE CONDUCT OF THE ALLIES.
The treaty of the 1st May, which is attracting so much
attention in the Itepublics of the Pacific, is a repetition of
the one entered into on the 21st of November, 1851, between
Brazil, some of the Argentine Provinces, and the Oriental
Republic of Uruguay, against the Governor of Buenos Ayres,
that government being also inconsistent with the peace, security and welfare of the allies.
The allies solemnly declare in the 1st Article of that treaty,
that they had no intention of making war on the Argentine
Confederation, or of interfering in any way with the liberty
of the people in the exercise of the sovereign rights derived
from their laws and treaties, and from the perfect independence of the Nation.
The only end they had in view was to liberate the Argentine people from the oppression which they suffered, under
the tyrannical sway of the governor, Don Juan Manuel Rosas,
and enable them to adopt such form of government as they
should deem conducive to their own interests, peace and
friendship towards the neighboring States, and placing themselves on a sure basis, by establishing with them political




14
and friendly relations, which are so essential for their mutual
progress and improvement.
It will be well, here, to let our attention dwell on the broad
and generous policy which the allies acted upon at that time,
and which they are now  endeavoring to unfold in the war
forced upon them by the Paraguayan Republic.
Rosas, the Governor of Buenos Ayres, interposed every
kind of difficulty to the free navigation of the affluents of
the river La Plata.
It was of the utmost importance to make the island of
Martin Garcia neutral, as by its situation at the mouth of
the rivers Parana and Uruguay, it commands, and could
obstruct, if not forbid, the said navigation.
By the treaties of the 12th of October, 1851, and by 7th of
March, 1856, concluded after the fall of General Rosas, between Brazil and the Oriental and Argentine Republics, that
island was made neutral, and the free navigation guaranteed
to the contracting parties.
The navigation of the rivers Parana and Paraguay has always been subjected to the same difficulties by the Government of Paraguay, in that part of the said rivers belonging
to it.
By article 11 of the treaty of the 1st May, 1865, the free
navigation of these rivers has been also guaranteed in such
manner that no Iegalations or laws of Paraguay shall be able
to hinder, obstruct, or make onerous the passage by these
waters.
The guarantee indispensably needed for the said free navigation is the destruction of the fortress of Humaita.
Therefore the destruction of that fortress was determined
on, in the protocol of the same date.
The object of this stipulation, and of others of a like
nature, was also to put it out of the power of Paraguay to
repeat her aggressions against the allies whose territory adjoined hers.
Modern history presents several instances where similar
means have been taken to secure peace.




15
As for the independence and sovereignty of the republic,
they are not endatngered in the least, being, on the contrary,
expressly guaranteed by the allies collectively, in each and all
of their treaties and agreements.
PREJUDICES AGAINST THE POLICY OF BRAZIL.
The Dictator Lopez is making it appear through the press
of Europe and America that, in the war undertaken by him,
his only object is to oppose the encroachments of Brazil.
These subtle falsehoods, unfortunately, find believers in
some of the South American States, where the least incident
serves to revive the ancient rivalries inherited from their
respective mother countries.
Whenever any question of boundaries is raised, the artful
pretensions of Azara are brought up, and, no allowance being
made for the natural growth and development which has
altered the boundaries once defined by certain old, and now
worthless, provisional treaties, it is said that the people of
Brazil, animated by the spirit of conquest of their ancestors, pretend to extend their dominions beyond the limits
determined by their utipossedetis at the time of their independence from Portugal, or by treaties where that title is not
prevailing.
All the responsibility of a struggle is thus thrown upon
a government which has always striven to be on good terms
with its neighbors, has ever been foremost in the desire to
have the boundary question settled peacefully by diplomatic
arrangements, and has invariably proceeded in its negociations with the utmost moderation, and in the most conciliatory spirit.
All manner of reproaches are now heaped upon Brazil,
while she it was who first opened her rivers to all her neighbors, upon the most liberal principles.
Hence it is that we see in some of the American journals
the most erroneous opinions with regard to the views and




designs of Brazil in entering into the treaty of the 1st of
May with the Argentine Republic and Uruguay.
We find these questions thus resolved, through the distrust excited in the small American States by the monarchical
form of Government by which Brazil is ruled, although in
fact her institutions are more essentially American than are
those of many of those nations.
Is there in the world a more liberal constitution, greater
freedom of discussion, a freer Press, or a more perfect general
liberty?
Even as regards liberty of conscience, the character of the
Brazilian people give to it the fullest amplitude, notwithstanding that the religion of the State is established by the
Constitution.
Let us, however, put aside the subject of these rivalries,
knowing that some day they will be finally destroyed, and
let us pass on to a few considerations:
When a country is blest with free institutions, what
matters it to the community of nations whether the chief of
that country is a monarch or a temporary president?
The grand requisite in a government, in whatever form it
may exist, is that it shall be the true representative of the
people, protecting the rights of individuals, and having for
its rule of conduct the spirit of justice and equality; in a
word, the government should be suited to the age.
Giving to his government the title of Republic, Rosas
called himself the restorer of the laws. The title of Republican is also assumed by Lopez, who inflames the superstition
of his people by the promise of a speedy resurrection if they
sacrifice their lives at his command, and imperils their souls
by urging them on to crime.
What does the political and commercial world gain from
the existence of despots of this kind, who crush out all freedom in the nationality of their countries, and seek to perpetuate therein a state of barbarism by cutting it off fiom contact with civilized nations?
Brazil, the Argentine. Republic, and Uruguay won the




17
applause of all Christendom by driving from Buenos Ayres
the founder of the nzashorca (wholesale hanging), and the
same applause will be bestowed on them if, firmly persevering in their noble mission, thev succeed in driving from
Asuncion its ferocious despot.
BASIS FOR SETTLING THE QUESTION OF BOUNDARIES WITH THE
EMPIRE OF BRAZIL.
To obviate the difficulties and wars constantly springing
from the questions of boundaries, it was determined by Art.
XVI. of the treaty of the triple alliance that the allies should
oblige the Government of Paraguay to enter into special
treaties with each of the Governments severally, upon a certain basis.
The boundaries determined upon that basis are the same
which were proposed by Brazil, in 1856, in the conferences
between the plenipotentiaries of both countries, as appears
from the respective protocols.
The Government of Paraguay claimed that the boundaries of the two countries ought to be, on the side of the
Parana, the River Ivinheima; and on the side of the Paraguay, the River Blanco, whose course lies to the north of the
Apa, these two rivers being united by the mountains of
Maracaju or Amambahy.
The Government of the Empire, on the other side, claimed
that the boundary ought to be by the River Iguatemy and
by the Apa, and the mountain of A{aracaju which divides
the waters of the Parana from those of the Paraguay.
To the allegations and specious arguments by which the
Government of Paraguay urged its exaggerated claims, the
Government of Brazil opposed the testimony of the treaties
of 1750 and 1777, the agreements entered into in 1778 by
the mother countries, and by its well-established possessions
of the disputed territories.
The term appointed for the renewal of the negociations
expired on the 6th of April, 1862.




18
Notwithstanding the most ardent wishes of the Empire,
unavoidable circumstances rendered it impossible to continue
the discussion of this important subject.
The boundaries of the Iguatemy river, a little above the
Igurey, was one of the concessions mtade by Brazil, solely in
behalf of peace.
Now, however, Brazil being forced to the unjust war thrust
upon her by the Republic of Paraguay, and the solution of the
question being removed from the Pacific ground on which
the Government of Brazil has patiently endeavored to maintain it, it has become necessary for her to insist on the titles
which, in default of possession of each of the contending parties, are given in Arts. V. and VI. of the treaty of 1850, and
Arts. VIII. and IX. of the treaty of 1777, which can be consulted in all the collections published for the use of those
who interest themselves in these barren and complicated
questions.
This is the full explanation of the basis upon which the
Government of the Empire purposes to settle the question of
boundaries now pending with the Republic of Paraguay.
THE BEARING OF THE STIPULATIONS CONCERNING THE QUESTION ALSO PENDING WITH THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA.
The boundary with the Republic of Bolivia will begin at
the end of the boundary line proposed to the Republic of
Paraguay, that is to say, from Bcahia Negra to the North,
and not from the mouth of the Apa in latitude 22~ 5t, as
pretended in 18551.
Bahia Negra, on the right bank of the Paraguay River,
was recognized in the negotiations that took place in Rio de
Janeiro, in 1856, as the boundary between the two countries
in that section.
The same recognition was formally set forth in the special
protocol drawn up at Asuncion by the respective plenipotentiaries who signed the convention of the 12th of February,
1858, on the true meaning and practical application of the




19
treaty of friendship, navigation and commerce of the 6th of
April in that year.
This recognition was not intended to invalidate any right
or titles that might be put forth by the Government of Bolivia to the right bank of the Paraguay River, between' the
parallels of 200, 21~ and 22~, that is to say, to the territory
comprised from Bahia Negra to opposite the river Apa.
In this matter Brazil acted with the same moderation
which it had observed towards Peru, in the negociation of the
treaty of boundaries concluded with that Republic.
The Province of Maynas, adjoining the Empire, was recognized as belonging to Peru, on the ground that portions of
the territory were actually in possession of the Republic.
The Republics of Ecuador and New Granada also have
claims upon that territory, and the rights which both or
either might eventually put forward were reserved in the
protocal of the negociations, with the proviso, however, that
the boundary of Brazil, established on the uti possedetis could
not be altered.
Mr. Cruz Benavente, Bolivian Charge d'Affaires at Buenos
Ayres, on the 22nd of August, 1852, addressed to the Government of the Argentine Confederation, a protest approved by
his Government, against the treaty of navigation and boundaries formed on the 15th of July of that year, between the
Republic of Paraguay and the Argentine Confederation,
urging the rights of his country.
The protest of the Bolivian agent was based on the assertion that Bolivia extended on the Western bank of the Para.
guay River, between 200, 21~ and 22~.
The Argentine Government answered that protest on the
24th of the same month, August, in the following terms:
That the concluding of a treaty with the Government of
Paraguay could not in any way interfere with the rights
claimed by the Republic of Bolivia.
The Government of Bolivia accepted this declaration as
the explanation of the true meaning of Art. IV. of the treaty




20
of boundaries and navigation, and her rights remained undisturbed.
Brazil, while recognizing that she has no right or claims
of any kind to the western bank of the Paraguay, to the
south of Bahia Negra, cannot make the same declaration
concerning the said western bank to the north as far as 16~
23', or unto the boundary line of Jauru.
To obtain such a concession, the Bolivian Government
would have to re-establish the old boundaries of the provinces
which formed the ancient Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres, as
they are defined in the treaties concluded in the last century
by the Kings of Spain and Portugal; and, moreover, it would
have to be proven that Brazil was not the only possessor
of both the banks of the river in that part.
PRINCIPLES BY WHICH THE TREATIES OF BOUNDARIES ARE
TO BE REGULATED BETWEEN- BRAZIL AND THE SOUTH
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
The Republics of South America sometimes refer to the
treaties of 1750 and 1777, and sometimes consider them null
and void. The truth, with regard to the said treaties, is
this:
The treaty of the 13th of January, 1750, was annulled by
the treaty of the 12th of February, 1761; and after this
came the war of 1762, which was terminated by the treaty
of Paris of the 10th Of February, 1763, things remaining
then as they were before. The treaty of the 1st of October,
1777 followed then, and shared the fate of the one of 1750,
which it ratified in most of its parts. The uncertainty which
sprang up when the boundaries were to be defined, prevented
the recognition from having its full effects; and finally, the
war of 1801 annulled it for ever, as the treaty of peace signed at Badajoz on the 6th of June of the same year, neither
restored it nor ordered that things should return to their
state ante bellurn.
This, however, does not mean that recourse should not be




21
had to the stipulations of those treaties as an auxiliary basis
on which to determine what was Portuguese territory, and
what was Spanish territory, and also what were the changes
in the possessions of each nationality in the lapse of time
and the course of events. In places where one of two nations contests the claims of the other, and such claim is not
determined by effective occupation or material proofs of possession, that basis can throw light on the matter, and settle
it at once.
Brazil has an unquestionable right to all the territory in
South America, formerly belonging to Portugal, with the
losses and acquisitions incurred after the treaties of 1750 and
1777; and in like manner the adjoining States, which were
formerly colonies of Spain, own all the territories formerly
inl possession of that nation, saving only the alterations determined by their utipossedetis.
Should this basis be rejected or unheeded, the only arbiter
would be force, or the convenience of each country.
Concerning the basis of the claims of the Bolivian Government in the old question of its boundaries with Brazil,
there is nothing in it that has not been already discussed
between the diplomatic agents of the two countries.
There was a time (1838) when the Government of that
republic refused to recognise the treaties of 1750 and 1777,
denying even their existence in the archives of the republic,
and declaring that it had never given to them the formal
consent which would have bound it to observe its stipulations after the transformation of the territories that previously belonged to the ancient contracting powers. It was
only in 1843 that the republic commenced to insist on the.
validity of these treaties; a.nd in 1858, still taking from
them her title, protested against the military posts established by Brazil at Coimbra, Albuquerque, Corumba, Dourados,
Onqas, Lages, Tremedal (Corixa Grande), Cambara, Pederneiras, and Registro de Jaurfi.
At all events, it is not possible for Brazil to abandon the




22
long possession, acquired by succession, in these territories,
considered as having belonged to the Spaniards.
The titles held up by Brazil in this complicated question
of boundaries are the very ones exhibited in the negociations
with the Oriental Republic of Uruguay in 1851; with the
Argentine Confederation in 1857; with the Republic of Paraguay on the south since 1843; and with Venezuela on the
north, and Peru and New Granada on the west.
Bolivia possesses the insignificant seaport of Cobija, at the
mouth of the river Salado. and on that account insists on
having a share in the waters of the Paraguay and Amazonas,
in the very legitimate interest of having easy egress to the
ocean, and thus securing more immediate contact with the
commercial world.
It is not the fault of the Empire that the Republic of Bolivia does not yet enjoy all these advantages, as it has offered
to her the same facilities of navigation, through the Brazilian
rivers, which have already been secured, in the most liberal
treaties to Peru and Venezuela, ad instar of those entered
into with the Republics of La Plata and Paraguay, based on
the principles recognized and proclaimed by the Congress of
Vienna.
BASIS FOR SETTLING THE QUESTION OF BOUNDARIES WITH
THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, AND ITS RELATIONS TO THE
QUESTIONS ALSO PENDING BETWEEN THAT REPUBLIC AND
BOLIVIA.
The principles above referred to as regulators of the boundaries between Brazil and the different South American States,
cannot be equally applied to the boundaries separating the
different fractions of the ancient Viceroyalties and Captaincies-General into which the Spanish possessions on this continent were d0ivided.
Paraguay separated from the Viceroyalty to which it belonged in 1811, or rather in 1813, when under the rule of




23
Dictator Francia.  BoliviaL separated fromn the Viceroyalty of
Peru in 1825.
Since that time, vast uninhabited territories have remained
pro indiviso, through the want of a solid basis on which to
settle their boundaries aniong, the contend(ing parties.
It is the wvant of this basis which has most contributed to
create the international difficulties between the American
nations of' Spanish origin, which, for the greater part, have
never found a satisfactory conclusion.
Such is the position in which the Argentine Republic and
Paraguay have found themselves until of late; nor were the
difficulties settled even in 1852, when Paraguany recognized
the total separation of Buenos Ayres from the Argentine
Republic.
Bolivia lays claim to the territory of the Gran Chaco, on
the right bank of the Paracguay river; but the discussion of
this claim, which has heretofore been held with Paraguay,
after the war, will have to be held with the Argentine Republic.
C O N C L U S I 0 N.
What we have here set forth will suffice to show how
groundless were the complaints made by the Government of
Bolivia to the Brazilian Government on the 6th of July, and
how wrong was the basis of the despatch sent by the Government of Peru to its representative in Buenos Ayres. Of this
despatch, we must say thai we could hardly believe it genu



24
ine, did not we know that diplomacy is, alas! often blinded
by ignorance, and misled by the misrepresentations of prejudice.
We submit this to the consideration of the organs of
the Press of this enlightened country, which, being impartial in the questions now contested among the South American nations, and knowin( their respective antecedents and
tendencies, whatever their form of government, will be willing, as heretofore, to espouse the cause of humanity and
of the civilization, so much needed on this continent.
It would be well if the American nations, instead of making such demonstrations as those to which we have referred, would, as Mr. J. B. Calqjeras, an eminent Brazilian
writer, proposes, agree upon some general principles which
would contribute to the development of their general strength
and prosperity.
The representatives of the American nations would unite
in a common agreement on the principles of nationality; in
cases of private international law; in cases where difficulties between two or more American nations exist, such
cases could be refterred to the arbitrament of a third American power, for the avoidance of war; and all other questions of a similar nature.
It would also be much more convenient and useful to have
a cordial understanding between themselves with regard to
the means of promoting the increase of the population in their
immense, fertile, but uninhabited territories; and facilitating
the direct communications between the same countries.
The good understanding between the States of America
can also be considered from a higher standpoint.
Europe, properly speaking, forms but one part in the
world, it is a geographical division, and nothing more; it
is not a political entity.
It seems, however, that this name means something more;
that there is a certain moral consolidation between all the
European nations.




25
Many attempts have been made to give a body and physical force to this purely moral entity.
The Universal Monarchy of Charles V. being a failure, as
was also the predominance of the French Revolution, the
Holy Alliance became the arbitrator, not only of Europe, but
of the general policy.
Monroe was the first to raise his voice against this arbitrament; his was the first cry for the emancipation of America
from the predomination of Europe.
The family of American nations being formed, they need
a jury to direct their course in the way of peace and progress.
If the principal nations of the continent would encourage
some such understanding, the Continent would reap therefrom more real adavntages than any which could result from
those incessant conflicts, which daily weaken the several
members.
We will also quote the words of a venerable Brazilian,
who, in 1836, expressed himself as follows:' The true greatness of America, and the development of
American resources are intimately bound together.  In
vain do we behold the wealth which Providence has poured
out on our country if we lack the energy of manhood.
"Let the increase of the population be encouraged by
every means in our power, for that is the surest way to secure prosperity and peace at home, and to win respect
abroad."
As regards the struggle now going on in the Southern part
of South America, the facts have been entirely misrepresented.
No one can deny, however, that it was Lopez who invaded,
plundered, and desolated territories belonging to the provinces
of Matto-Grosso, Corrientes, and Rio Grande, without the
least provocation on the part of Brazil or the Argentine Republic.
This act on the part of Lopez can only be explained by
the mere ambition to obtain by force the disputed territories




26
in the first-named of those provinces, the possession of which
was guaranteed to Brazil by solemn treaties.
Fortunately, the invasion by the barbarains was repulsed,
and the plunderers of Bella Vista, the assassins of J. Borja,
the violators ofwomen at Corrientes were vanquished at Yatahy, compelled to surrender at Uruguayana, and were driven
away from the territories which they had stained with their
crimes.
In this way have they called down vengeance on their
country, and the hastily-organized armies of Brazil and of
the Argentine Confederation are now calling Lopez to account for the outrages against their countries, which could
not be left unpunished.
These are the facts in their true light.




APPENDIX.
SINCE writing the above, we chanced upon the following
article in the Courrier des Etats Unis, of October 24 of the
present year, which contains a brief and sensible analysis of
the unfounded accusations unreasonably launched against
Brazil, the Argentine Republic, and the Oriental State of
Uruguay, with regard to the terms of their treaty of Alliance
of the 1st May, 1865.
THE PARAGUAYAN WAR.
"Several journals have made a great noise about the secret
treaty entered into by Brazil, the Republic of Uruguay and
the Argentine Republic, to settle the Paraguayan question
by common consent; and have erroneously interpreted some
of the stipulations of the said treaty. These exaggerations
would deserve no notice, were it not that appearances somewhat tend to confirm them.
We propose to examine the triple alliance in detail, to
show in what spirit it was drawn up, and make known its
nature and true object; but, before commencing, we can
affirm  once for all that its stipulations, which have been
quoted with more or less accuracy, have not the character
which has been attributed to them, and that they cannot be
rightly understood without a knowledge of the localities.
This compact and the coalition which gave it birth, had
their origin, not in the ambition and spirit of conquest of the




28
allies, but in the unjust pretensions and repeated provocations
of the Dictator of Paraguay.
These pretensions actually amounted to an attempt oni his
part to have himself proclaimed the protector of the States of
La Plata. In this manner he caused the rupture of the peace
negociations then pending between the Governments of Montevideo and the Ministers of England, Brazil, and the Argentine Republic.
The rupture, the original cause of the war which is flooding with blood the banks of the Parana and Paraguay rivers,
date fromt the 18th of June, 1864.
On the 12th of June, 1864, without making any declaration of war, Lopez ordered the seizure of the M3arquis d'Olinda, a Brazilian steamer, employed as a packet-boat between
Montevideo and Cubaya, capital of the Brazilian province of
Matto- Grosso.
The President of this province was on board of the steamer
at the time of its seizure, and, with the rest of the passengers, was thrown into prison. This outrage on the part of
the Paraguayan Bismark was committed notwithstanding the
presence, at Asuncion, of the resident minister fiom Brazil,
and was a flagrant violation of international law, and of a
special treaty concluded between Brazil and Paraguay in
1856.
Art. XVIII. of that treaty held the following stipulation:
"That in case of a rupture between these two countries,
citizens of one of the nations, residing on the territory of
the other, should retain the right to their property, and
even continue their business, with the full enjoyment of
their liberty and industry.
The Brazilian Minister at Asuncion remonstrated, but to
no purpose.
He then demanded his passports, but they were refused to
him, and it was only through the energetic assistance of the
Minister of the United States, that he was enabled, fifteen
days later, to make good his escape from Asuncion.
This transgression of the laws which regulate the relations




29
of civilized nations, certainly merited universal condemnation,
still, however, the Government of the Argentine Republic,
persisted in the strictest neutrality; when, at the beginning
of April, 1865, an Argentine vessel, the Salto, was seized at
Asuncion, and some days after, on the 13th of April, five
steamers of the Paraguyan squadron entered without warning into the harbor of Corrientes, and finding two Argentine
steamers of war there anchored, the Paraguyans massacred
the crew of one of the steamers, and seizing both carried them
to Asuncion.
Such then are the facts whose grave import cannot be mistaken. And let us remember that this occurred previous to
the 1st of May, 1865, the date of the treaty of alliance entered into by Brazil and the Republics of La Plata.
Does not the mere recital of these acts suffice to prove conclusively that this treaty was not drawn up by the contracting parties with the view to enlarge their territory, but solely
for their legitimate defence, and to check the Algerian barbarity of the Dey of Paraguay.
For our part we have not waited until now to brand them
as they deserve.
In the meantime let us consider the value of the assertions
which form the basis of the claims of certain States which
are not even neighbors of the territory of Paraguay.
What is there in common, excepting their origin, between
the Republics of the Pacific and those of the Atlantic?
It is true that when, in 1864, Peru desired the Argentine
Government to join the league formed by the South American States against Spain, General Mitre declined to depart
from his unvarying policy of non-intervention.
Is Peru justified on that account in entertaining any rancor toward the President of the Argentine Republic? Be
it as it may, the Peruvian Government has no call to interfere in the occurrences which transpire on the Rio de la Plata,
as its interests are in no way compromised thereby.




30
As to Chili, its Government has been wise enough to preserve to this day the strictest neutrality.
With regard to Bolivia, her claim has received that attention which all just claims will ever receive from so impartial
and enlightened a man as Mr. Rufino Elizalde, Minister of
Foreign Affairs of the Argentine Republic.
As to the actual position of General Lopez; his titled panegyrists may say what they will, and they may publish bulletins of his victories as often as they please, but the public
cannot help seeing that their hero is constantly losing ground.
All are acquainted with the savage energy of the Dictator,
and the fanatical enthusiasm of his soldiers; but, they are
also too apt to overlook the immense preparations for war
made by Paraguay during  fourteen years, even  children
being forced to enlist.
On the other hand, the rapidity of travel which is enjoyed
in Europe, is apt to make one forget the almost insurmountable difficulties,for carrying on military operations in America-such as the immense distances to be traversed; the absence of roads; the frequent obstructions in the navigation
of the rivers; and the necessity of transporting everything,
even the most indispensable necessaries of life. Only our
soldiers who have passed through the campaigns of Mexico
will be able to understand the magnitude of these obstacles.
Shall Lopez, who has long deserved to be under the ban
of the nations, mock his neighbors with impunity, as he has
done successively with France, the United States, England,
and Brazil?
Because he possesses a fortress which hlie deems impregnable, shall he with impunity lay waste the territories that
surround him?
We shall not undertake to enumerate here the crimes
which have ma'de famous the hereditary dictatorship of both
the Lopez, and shall confine ourselves to the mention of one,
the most recent.
The Brazilian town of Uruguayana, situated on the left
bank of the River Uruguay, had fallen into the power of a




31
Paraguayan division numbering 7,000 men, commanded by
Colonel Estigarribia.
General Flores, after having overpowered the Paraguayan
forces on the 15th of August, 1865, at Yatahy, on the right
bank of the Uruguay River, then proceeded to place himself
on the opposite bank, opposite Uruguayana.  In September
of the same year, at the moment when the signal for the assault was to be given, Estigarribia, the Colonel of the Paraguani forces, finding himself before a force greatly superior to
his own, thought the best thing he could do was to surrender.
HIe was treated by General Flores with all the respect due
to his rank and his misfortune, and was sent to Rio de Janeiro, where he was allowed full liberty in the city.
As usual in such cases, Lopez did not fail to wreak his
vengeance on the family of Estigarribia; the mother and sister of the Colonel, the latter aged only eighteen, were given
up to the brutality of Lopez soldiers, and then thrown into
prison.
The sufferings of our citizens established in the States of
La Plata, and the interruption of business by this dreadful
war, are also urged as so many arguments against the Allies
and in favor of Lopez.
But in fact Lopez has been the sole instigator of the war,
and it has not been in the power of the Allies to avert it.And now let us ask, are they not performing a sacred duty,
are they not defending civilization itself, in pursuing the end
which they have resolved on: the overthrow of a Government
which offers no guarantee to its neighbors, no security to its
commerce?
As for the fortress of Humaita, after its armament was
completed, did not Lopez refuse to the European Governments the renewal of the treaty which secured the free navigation of those rivers?  Is it not, then, necessary that this
fortress should be levelled to the ground, since it is a perpetual menace against the order and liberty established in the
other States of La Plata?"




32
Is it not, then, to the true interests of our citizens there
resident to have a lasting peace secured to those countries,
instead of the false and hypocritical peace which Lopez, accustomed to treachery and the utter disregard of treaties,
would not fail to violate at the very first opportunity?
Our readers will find a more complete analysis in the
Journal of Commerce of Rio de Janeiro, with regard to the
protest made against the tenor of the said treaty, by the
Government of Peru to the Governments of the Allied Powers, through Mr. D. Benigno G. Vigil, accredited towards
them as Charge d'Affaires.
We call the attention of our readers to this exposition,
made with all due calmness and carefulness, which contains
the true explanation of the sole meaning and design of the
stipulations of the said treaty.
PROTEST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PERU AGAINST THE TREATY
OF THE TRIPLE ALLTANCE FORMED TO CARRY ON THE WAR
PROVOKED BY PARAGUAY.
The Nacional of Buenos Ayres, of August 18, publishes
the despatch addressed on the 9th of the preceding month,
by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Peru,
to the Peruvian diplomatic agent accredited towards the
Argentine Republic, Paraguay and Brazil, to protest before
the governments of those States against the treaty of alliance
formed by them with the common object of carrying on the
war to which they have been so unexpectedly provoked by
the despot who oppresses the Republic of Paraguay, the integrity and independence of which, according to the Government of Peru, are threatened by the provisions of the said
treaty.
We know not whether the Imperial Government has as yet
received the notification contained in the dispatch to which
we refer, neither have we any idea as to what reception it




33
will meet with in the councils of the crown. However, since
this document has been made public by the Argentine press,
the press of Brazil would be false to patriotism and to duty
were it to allow it to pass unnoticed, for that document is
nothing but a mass of mistaken opinions, unfounded fears,
and exasggerated pretensions, as we shall endeavor to show,
with all calmness and impartiality, in the brief analysis to
which we shall here subject it.
The protest of Peru is made against a treaty which has not
been officially published, and whose nature and design was
not known even to those who gave it the irregular publicity
referred to in said protest.
That a document whose authenticity is not officially established should be taken as the ground for an act which is likely to be productive of serious international difficulties, shows,
to say the least, a strange disregard of prudence, and a want
of the calm judgment which should be employed in matters
of such grave importance.
The condition of secrecy being attached to the treaty
formed between the Empire of Brazil, the Argentine Republic, and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, it is evident that
neither the Government of Peru, nor that of any other power
outside of the Alliance, had the right to demand explanations
thereon, or even to ask to be made officially acquainted with
the whole of the said treaty, the only ones capable of judging
of the utility and conveniences of that secrecy being its
au thors.
But granting, for the sake of argument, that this unofficial acquaintance with the document in question did really
awaken such serious apprehensions in the Government of
Peru, with regard to Paraguay, as to impel it to ask from the
allied powers such explanations as might serve to remove
those apprehensions, were the means which it had recourse
to the most proper and effective?
The Government of Peru and the allies in whose name it
also speaks, were on good and firiendly terms with the Empire and the Republics of La Plata. Under these circum



34
stances, then, what would have been the most natural and
proper course?
Decidedly, if real apprehensions were excited by the treaty
of alliance formed by those States to repel the aggressions of
Paraguay and prevent their repetition in the future, the most
natural and proper course for the Government of Peru would
have been to address the allied Governments privately, as is
customary and indispensable, asking for such explanations as
it should deem fit and- necessary.
And we are convinced that, if the Government of Peru had
proceeded in this manner, as it ought certainly to have done,
unless it purposely seeks some pretext for interfering in the
war treacherously provoked and barbarously commenced by
the Paraguayan despot, the Governments of Brazil and of the
States of' La Plata, would not hesitate to give the explanations which can be asked and given between friends and
equals, without detriment to their personal rights and dignity. And unless a conflict has been purposely sought, all
difficulty would be impossible, as the allies do not entertain
nor is it possible for them  to entertain any designs against
the independence and integrity of Paraguay.
The present minister of Brazil, specially appointed to the
States of La Plata, on entering upon his mission in the Oriental State of Uruguay, and presenting his credentials to
the Chief of that Republic, gave utterance to the following
eloquent and significant words:'With  her immense area, all-sufficient for her future
destiny and present activity, Brazil does not cast covetous
eyes on the adjoining Republics, nor does she aspire to a
political supremacy which would destroy their sovereignity
and liberty. A disinterested and sincere friend to all the
South American nationalities, her truest wish is that they
shall prosper and have such a sense of dignity as shall preserve them from subjection to any despotism."
Such were the words of one of the signers of the treaty of
alliance, and some months later, Mr. Andres Lemas, representative of another of the parties to the said treaty, on pre



35
senting his credentials to H. M. the Emperor, in Rio de
Janeiro, proclaimed, in that solemn act, the independence and
integrity of all the existing nationalities as the basis of future
peace in those regions.
And shall not these proofs be accepted as evidence that the
treaty of alliance was meant and understood by the contracting parties in such a manner as not to interfere with the independence and integrity of Paraguay?
We have already said, and now repeat, that if private explanations had been asked, such as can be asked and given
between friends, all apprehensions that might really have existed would have been put to flight; all difficulty would have
been avoided.
But alas! the Peruvian Government has not chosen to be
guided by the dictates of prudence and calm deliberation.
Founding its complaints on a document of whose authenticity and entireness it could not be certain, and refiaining
from all previous examination or explanation, it rashly issued
its protest against the Allied Powers.
Once launched upon this course the Peruvian Cabinet, in
order to justify its act, openly constituted itself ajudqe of the
private interests of sovereign and independent States! And
-not satisfied with the role, as it would be thereby confined
to the letter of the treaty, it has also assumed the character
of advocate for one of the parties, and in accordance with
that character it distorts the meaning of the stipulations of
the treaty; and again takes them, thus distorted, and constitnting itself the judge, condemns them!
Let us now make a brief examination of the grounds of the
accusation and give them a fair judgment.
IS THE TREATY SECRET?
The Peruvian Government says that it is allowable to keep
treaties secret until the time of their execution, but that they
are always published as soon as the object of the alliance
commences to have effect.




36
This assertion is totally unfounded: history furnishes
numerous examples to prove the contrary.
The only judges as to the time or opportunity of publishing a secret agreement, are the contracting parties themselves,
as their convenience, their interests and their security are the
things therein at stake.
Were this otherwise the equality and independence of
nations could not exist.
The Peruvian Cabinet in volunteering the notoriously false
assertion that secret treaties of alliance are always published
as soon as their object commences to have effect, establishes
an entirely new doctrine aggressive to the sovereignty of the
nations, and tending to deprive them of their sovereign right
to secure their interests and safety through secret diplomatic
arrangements.
Only recently has the existence of an alliance between Italy
and Prussia against Austria become known, and been subsequently officially acknowledged.
Even after the object of the alliance commenced to have
efect the treaty was not published.
The ends of the alliance were consumated, Austria submitted to her expulsion from  Germany and to the payment of
the expenses of the war, and even then the treaty was not
published! And what is more, Europe, whose equilibrium
was in question, did not demand the publication of the treaty;
evidently because Europe respects the right acted upon by
Prussia and Italy.
This is international law as it has been recognized and
acted upon up to the present day. Even should the Peruvian
Cabinet succeed in alte'ring it, which it could not do without
the consent of all the other nations, the new lazw could not
have a retroactive effect and it would still be undeniable that
the allies against Paraguay, in stipulating and maintaining
secresy in their agreement, only acted upon a perfect and
unquestionable right which the government of Peru cannot
pretend to deny to them without offending their sovereignty.




37
The dispatch which we are now examining says that,
although the treaty of the triple alliance stipulates and respelts the independence and integrity of Paraguay, it nevertheless attacks them in several ways:
Firstly —In the declaration that the war is waged against
the Government, and not a(ainst the people of Paragruay.
Now, in answer to this, we must call attention to the fact
that one of the chief circumstances which have lessened the
evils of war, is this very tendency to) make a distinction between the government and the people.
In fact, if the governments of the Pacific, in the actual
contests with Spain, had been inspired with this humane
tendency, as it were so much to be desired, it is beyond all
doubt that the war would not have assumed its present deplorable character.
How, let us ask, could the peaceful and industrious
Spaniards, there established, be responsible for the acts of the
Government of Madrid?
Yet we Americans must acknowledg3 with pain that those
unfortunate Spaniards, though totally innocent of the acts of
their government, were imprisoned, expelled from the country, and ruined, although in their ruin that of hundreds of
American families were involved.
Unfortunately the government did not choose to make the
needed distinction, and consequently cannot escape the
charge of having been guilty of the most unjustifiable and
wanton barbarity.
The distinction of which we speak, frequently employed in
all ages, has always mitigated the horrors of war, and has
never caused the destruction of any nationality whatever.
In order not to weary the reader's attention by a vain display of historical facts, we shall quote only a few examples.
We shall not speakl of Europe save only to allude to the instance of Napoleon I., when, as all know, Europe declared
against him, leaving France in ithe fall enjoyment of her
independence.




38
Let us take our examples from America.
In the famous struggle with the tyrant Rosas, Uruguay,
France, England and, finally Brazil, made a distinction between the Argentine people and their tyrant.
All the manifestoes and treaties of that war invariably
stipulated-war against the tyrant-alliance with the people which he oppressed.
This is precisely the distinction which is now made, and if
possible with greater reason, in the treaty of the triple alliance against Paraguay.
If it is true, as the Government of Peru asserts, that that
distinction destroys the principles of national sovereignty on
which the American States are founded, why was it never
protested against on the, different occasions on which it was
established by different powers, and in different forms, in the
lengthy struggle' against Rosas?  Why was it, on the contrary, tacitly admitted? Why did Bolivia accept it explicitly on accepting the war declared against her by Rosas?
The Peruvian Government pretends that this distinction
tends essentially and necessarily to destroy the sovereignty of
nations; will it assert that it has destroyed the independence,
the sovereignty, or the liberty of the Argentine people?
Let us add, however, a more direct example, which without doubt will be more conclusive for the Government of
Peru.
The Peru-Bolivian Confederation being formed by General
Santa Cruz, Chili declared war —against whom? —and for
what end?
Making a distinction between the government and the.people, she declared war against the protector, Santa Cruz, with
the exp7ress end of destroying the confederation formed between Peru and Bolivia.
Chili was not embarrased by the consideration of allowing
room for the will of the people of those two countries. While
declaring the existence of that confederation opposed to her own
safety, at the same time imposed no further restriction on the
will of those people than what was needed to secure that safe



39
ty; and it even appears probable that if those people had
had the power, they would by their own choice have brought
about the new order of things thus established.
Chili then triumphed, as is well known, and Peru and
Bolivia admitted the doctrine which they now condemn; and
they not only admitted it but even went beyond it most
shamefully.
General Santa Cruz being retained as a prisoner in Chili,
an agreement was formed by Chili, Peru and Bolivia, on the
7th of October, 1845, upon the disposal of his person.
In the preamble to the agreement are the following words:
"The governments of Chili, Bolivia and Peru in the exercise of their rigit to secure the safety of the respective countries, so long disturbed by the attempts of Don AndrBs
Santa Cruz to kindle civil wars, &c., &c., have agreed on the
following articles:
AnRT. I. Don Andres Santa Cruz shall immediately leave
this country for Europe, where he shall remain six years,
dating from  the day of his departure' for a European port;
and during that time he shall not return to any part of South
America without the unanimous consent of the three governments of Chili, Bolivia and Peru."
It is here evidently proved that Chili, Bolivia and Peru
made a distinction between the government and the people;
that the end of that war was to overthrow the government
and proscribe General Santa Cruz; and even after his overthrow and banishment those republics judged that their right
of securing their own safety authorized them to dispose of
the General's person, and accordingly did dispose thereof.
And they so disposed, that even if the people of Bolivia
should desire again to entrust their government to General
Santa Cruz, such a desire was rendered of no effect, beforehand, by the will of Chili and of Peru.
How is it then, that the Peruvian Cabinet wonders at, and
condemns the distinction which it has so freely employed
whenever its own interests were concerned?
General Santa Cruz, that noble soldier of South Ameri



40
can independence, was forbidden to return to any part of
South America without the unanimous consent of Chili,
Bolivia and Peru. This Bolivian statesman could not return
to the service of his country, even had she recalled him, without the consent of the other two parties to the agreement.
And can it be possible that those who carried to such an
extreme the right of securing theiri own safety, are the very
ones who now protest against the moderate exercise of that
right against the Dictator of Paraguay, who, by his barbarity
and treachery in kindlinog the war, has forfeited all claim on
the protection of international law and the general custom of
civilized nations?
In Paraguay the only real entity is the Dictator; he alone
thinks; he alone speaks; he alone acts.
The people, in time of peace, is a mere machine for producing the wealth of the lord of the land; in time of war it is
simply a destructive engine controlled by the all-powerful will
of the Dictator.
Even if the distinction between governments and the people had never existed before, it would certainly have to be
exercised now in the question of Paraguay and her downtrodden people. That distinction would be inevitable.
In vain does the Peruvian protest speak of the will of the
Paraguayan people, of the constiiution of Paraguay.
The whole world knows that in Paraguay there is but one
will, and but one constitution: the will and the absolute
power of the Lopez family.
The chief of that family exercises omnipotence.
He then, is the only one responsible in Paraguay, for he is
the only one who resolves and acts.
It being thus demonstrated, and even with the authority
of the example furnished by Chili, Peru and Bolivia, that the
allies only exercised a legitimate right in determining on the
downfall of a dictator whose power is irreconcilable with the
peace and safety of their respective countries, the next thing




41
which presents itself after the fall of the present government
is the necessity of substituting it by another one.
Who is to make this substitution?
That is what we shall consider in another article, continuing our analysis of the Peruvian protest. To-day wve shall
proceed no further, so as not to weary the reader's attention.
II.
Who ought to substitute the Government of the Republic
of Paraguay, which the triple-alliance is endeavoring to overthrow?
This was the question with which we ended the first article that we wrote on the Peruvian protest, the analysis of
which we are going to continue to-day. Since the nationality
of Paraguay is recognized, it is clear that the Paraguayan
people, called to political life by the victory of the alliance, is
the one which ought to choose the new government.
In this recognition of the right of a liberated nation to
adopt the institutions which may suit her, and select its own
government, the Peruvian Cabinet descry a new attack on the
autonomy of Paraguay.
But what is it that Peru wvants to be done?
Does she want that the dictatorship should be made
heriditary, and that the supreme power should be rendered
transmissible like a fiducial family inheritance?
Does she want to deny the Paraguayan nation the right of
legislating, and of organizing the public authorities which
ought to govern the country?
-In case the stipulations of the treaty were not carried into
effect, and the government of Lopez should be overthrown,
there would be no other remedy than to give the people of
Paraguay a government.
Is it thus that Peru understands the autonomy of the
Paraguayan people?
The declaration that the said people shall choose for them



42
selves the institutions and government of which they approve, is nevertheless the second innovation of which the
powers who signed the treaty of the Triple-Alliance are
guilty.
The other innovations which are revolting to the conscience
of Americans are the following
1~ To guarantee collectively, for five years, to Paraguay
her sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.
20 To establish the bases of the adjustment of the future
boundaries with Paraguay.
3~ That the fortress of Humaita shall be razed to the
ground, and that no other fortresses of the same kind shall
be constructed; also, that the arms and ammunition found
in Paraguay shall be divided among the allied powers.
In order to fully understand well these stipulations, it will
be necessary to explain the social, political and geographical
position of Paraguay.
The said nation has never governed itself; from a colony
it passed without transition to the dictatorship of Dr. Francia, whose administration is to this day continued by his
successors.
The people is a nation of passive serfs, who possess nothing of their own, who work for the owner of the soil, who
fight and die without knowing for whom or for what, when
the owner orders them to do so.
They have no men who are fit to be administrators, and
are ignorant of their own rights, as well as of all the ideas
which prevail in the present century. They merely understand- to obey, to do what they are told to do with arms in
hand, and to hate foreigners.
The Dictator has made every man a soldier. In civilized
societies the tribute of blood has its limits, yet Lopez has
dragged the whole of the population to the battlefield. This
unheard of circumstance may have a result without precedence in the present century, if the war should be prolonged,
viz., the annihilation of the whole of the male population of
Paraguay.




43
These simple indications are sufficient to portray what
may be the position of Paraguay when Lopez falls.
Suppose it were the sinister intention of the victors to absorb that nationality, they could easily do so as soon as they
have achieved their victory. All that they would have to do
would be to substitute their own authority for the former,
and keep the people under the subjugation to which they
are accustomed.
But, fortunately for the people of Paraguay, as well as for
the international peace of her neighbors, Providence, in
blinding Lopez, as he blinds every one destined to fall, made
him constantly offend his three immediate neighbors, and
was himself the instizgator of that triple alliance which will
put an end to his barbarous and agressive tyranny.
That league or alliance, created by Lopez, is the best guarantee for the autonomy of Paraguay, even if no other were
sufficient.
Brazil can never sanction the absorption of Paraguay by
the Argentine Republic, nor can the latter permit Brazil to
absorb Paraguay.  The Oriental State, situated between
Brazil and the Argentine Republic, is relatively weak, and
to her the agrandizemnent or disequilibrium of her neighbors
cannot be favorable, nor can she be favorable to the doctrines that " might is right," and that the stronger nationalities should be permitted to divide the smaller ones among
themselves.
These different interests will evidently serve as a bond of
unity and friendship between the allied powers, and at the
same time make them respect the autonomy and territorial
integrity of Paraguay.
If, therefore, the nationality of the said country remains
intact, the victory of the allied powers will confer on it the
conditions of a free people.
This would no doubt be a great change for the people of
Paraguay. It is natural that such a sudden and absolute
transition would be productive of intestine agitations and




44
difficulties. It would doubtless be a hard and perilous apprenticeship, which the people of Paraguay would have to
serve at their own cost.
In order that those internal difficulties should not destroy
the Paraguayan nationality, by discouraging and causing her
to solicit or accept a protectorate which should affect the
same, the treaty guaranteed, for five years, the independence
and territorial integrity of the country.
The said guarantee is "collective," which means to say,
that, as the interests of the Allies neither permit them to
annihilate nor dismember Paraguay, the guarantee is perfectly sincere and efficacious.  It is true that the Allies might
have omitted to give the said guarantees; but, if they did
not give it, Paraguay would remain exposed, in her autonomy as well in her territorial integrity, to all the perils in
which her social and political condition might place her; she
would also be exposed to the extenuation in which the war
would leave her, and the preponderance which the victory
would give to Brazil as well as to the Argentine Republic.
The treaty protects her from those perils, and guarantees her
autonomy and integrity. And is it against such a guarantee
that the Peruvian cabinet protests?
If the Allies had not been sincere in their desire to save
the Paraguayan nationality, they might have omitted this
point in the treaty; and each of the allied powers might have
reserved to itself liberty of action to absorb or neutralize the
conquered Republic, or to dispute the possession of her
amongst themselves on the day of victory.
Would Peru have been satisfied with such proceedings?
The guarantee is limited to five years; and this is another
chapter in the accusations of the Peruvian cabinet.
From  the circumstance that the guarantee is limited to
such a period, the aforesaid cabinet draws the conclusion
that any of the Allies or all of them together have the intention of absorbing Paraguay.
We are almost loth to answer such a supposition.
If they had the intention of absorbing Paraguay, especially




45
if the three allied powvers intended to do so jointly, as the
Peruvian Government appears to think, it must be confessed
that the negotiators of the treaty of the Triple-Alliance
have made a sad mistake.
Why should they.then renounce the favorable moment,
when the victory had been achieved, and protect Paraguay
during five years, thus giving her sufficient time not only to
get safely out of the many dangers which beset her, but also
to organize and strengthen her government, recover her forces
lost during the war, while she would also have learned to
love and defend her autonomy.
The Allies do not wish to behold Paraguay disorganized
and conquered; they wvill postpone making their claims until she has recovered her wasted strength, and is able to defend herself properly and by the help of such natural allies
on whom she may reckon.  This is one of the most startling revelations contained in the Peruvian protest.
The same loyal thought which inspired the collective
guarantee, as already explained, inspired also the bases for
adjusting the boundaries.  Paragulay is litigating with Brazil and the Argentine Republic about her boundaries. It
would therefore be natural to settle this matter as soon as
peace should be concluded, arranging at the same time the
other pending questions.
If Paraguay were once conquered, it would hardly be able
to dispute the pretensions of the victors; and these pretensions
might be of such a nature that they cancelled totally, and in
its most important consequences, the guarantee granted to
the autonomy and integrity of the Republic.
In what manner would it be possible to resist the dangers
which once threatened Paraguay, and also the future peace
of all those countries?  It can, certainly, only be done by
restraining at once the ambition which the victory might
inspire.
And the only practical means of arriving at such a beneficial and important result would be, no doubt, to impose no
other boundaries on the conquered republic of Paraguay




46
than those which were proposed to her in the negotiations
previous to the war, when she was yet intact and strong.
And this, only this, is what the Triple-Alliance wanted to
do; but Peru condemns it!
Would the Peruvian cabinet prefer that the sword of the
conquerors should trace the boundaries of conquered Paraguay according to their own fancy?
If this point had also been omitted in the treaty, and
Paraguay had been exposed to be parcelled out, on pretext
of adjusting the boundaries, perhaps, then, the Peruvian
cabinet might have remained silent on that subject.
The adjustment of boundaries are naturally perpetual,
and consequently the guarantee which the Allies give to
them is equally so.
If the Peruvian Government were not inclined to condemn
everything, it would have seen that the 17th article, which
solely has reference to a permanent adjustment, is calculated
to avoid the recommencement of a war from want of faith in
the adjustments which the peace might have been productive of.
The fortress of Humaita, and others of the same nature
(and these are the only ones which have been mentioned), is
and would be a threat and an obstacle to the free navigtation
of the rivers, owing to its position and all its qualities.
The right of navigating in those rivers rests (let its use
the words pronounced by the United States Government) on
a principle profoundly engraved on the human mind, viz.,
that the ocean is open to all men, and that the rivers are
equally so to all river navigators.
The justice of this natural right was recognized and sanctioned by Paraguay herself in favor of her population and
her neighbors, on the banks of her rivers; and at the solicitation of Brazil and of the Arcgentine Republics, this right was
extended to all other nations, and in such termns that it was
understood, and with good reason too, that the conditions in
which the treaties placed the free navigation of the river La
Plata, and its great tributaries, made it equal to the ocean.




47
The paragraph in the treaty which orders the demolition
of such fortresses is therefore a liberal measure which interests all nations, Paraguay included, whose commercial
progress and government revenue are increased thereby,
while it gives to the empire of Brazil the right of communication, by river, with her province of M3atto Grosso.
Humait/a was a barrier in the common road, to the gate
of which she herself only had the key. From this many difficulties arose, which more than once imperilled the peace of
those nations. Even if Humaita had not been a menace to
the safety of the neighboring territories, even if it had not
been a nest of refuge to all the birds of prey which devastate
the province of Corrientes, even if painful experience had
not proved to us that such a fortress (able to contain a whole
army) was a source of constant danger to the neighboring
countries, who were obliged to be on a war footing in times
of peace; it sufficed that it was an obstacle to fiee navigation, and it ought therefore to be demolished and never permitted to be erected again.
The Argentine and Oriental Republics spontaneously admitted the doctrine that the island of Martin Garcia could
not be an embarrassment to the free navigation, and, therefore, they at once agreed that the said island should remain
neutral in time of war, and what is more, that it should appertain in common to the fiscal offices of the people dwelling
on the banks of the rivers.
This is the principle established in the treaties of the Brazilian Empire and the Argentine Republics with Paraguay
herself, as well as with England, France, the United States,
Italy, &c.
As far as regards the arms and ammunitions, the treaty
only says that those which were found should be divided
amongst the conquerors. They had earned those with their
own blood, and, unfortunately, they had cost them dearly.
For what reason should the Peruyian cabinet deny the Allies the legitimate possession of the arms which they had




48
wrested from the hands of their enemies in an open and loyal
war?
But there was one weighty reason besides which justified
such a measure.  It could never suit the Allies to lay aside
at once their own arms, and to leave in the hands of their
fanatic and half-savage enemies an immense quantity of arms
and ammunition, collected during a period of twenty years,
in order to rush at once and unexpectedly, like a terrible
avalanche, on their neighbors.  Such a measure would have
been contrary and dangerous to the commercial, industrial
and social interests of the Allies, as well as to those of other
nations.
But by disposing at once of all those elements of war
which had been legitimately won, all those countries might
be enabled, without much delay, to return to peaceful occupations.
This does not imply, as the Peruvian protest gratuitously
observes, that Paraguay should not be permitted to have a
military force, to preserve order at home, and defend her
against her enemies; because, in fully recognizing her autonomy, one must, of course, at the same time, recognize her
right to have such an armed force as she may consider requisite.
She has one already, and the Allies, in accordance with
their own principles, will agree to her keeping it, and will
not in future put any difficulties in the way of the Paraguayan Government to prevent it from exercising this right,
which, as a sovereign and independent State, she can do at
her own wvill, without limits. Brazil, as well as the Argentine Republic and Oriental State, do not have any other aim;
nor have they any other interest at heart than that of having
for a neighbor a, well-organized State, which is governed in
accordance with the civilized doctrines now in general usea State which respects herself, and also knowvs how to respect
the legitimate rights and interests of her neighbors.
But Brazil, the Argentine and Oriental Republics, will
not and cannot suffer to be continually menaced by the ca



49
pricious will of a despot, who governs at his own pleasure a
people which he oppresses and keeps in subjugation.
Let Paraguay regenerate herself, and enter into the enjoyment of a free system of government, which, in guaranteeing her own rights, also guarantees those of Brazil, the Argentine Republic, and the Oriental State, giving to all those
countries the tranquility which they neel for the progressive
development of their prosperity and greatness.
We have now finished the analysis which we intended to
make of the Peruvian protest. It now remains for us to
offer to the readers a few general observations on the causes
which we presume have induced the Peruvian Cabinet to act
in this unexpected manner.
This matter will be the subject of our third and last
article.
III,
In the foregoing paragrarahs we have analyzed, one by one,
all the accusations made by the Peruvian Government in
their protest against the treaty of the triple alliance; and
how the said government made that protest disdaining all
amicable explanations.
From our analysis it may be seen that if the Government
of Peru had cared to proceed in a proper manner, it'might
easily have obtained such explanations and assurances as
would at once have satisfied its own scruples and the scruples
of the American people, of which it has constituted itself the
organ, and which it supposes to be alarmed.
But the fact is that the Peruvian Cabinet does not really
seek explanations; what it seeks is a quarrel.
It is well known that Chili, Peru and Bolivia desired that
all America together should make common cause in their war
against Spain, a war which possibly might have been avoidled;
and that they desired, especially Chili, that the Argentine
Republics should espouse their cause.
If these Republics had acceded to the request of Chili,




50
their position in the Atlantic would have made them the
theatre of a war, to which they had not in the least contributed, and in which none of their interests were concerned.
Chili, who counted upon having the said war endorsed,
(may this expression be permitted to us) by the Republics of
La Plata, was deeply offended because the Republics, not
only refused to do so, but rejected the principle of antagonism
which Chili endeavored to establish as a doctrine and a fact
between Europe and Amlerica.
From that time Chili and her allies have sought to come in
contact with the defeated parties of the States of La Plata;
and from that contact have imbibed the illusions cherished by
all such parties.
Confounding the difficulties which the triple-alliance encountered in the topography of Paraguay, with the preponderance of Lopez in the actual war, they believed that by
giving moral support to Paraguay, and thus encouraging the
defeated parties of the States of La Plata, and inciting them
to a revolution, they might succeed in nullifying the alliance, and save Paraguay who, naturally adheres to the antagonism against Europe.
The nullification of the alliance would satisfy their pride,
and while they dreamed of the possibility that the Republics
of the La Plata might yet side with them in their war against
Spain, (from which these wanted to keep clear) those apostles of Americanism were flattered by the prospect of territorial, a la Rosas, aggrandizement.
Thus Chili was to have Argentine Patagonia which already
figures on her maps under the name of Oriental Chili.
Peru dreamt of cancelling her boundary-treaty with Brazil
and of extending her possessiops in the Amazon recgions; and
Bolivia of extending hers at the cost of Paraguay, of the Argentine Republics and of Brazil.
This plan would indeed be a magnificent one, were it not
founded on delusion. The basis is faulty, viz' that Paraguay is to triumph in the present war over the armies of the
triple-alliance.




51
But such dreams and delusions are of no use. Neither
Chili nor Peru can command these seas, and none of their
men-of-war will disturb the trip)le-alliance.
The war in which Chili and Peru are engaged with Spain,
their troubles at home, and their financial position, will not
permit them to earry on a'war with us by land.
The only kind of hostility which they can show towards
us, is by giving moral support to Lopez, and by animating
the defeated parties in the Republics of La Plata.
This hostility exists already; the protest shows it.
It was for this reason that the Peruvian (Cabinet did not
seek any previous explanations, it was for this reason that
putting all consideration aside, it published the protest before
it had been delivered to the governments to which it was
directed; and, therefore, the said protest is nothing more
than an inconsiderate reproduction of the press of Lopez.
For instance, the America, (mouth-piece of the Paraguayan Dictator in the States of La Plata) stated in its number of the 13th May ultimo, that the treaty of the triplealliance had decreed the partition of the American Poland,
and the Peruvian Cabinet, which in the protest aforementioned, does nothing but support the malignant suggestions and
suppositions of the Lopez press, repeats seriously that, to
reduce Paraguay to an American Poland, would be a disgrace, which America could not witness without covering herself with shame.
We, therefore, repeat that the Peruvian protest is neither
in fact, nor in form, a diplomatic document. It is purely and
simply hostility.  All that can be said in reply to it is this:
What right have you to judge of the actions of sovereign and
independent States, who are only exercising their lawful
rights in the defence of their own safety, and of their lecgitimate and indisputable interests, without offending yours.
Do you claim to be the personification of America, of that
immense region divided into so many different States, each
so perfectly independent of the others? Is not that personi



52
fication of America which you arrogate to yourself, an usurpation for which you have not even a pretext?
We do not acknowledge that personification, and we reject
the international policy which you pretend to establish. We
do so because your object is to make a Continental American
war out of a war which exists only between an American and
an European power, or between two or more American States.
We regret it also because you would thus create a spirit of
permanent animosity between Europe and America.
The war with Spain in which you are engaged, you call,
even in the protest of which we have been speaking, war with
Europe! Alliance for repelling the violent attacks and arrogant pretensions of Europe!
We consider that league of yours against Europe detrimental to the most important and essential interests of America, who receives from the old world laborers, capital, and
all the benefits of its commerce, industry and scientific
development.
We are resolved to be independent, yes, but not only of
Europe, but also of all American nations, whatever their
names-be they Chile, Peru, or Bolivia.
We exact fiom the European nations only what we exact
from the American nations, that our absolute and perfect
independence be respected.
That American league of yours will never be completed,
because it is an insensate idea.
If such a league were established, it would create a
European league against America.
You are decidedly compromising the most essential interests of America, and calling forth perils which did not exist before. Because we cannot join you in your mad course,
you turn against us, but you are at the same time deceiving
yourselves.
You cannot save Lopez. The allied armies will overthrow
his power. You may perhaps create some disturbance on
the frontiers, but in such case, you will not escape from the
responsibility which may result therefrom.




53
In conclusion, we sincerely desire to retnain in peace with
you. To accomplish this, you have merely to remain tranquil and neutral, which you ought to do, considering that
none of your legitimate ri^ghts or interests have been attacked.
Rio DE JANEIRO, 14th September, 1866.
With respect to the note of His Excellency, Sefior Taborga,
Minister of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Bolivia, we
shall confine ourselves to reproducing, in the following documents, the notes which were addressed to llim, in answer, by
the Governments of the Argentine -Republic, and of His
Majesty the Emperor of Brazil:
NOTE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL TO THAT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA.
{ OFFICE OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
RIP DE JANEIRO, Sept. 15, 1866.
His Excellency, Don Jose R. Taborga, Minister of Foreign
Relations of Bolivia, in a note dated July 6th, of the present
year, whose receipt I hereby acknowledge, asks, by order of
His Excellency, the provisional President, that the Government of Brazil shall declare the genuineness or falsity of the
text of a treaty of alliance which has been made public
through the press, said to be formed between Brazil, the
Argentine Republic and Uruguay.
The Bolivian Government thus addresses the Government
of Brazil, because one of the articles of that treaty contains
certain stipulations concerning boundaries, which appear to
deprive Bolivia of territory, which she claims, on the right
bank of the Paraguay.
In answering Mr. Taborgas, by order of His Majesty the
Emperor, to whom the said note was presented, I shall confine myself to a brief declaration, which cannot fail to satisfy
the Government of Bolivia, as it will show how carefully the
allies have avoided anything, in their agreements, which
might injure a friendly nation.




54
His Majesty's Government cannot make any declaration
as to the genuineness or falsity of the treaty which came to
the knowledge of His Excellency, the President, as it has
bound itself to preserve the secresy of the treaties formed
with its allies; but it can and does declare that those treaties
not only respect all rights which Bolivia may have in any
part of the territory on the right bank of the Paraguay, but
also expressly mentions thenm.
The boundaries between Brazil and Bolivia are not yet
determined on. This question, which has nothing to do with
the Paraguayan wvar, and which we shall not attempt to discuss on this occasion, cannot and does not receive any detriment firom any of the stipulations of alliance.
The Imperial Government, I repeat, respects that question
and hopes that it will be speedily settled; and for its part
will do everything in its power to bring about an agreement
which shall satisfy both countries.
I have the honor to offer to your Excellency the assurances
of my highest esteem and most distinguished consideration.
MIaRTIMI FRANCISCO P-    DE ANDRADA.
To His Excellency, DON JosE R. TABORGA, Mfinister of Foreign Relations of thle Republic of Bolivia.
REPLY TO THE BOLIVIAN PROTEST.
3IINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFIAIRS, 
BUENOS AYRES, August 18, 1866. 5
To HIS EXCELLENCY THE nMINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA:
EXCELLENCY-I have the honor of replying to your nota
dated on the 6th of last July, which came to hand yesterday,
the 17th instant.
The Argentine Government was surprized by the contents
of said note, and is convinced that the Government of Bolivia will easily recognize the little foundation it had for its
alarm and consequent proceeding.




55
As the treaty of alliance between the Argentine, Brazilian
and Oriental Governments against that of Paraguay is secret,
the Argentine Government cannot enter into any discussion
or consideration of its provisions, nor make any revelation
with regard to its contents. Nor can the Bolivian Government appeal to said treaty, nor to any publication concerning
this subject, as it stands at present, to support the idea that
friendly governments are engaged in plotting to despoil the republic of Bolivia of any territory that belongs to it, under the
plea of their war with Paraguay.  Such a suspicion becomes
the more unjustifiable and inexplicable from the fact, that the
Argentine Government signed a treaty of amity, commerce,
navigation and boundaries with the representative of Bolivia,
on the 2d day of May, 1865-that is, on the day following
the signing of the Alliance-and the Argentine Congress has
authorized its ratification. In the Twentieth Article, said
treaty stipulates that " the boundaries between the Argentine Republic and Bolivia shall be settled by special treaty
between the two governments after a commission, to be appointed by both parties, shall have examined the respective
titles, made the necessary surveys, and presented the plan or
plans of the boundary line.  Both Governments shall take
the necessary steps to have this stipulation carried out. In
the meantime, possession shall give no right to territory
which shall not have belonged originally to one or the other
nation."
If the ratifications of said treaty have not as yet been exchanged, the reason is that the Bolivian Charge requested an
extension of time, as appears from  the protocol annexed.But in order that the Government of Bolivia may be convinced of its error, I annex hereto copies of the notes exchanged at the timle of signing the treaty of alliance between
the plenipotentiaries of the Government of his  Iajesty the
Emperor of Brazil and of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay,
by which they recognized, as they were bound to do, the
rights which the republic of Bolivia has to the territory lying on the right bank of the Paraguay. The treaty of alliance




vv
could have no reference whatever to a question of bonndaries
between the Angentine Republic and Bolivia, nor between
the latter and the Empire of Brazil.  I have no doubt that
these explanations will give entire satisfaction to the Government of Bolivia, and that said  Government will recognize
therein an additional proof of the respect which the Argentine
Republic has for the rights of others, especially when  the
Republic of Bolivia is concerne(l, for to it she is bound by
ties of the most fiaternal sympathy, and  with its valuable
co-operation she hopes to be able to establish and settle the
peace and prosperity of both peoples upon a more solid basis.
Hence, I am  pleased to reiterate to your Excellency the assurances of my high and distinguished consideration.
RUFINO DE ELIZALDE.
E RR AT U M.
PAGE. LINE.   Sayss                    Skoulld say:
13,   8,  of 1st May,       of 23d Jan. 1865, between Chili, Peru, Bolivia
and Ecuador.
25,  18,  183,              1838.
28,  15,  Cubaya,           Cuyaba.
29,   6,  Paraguyan,        P'araguayan.
29,  19,  aDe,              Bey.
32,  23,  Paraguay,         Uruguay.
36,  23,  the war, anoI    the war, Italy occupyiing Venetia, and
37,  24,  Government did,  Government of Peru did.
48,  24,  has one alheady,   will possess one.
52,   8.  We regret,        We reject.
Wherever it may say "Argentine Republics," read Republics of La Plata.