Vi'lll Iff i^i^,'iT,T, ?.'' QAIjI'^OR'^'*. SAN DIEGO 
 
 3 1822 02590 9938 
 
 i«.m*.»— „ ^^^ LIBRARY 
 UNIVaSfTY OF CAUFORNIA, SAN XXtdd 
 U iOUA, CAUFOIINIA
 
 Costa Rica -Panama Arbitration 
 
 OPINION 
 
 Concerning the Question of Boundaries 
 
 tetween 
 
 The Republics of Costa Riga and Panama 
 
 Examined with Respect to the Spanish Law and Given at the 
 
 Request of the Government of Costa Rica by 
 
 their Excellencies, 
 
 DON SEGISMUNDO MORET Y PRENDERGAST 
 
 Ex-President of the Cabinet Council, Ex-President of the Congress of Deputies, 
 Deputy to the Cortes, Ex-President of the Central University, 
 Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitra- 
 tion of the Hague, 
 
 and 
 
 DON VICENTE SANTAMARIA DE PA REDES 
 
 Professor of Public Law in the Central University, Ex-Minister of Public Instruc- 
 tion, Senator of the Kingdom, President of the Council of Public 
 Instruction, Member of the Roynl Academies of Moral 
 and Political Sciences and of History 
 President of the Technical Commission in the Arbitration Between the Republics 
 of Honduras and Nicaragua, Decided by 
 H. M. the King of Spain. 
 
 PRINTEKS: 
 
 THB COMUONWEALTH COMPANY, 
 
 ROeSLYN, VA., U. S. A. 
 
 1913
 
 SEP I 1938
 
 The documents to which parenthetical reference is 
 made herein are to be found in "Documents Annexed 
 to the Argument of Costa Rica Before the Arbitrator, 
 Hon. Edward Douglass White," etc., in four volumes.
 
 IIsTRODUCTION. 
 
 I. The Arbitration of tlie Boundary Question Pending 
 Between the Republics of Costa Rica and Panama. 
 
 On the 15th of March, 1825, the Republic of Colom- 
 bia (whose rights are now claimed by that of Pana- 
 ma) and the federated Republic of Central America 
 (of which that of Costa Rica formed a part) entered 
 into a treaty by which, in article 5, the parties mu- 
 tually guaranteed the integrity of their respective ter- 
 ritories **as they existed prior to the present war of 
 independence," and, in article 7, they obligated them- 
 selves "to respect the boundaries of each other as they 
 now exist," reserving to themselves the duty to maka 
 amicably and by means of a special agreement, the 
 demarcation of a divisionary line as soon as circum- 
 stances might permit (Doc. No. 257). 
 
 On the dissolution of that federation, the Republic 
 of Costa Rica and that of Colombia undertook at vari- 
 ous times to establish that divisionary line, preparing 
 agreements which were never ratified and passing 
 through serious conflicts in consequence of their dif- 
 ferent conceptions as to the extent of their territorial 
 sovereign tv. 
 
 With the laudable purpose of putting an end amica- 
 bly to their differences, they entered into an agree- 
 ment on December 25, 1880, submitting to arbitration 
 "the question of limits existing between them and the 
 designation of a line that shall separate for all time 
 and with entire clearness the territory of the one from 
 the other." By virtue of this agreement, the arbitra-
 
 tion was entrusted to J lis Majesty, the King of Spain, 
 at tliat time Don Alfonso Xll (Doc. No. 3G4). 
 
 On the deatli of that Monarch, Costa Kica and Co- 
 lombia, on January 20, 1886, entered into another 
 convention, "additional" to that of 1880,^ in Article 1 
 of which the (Jovernment of Spain is dechired to be 
 "competent to proceed with the execution of the arbi- 
 tration and to deliver a definitive sentence of an irre- 
 vociible and unappealable (character'' (Doc. No. 369). 
 
 In Article 2 of this additional (convention the extent 
 of the disputed territory was determined, and the 
 claims of the parties litigant were set forth as follows: 
 
 "The territorial limit which the liepublic of 
 Cosia liira claims, on the Atlantic side, reaches 
 as fai- as the Island of the Escudo de Veragua 
 and the River Chiri<)iii (C'alobebora) inclusive, 
 and, on the Pacific side, as far as the River 
 (^hiriciui Viejo, inclusive, to the east of Punta 
 Burica. 
 
 "The territorial limit which the United States 
 of Colombia claims reaches, on the Atlantic 
 side, as far as Cape Gracias a Dios, inclusive, 
 and, on the Pacific side, as far as the mouth of 
 the Golfito River in the Gulf of Dulce." 
 
 In Article 3, it is stated that the arbitral decision 
 should be confined to the territory in dispute situated 
 within these extreme limits, and should not affect in 
 any way the rights of a third party who may not have 
 intervened in the arbitration. 
 
 New dissensions between Costa Rica and Colombia 
 and their persistent desire for a friendly settlement, 
 led to a third convention, signed November 4th, 1896, 
 by whi(;h the ar])itration was offered in the first place to 
 the President of the Republic of France, but it was given
 
 to be understood that the failure to designate the Gov- 
 ernment of Spain as arbitrator was due solely to 
 Colombia's reluctance to exact from that Government 
 so much continuous service, she having only shortly 
 before then subscribed with Ecuador and Peini a 
 boundary treaty in which His Catholic Majesty was 
 named as arbitrator, and this after his laborious trial 
 of the question of the Colombian-Venezuelan frontier 
 (Doc. No. 403). 
 
 In this third convention the two prior ones of 1880 
 and 1886 were ratified and held to be in force, except 
 Articles 2 to 6 of the former, and 1 and 4 of the latter. 
 So that tliere remained in force: Article 1 of the Con- 
 vention of 1880, stating the question of limits, and 
 Articles 2 and 3 relating to the boundaries claimed by 
 each of the parties, and the condition that the arbi- 
 trator be confined to the territory in dispute. 
 
 The arbitral proceedings having been submitted to 
 the President of the Republic of France, His Excel- 
 lency Monsieur Loubet, who was then in charge of 
 that very high office, handed down his decision on 
 September 11th, 1900 (Doc. Nos. 413 and 414), estab- 
 lishing as a divisionary line that which he traced from 
 Punta Mona on the Atlantic Ocean to Punta Burica 
 on the Pacific Ocean. The award of Monsieur Loubet 
 sets forth none of the reasoning on which it is based; 
 only the bare decision is given, prefaced by a list of 
 memoranda, documents and maps presented by each 
 party, and an enumeration of the Royal acts cited 
 by both. 
 
 The Government of Costa Rica made respectful ob- 
 servations to that of France, in regard to the difficul 
 ties of carrying out the Award; and the Minister of 
 Foreign Affairs, Monsieur Delcasse, in his note of
 
 8 
 
 November 23, 1900 (Doc. Nos. 421 and 422), addressed 
 to the Minister of Costa Rica in Paris, answered 
 sajdng : 
 
 "For lack of precise geographical data, the 
 Arbitrator has not been able to fix the frontier 
 except by means of general indications ; I deem, 
 tlierefore, that it would be inconvenient to trace 
 them upon a map. But there is no doubt, as 
 you have observed, that in conforaiity with the 
 terms of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention of 
 Paris of January 20, 1886, this frontier line 
 must he traced within the limits of the territory 
 in dispute, as they are found to be from the text 
 of said Articles. It is according to these prin- 
 ciples that the Republics of Colombia and Costa 
 Rica will have to proceed in the material de 
 termination of their frontiers ; and the Arbitra- 
 tor relies, in this particular, upon the spirit of 
 conciliation and good understanding which has 
 up to this time inspired the two interested 
 Governments," 
 
 The Government of Costa Rica understood that the 
 decision did not meet all the conditions stipulated in 
 the arbitration agreement, since it did not establish 
 the divisionary line for all time and with entire clear- 
 ness; it even went outside the limits of the disputed 
 territory, and left open the field of controversy. In 
 its desire to settle the question of boundaries definitively 
 and as soon as possible, that government sought and 
 in December, 1907, obtained (Doc. Nos. 440 and 442) 
 the friendly mediation of the United States ; there was 
 excellent reason for this choice inasmuch as the latter 
 had been constituted by the Treaty of November 3, 
 1!KJ3, guarantor of the independence of the new Repub- 
 lic of Panama.
 
 The result of these negotiations was the Convention 
 of Marcli 17, 1910 (Doc. No. 473^. between the Repub- 
 lics of Costa Rica and Panama, submitting the defini 
 tive settlement of the matter to the Chief Justice of 
 the United States, in the following form : 
 
 "The Republic of Costa Rica and the Repub- 
 lic of Panama, although they consider that the 
 boundary between their respective territories 
 designated by the arbitral sentence of His Ex- 
 cellency, the President of the Republic of 
 France, of the 11th of September, 1900, is clear 
 and indisputable in the region of the Pacific, 
 from Punta Burica to a point beyond Cerro 
 Pando in the Central Cordillera near the ninth 
 degree of North Latitude, have not been able 
 to reach an agreement in respect to the inter 
 pretation to be given to the Arbitral Award as 
 to the rest of the boundary line; and for the 
 purpose of settling their said disagreements 
 agree to submit to the decision of the Honorable 
 Chief Justice of the United States, who will 
 determine in the capacity of Arbitrator : What 
 is the boundary under and most in accordance 
 with the correct interpretation and true inten- 
 tion of the Award of the President of the Re- 
 public of France made the 11th of September, 
 1900." 
 
 The convention immediately adds : 
 
 *'In order to decide this, the Arbitrator will 
 take into account all the facts, circumstances 
 and consid,erations which may have a bearing 
 upon the case, as well as the limitation of the 
 Loubet Award, expressed in the letter of His 
 Excellency, M. Delcasse, Minister of Foreign 
 Affairs of France, to His Exceiiencv, Sefior 
 Peralta, Minister of Costa Rica in Paris, of
 
 10 
 
 November 23, 1900, that this boundary line must 
 be drawn within the confines of the territory in 
 dispute as determined by the Convention of 
 Paris between the Republic of Costa Rica and 
 the Republic of Colombia of January 20, 1886.'* 
 
 II. Object and Plan of This Opinion. 
 
 This matter being under submission before the Hon- 
 orable Chief Justice of the United States; the Govern- 
 ment of Costa Rica has been pleased to engage the 
 undersigned counsel to examine all the antecedents 
 of the case, the allegations of the Parties litigant, and 
 the laws and Royal acts invoked, and to give an opin- 
 ion in regard to the boundary question between the 
 Republics of Costa Rica and Panuma, as affected by 
 the SiJanisli colonial law. 
 
 In order to fulfill the duty with which it has hon- 
 ored us, we have carefully examined all the data re- 
 lating to the question, and after mature reflection, have 
 prepared the present opinion. 
 
 We will not go beyond the sphere of Spanish colonial 
 law, as to which we are consulted, and we wish to state 
 that we adopt this denomination, not because it lias 
 been used in Spain — who called her territories of the 
 Indies kingdoms and provinces, instead or ci>lonies — 
 but for greater clearness and in contradistinction to 
 inlcniational laiv, into which we shall not intrude. 
 
 What may be the efficacy of the decision of Monsieur 
 Jjoubet under international law, and what the value of 
 the intercolonial boundaries in fixing the international 
 lines between two adjoining provinces dependent upon 
 the same mother country and now converted into sov- 
 ereign States, are questions foreign to our exami- 
 nation.
 
 11 
 
 But we do contend that to determine the question of 
 the boundaries between Costa Rica and Panama ac- 
 cording to Spanish colonial law is equivalent to de- 
 ciding it under international law, because that law 
 has been fundamentally the basis of the boundary set- 
 tlements of the Spanish-American republics, because 
 the entire discussion in the present litigation turns 
 upon that law solely, and because the 'Hrue intent of 
 the Award" of Monsieur Loubet was to sustain that 
 system of laws. 
 
 Although, as we have indicated, this Award con- 
 tains no reasoning whatever, it clearly appears that 
 the Arbitrator did not have any other intention, since 
 it refers only to the laws, Royal cedulas and Royal 
 orders of the colonial epoch which it cites in detail in 
 the preamble, save the Treaty of 1825, between the 
 Republics of Central America and Colombia, which 
 recognized as boundaries those then existing, that is 
 to say, the intercolonial boundaries. 
 
 And since, according to the Convention of J91r), the 
 Chief Justice must take into account all the facts, cir- 
 cumstances and considerations of the case, and since 
 the case involves the legality of the demarcations of 
 Costa Rica and Panama according to Spanish colonial 
 law, we will have to set forth all those facts, circum- 
 stances and considerations arising during the period 
 of the sovereignty of Spain inasmuch as they contrib- 
 ute to clear up the matter. 
 
 • The question of boundaries being placed, therefore, 
 in the field of Spanish colonial law, we divide this 
 opinion into three parts, comprising the three proposi- 
 tions following: 
 
 1. The Province of Costa Rica and that of Veragua
 
 12 
 
 were delinitively established and marked out by the 
 Crown in the Sixteentli century (1573), 
 
 2. The Recopilacion de Indias (Conipikition of the 
 Laws of the Indies) respected and contiiTned the ex 
 istence and demarcation of Costa Rica. 
 
 3. Costa Rica continued in the same legal status of 
 differentiation from Veragua, from the publication of 
 the Recopilacion down to the independence. 
 
 Under these three heads we shall group the differ- 
 ent controvertod questions, developing our opinion 
 thereon as we proceed.
 
 FIRST PART 
 
 The Provinces of Costa Rica and Veragua Wore 
 Definitively Established and Bounded by the Crown 
 in the XVIth Century (1573). 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 I. Necessity for Studying tlie Formation of the Prov- 
 
 inces of Veragua and Costa Rica. 
 
 1. The "Veragua" Equivoque as the Premise of the 
 
 Principal Argument of Colombia. 
 
 2. The History of the Formation of the Provinces of 
 
 Veragua and Costa Rica Clears Up the Equi- 
 voque and Clearly Demonstrates How They 
 Were Recognized and Differentiated in the 
 XVIth Century. 
 
 II. The Primitive Veragua (1502 to 1537). 
 
 1. The Veragua of Christopher Columbus (1502). 
 
 2. The Veragua of Nicuesa (1508). 
 
 3. The Veragua Bordering on tiie Castilla del Oro of 
 
 Pedrarias Davila (1513 to 1527). 
 
 4. The Veragua of Felipe Gutierrez (1534). 
 
 II. Province of Veragua. 
 
 1 . Creation of the Dukedom of Veragua; Royal Cedu- 
 las of 1537.
 
 14 
 
 2. Limits of this Dukedom. 
 
 3. Suppression of the Ducal Seignory (1556). 
 
 4. Organization of the Province of Veragua with a 
 
 Goveraor Captain-General. 
 
 rv. Province of Costa Rica. 
 
 1. Koyal Veragua; Province of Costa Rica; Govern- 
 
 ment of Sanchez de Badajoz (1539). 
 
 2. Province of Cartago; Government of Diego Gu- 
 
 tierrez (1540). 
 
 3. Province of New Cartago or Costa Pica, From the 
 
 Birth of the Province of Veragua (1560) : 
 
 (a) Differentiation of the Two Veraguas, After 
 the Suppression of the Ducal Seignory; 
 
 (b) Ortiz de Elgueta (1559) ; 
 
 (c) Juan de Cavallon (1560); 
 
 (d) Denial of the Request of the Governor of 
 Tierra Firme, Figuerola (1561); 
 
 (e) Vazquez de Coronado (1562) ; 
 
 (f) Perafan de Ribera (1566). 
 
 4. The Province of Costa Rica Definitively Organ- 
 
 ized; Government of Artieda (1573); 
 
 (a) Royal Cedula of Philip II of December 1, 
 1573; 
 
 (b) Formation of the Province of Teguzgalpa 
 by the Segregation of That of Costa Rica, 
 Prior to 1573; 
 
 (c) Boundaries With the Pro\"ince of Veragua. 
 
 V. The Question of Boundaries Settled by the Royal 
 Cedula of 1573 and Not by That of 1537. 
 
 1. Importance, Confirmations and Subsistence of the 
 
 Royal Cedula of 1573. 
 
 2. Inefiicacy and Abrogation of the Royal Cedula 
 
 of 1537.
 
 15 
 I, 
 
 NECESSITY FOR STUDYING THE FORMATION 
 
 OF THE PROVINCES OF VERAGUA AND 
 
 COSTA RICA. 
 
 1. The "Veragua" Equivoque as the Premise of the 
 Principal Argument of Colombia. 
 
 The question of boundaries pending between the 
 Republics of Costa Rica and of Panama (the successor 
 to that of Colombia) refers to the territory which was 
 called *' Veragua"; out of this was formed the Prov- 
 ince of Costa Rica, which is now the Republic of that 
 name, and the Province of Veragua, which belonged 
 to the Republic of Colombia and now belongs to 
 Panama. 
 
 Placing this question of boundaries within the 
 sphere of Spanish colonial law, we find that it was set- 
 tled in the XVIth century by the formation of these 
 two provinces, and more specifically by the Royal 
 cedula of December 1, 1573 (Doc. No. 62), which es- 
 tablished forever the differentiation between them. 
 And if it is always useful to know how any political 
 entities which litigate their geographical boundaries 
 were formed, it becomes indispensable in the present 
 case, inasmuch as Colombia has enlarged her claims 
 to the extent of denying the very existence of Costa 
 Rica as a Spanish province, and has asked as her 
 limits those with vvhich Costa Rica ends on the side 
 opposite to the Colombian borders, in order clearly to 
 get from the Arbitrator the greatest extension pos- 
 sible, although it could not be expected that the arbi- 
 tration would result in the suppression of the adverse 
 international personality.
 
 1€ 
 
 The ancient Veragua passed through various phases 
 in its historico-legal evolution, until its name became 
 concreted into one of the three ]irovinces that arose 
 out of it; Colombia makes use of the "equivoque" to 
 which the variety of the applications of the name gives 
 rise, and founds thereon her argument. 
 
 All of Colombia's counsel employ, as their principal 
 argument, the one which may be formulated in the 
 following syllogism: Law 9, title 1, V)Ook V, of the 
 Recopilacion de Indias (Doc. No. 135), with reference 
 to the Royal cedula of Carlos V of March 2, 1537 (Doc. 
 No. 13), says that '*the whole Province of Veragua 
 belongs to the Governemt of Tierra Firme"; there- 
 fore it is that since to Colombia l^elongs that which was 
 under the Government of Tierra Firme, it follows that 
 all of the Province of Veragua belongs to her. And as 
 the Veragua of 1537 comprised all of the territory in- 
 cluded between Castilla del Oro and Cape Gracias a 
 Dios, and as within that territory was included that 
 which Costa Rica now holds, the latter should have it, 
 as also that which extends from the Desaguadero, or 
 River San Juan (the boundary of Costa Rica with 
 Nicaragua) as far as Cape Gracias a Dios. 
 
 Don Francisco Silvela, who signed the first "Memo- 
 randum of Colombia," asserts that according to the 
 Royal cedula of March 2, 1537, Veragua comprised 
 from Castilla del Oro as far as Cape Gracias a Dios, 
 but as the litigation was only with Costa Rica — which 
 went no farther than the River San Juan — the river 
 should be the northern limit on the Atlantic (p. 61). 
 
 Monsieur Poincaro says the same in the second and 
 third "Memorandum of Colombia," declaring in the 
 latter, in capital letters, "let the ivhole Province of 
 Veragua belong to the Government of Tierra Firme";
 
 17 
 
 this being the decisive phrase, which solemnly ex- 
 ))i'esses, in Ills jnd,«7nont, the thought of the Spanish 
 Monarch (p. 2). In the "Summary (resume) of the 
 Conclusions of Coloni))ia," also presented to the Ar- 
 bitrator by ]\ronsieui- Poincare, he condenses the argu- 
 ment as follows : 
 
 "The whole of the Province of Veragua de- 
 pended from the Audiencia of Panama and this 
 Audiencia was swallowed up in the Viceroyalty 
 of Santa Fe. Colombia is unquestionably the 
 successor to the right of the Government of Tier- 
 ra Firme, of the Audiencia of Panama and the 
 Viceroyalty of Santa Fe. All of the Province 
 of Veragua ought, therefore, to belong to Colom- 
 bia. Since its origin the Province of Veragua 
 has extended as far as Cape Gracias a Dios. (See 
 the Royal cedula of March 2, 1537.) It has 
 never been divided." 
 
 2. The History of the Formation of the Province of 
 Veragua and Costa Rica Clears Up the Equivoque and 
 Clearly Demonstrates How They Were Recognized and 
 Differentiated in the XVIth Century. 
 
 History clears up the equivoque upon which Colom- 
 bia bases her argument, for it shows the different sig- 
 nifications which the denomination of "Veragua" had 
 until it came to be applied solely to one determined 
 province. 
 
 This investigation of the formation of the Province 
 of Veragua and Costa Rica has, besides its historical 
 interest, the immense importance of clearly demon- 
 strating how the question, which is now being tried be- 
 tween Costa Rica and Panama, was settled in the 
 XVIth century by the Spanish colonial law — not by 
 virtue of the Royal cedula of 1537, but of the Koyal
 
 18 
 
 o«kiulns of December 1, 1573 (Doc. Xu. ti2), uud Feb- 
 ruary 18, 1574 (Doc. Xo. 03). 
 
 Wo think that Cohjinbia's counsel, by taking as a 
 point of departure the Recopilacion de Indias, have 
 obscured the controversy; they have mixed legal con- 
 siderations deduced from its texts with liistorical as- 
 sertions diflicult of comprehension in connection with 
 those texts, without previously taking up the history 
 of the formation of those provinces, as was done by 
 counsel for Costa Rica in his first Memorandum. It 
 seems to us better to explain and discuss first the acts 
 tind legal dispositions that preceded the Recopilacion, 
 and then, afterwards, to examine the Recopilacion, 
 and, taking its laws altogether, apply them to the facts 
 and prior dispositions which are already known, with- 
 out having to interrupt the doctrinal demonstration 
 with historical digressions appropriate to the preced- 
 ing epoch. 
 
 For greater clearness, also, we divide the historico- 
 legal examination of the epoch prior to the Recopila- 
 cion into three sections, which cover respectively: (1) 
 that which we call primitive Veragua, that is, from 
 the discovery by Columbus, in 1502, down to its divi- 
 sion into Ducal Veragua and Royal Veragua, in 1537 ; 
 (2) the Province of Veragua, and (3) the Province of 
 Costa Rica. Within each section we follow the chro- 
 nological method, which, thus com))ined with the geo- 
 graphical division, obviates the confusion that results 
 when, by observing the former exclusively and keep- 
 ing the order of the dates, different facts relating to 
 distinct provinces, are mingled. From all this exami- 
 nation we shall deduce, at last, that the question of 
 boundaries was settled by the Royal cedula of 1573, 
 and not bv that of 1537.
 
 i ^*-"' 
 
 .«• 
 
 ^C Ct»»tim9 m 0'«i 
 
 TERRirOf:!£3 £?/=■ CENTRAL /IMER/C^ 
 
 CfiCO\/iRSO Br COLUMOt/3
 
 19 
 
 THE PRmiTIVE VERAGUA (1502 TO 1537). 
 1. The Vera^ua of Christopher Columbus (1502). 
 
 For many years the territories of Central America 
 lying' along the coast of the Atlantic, from Cape Hon- 
 duras as far as the port of Retrete (now the port of 
 Escribanos) near Cape San Bias, and which Christo 
 pher Columbus discovered in his fourth and last voy- 
 age of 1502, were kno^vn by the name of '^Veragim.'' 
 
 Strictly speaking this name belonged only to a ham- 
 let and a small surrounding territory. Columbus re- 
 lates, in his letter from Jamaica, of July 7, 1503, to 
 the Catholic Sovereigns (Doc. No. 1), in which he gives 
 an account of this voyage, that two Indians took him 
 to Carambarii (Zorobaro), where the people went 
 naked, with but a mirror of gold at the neck, telling 
 him of many places on the coast in which gold was to 
 be found; ''the farthest," he said, ''was Veragua, 
 distant from there about 25 leagues." And in de- 
 scribing in detail the same voyage, Diego de Porras 
 explains how Columbus, entering by the river he called 
 Belen, "in the territory of Veragua," proved the ex- 
 istence of the mines. So Columbus understood that 
 Veragua was situated 25 leagues to the east of Zoro- 
 baro and extended to the River Belen. 
 
 The great fame acquired by this territory of Ve- 
 ragua — in which Columbus stated that in the first two 
 davs he had seen greater signs of gold than in Es- 
 paiiola (the Island of Hispaniola. or Hayti) during 
 four years — caused its discovery to bo considered as 
 the most important of that fourth voyage, and the
 
 20 
 
 name "Veragiia" was applied to all that was discov- 
 ered there, from Cape Honduras as far as the Cape of 
 San Bias. 
 
 2. The Veragua of Nicuesa (1508). 
 
 When Colmnhus returned to Spain he claimed from 
 the Catholic Sovereigns the fulfillment of the promises 
 made to him, especially as to the seignory of the terri- 
 tory of Veragua, which was the one that he held in the 
 greatest esteem. But he did not have the support of 
 Queen Isabella, who had died, and the Catholic King 
 did not admit his claims, considering them excessive 
 and dangerous to the Royal sovereignty. The Admiral 
 having died without succeeding in his desires, Don 
 Diego Columbus, his son and heir, instituted a suit, 
 in 1508, against the Crown, which was in great part 
 settled by the creation of the Dukedom of Veragua, 
 in 1536. 
 
 By the Royal cedula of Dona Juana. of Juno 9, 1508 
 (Doc. No. 2), the Government of Veragua was granted 
 to Diego de Nicuesa ; therein he was given besides the 
 military command, **full power and jurisdiction, civil 
 and criminal," although restricte<l by the right of 
 appeal to the Governor of the Island of Espafiola. In 
 this Royal cedula the extremity of Veragua was clearly 
 fixed on the side of Tierra Firme, in the Gulf of T^raba. 
 and it was provided further that the part of Uraba is 
 that granted to Alonso de Ojeda ; but there is no indi- 
 cation where the Government of Veragua which was 
 granted to Nicuesa, terminated on the west and north 
 
 Fray Bartolomo de las Casas and other historians 
 of the Indies (like TIerrera and Xavarrete) say thai 
 the Veragua of Nicuesa extended from the Gulf of
 
 ^C frmmttmi « O" 

 
 21 
 
 Uraba as far as Capo Gracias a Dios. Fernandez de 
 Oviedo asserts tliat it was from the same Gulf of Uraba 
 *'as far as the end of the territory called Veragua.'' 
 Senor Peralta observes very properly, that the only 
 data which the Catholic King had before him on which 
 to base the grant of the Government of Veragua, were 
 the courses and indications of Columbus, and if thesa 
 be ignored, there is just as much reason to conjecture 
 that it extended to Cape Gracias a Dios as that it 
 extended to Cape Honduras, or any other point in the 
 voj'^age of the Great Discoverer. This strengthens 
 the extension that was given to the name of Veragua. 
 
 Nicuesa did not succeed in founding anything in the 
 territory which was allotted to him ; he stayed only in 
 the Veragua of the Belen river and in the Island of 
 the Escudo of Veragua (or Nicuesa), and there en- 
 dured many misfortunes, disappearing, in 1511, in a 
 shipwreck. 
 
 Vasco Nunez de Balboa, who had founded the colony 
 of Santa Maria del Darien, within the jurisdiction of 
 Nicuesa on the western coast of the Gulf of Uraba, in 
 a letter of January 20, 1513 (Doc. No. 3), giving an 
 account to the King of the progress of that colony, 
 asked that he might be allowed to bring back some 
 Indians "of the part of Veragua from a gulf called 
 San Bias, which lies at a distance of 50 leagues from 
 this town down the coast." So that according to 
 Nunez de Balboa, Veragua did not terminate on its 
 eastern side at the Belen river, but included also the 
 territories of the Gulf of San Bias. 
 
 Vasco Nunez de Balboa discovered the South Sea 
 (Pacific) on September 25, 1513.
 
 22 
 
 3. The Veragua Bordering on the Castilla del Oro of 
 Pedrarias Davila (1513 to 1527). 
 
 By the Royal cedilla of July 27, 1513 (Doc. No. 4), 
 Pedrarias Davila was appointed Captain-General and 
 Governor of the Province of Castilla del Oro (the first 
 time that this denonunation was applied to Tierra 
 Finne) ''so long as it does not include nor have em- 
 braced within it the Province of Veragua, the admin- 
 istration of which belongs to the Admiral Don Diego 
 Columbus, because tlie Admiral, his father, discovered 
 it in person." The Province of Castilla del Oro was, 
 therefore, differentiated from the ''Province of Ve- 
 ragua," which was thus denominated before the crea- 
 tion of the dukedom of the same name ; but the bounda- 
 ries between the two were not fixed. 
 
 Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo, the official historian 
 of the Indies, who intervened in the conquest of Tierra 
 Firme and Nicaragua, says that "Castilla del Oro on 
 the North Coast reaches as far as Veragua, with which 
 the Punta de Cliame corresponds more or less on the 
 South Coast, fifteen leagues to the West from 
 Panama." 
 
 This limit agrees with that of the jurisdiction of the 
 city of Panama, fixed by the Royal cedula of 1521 
 (Doc. No. 5), wherein it is stated that it reaches "as 
 far as the Province of Chiru," which is situated a 
 short distance from the Punta de Chame. 
 
 According to this, the Province of Veragua, border- 
 ing on Castilla del Oro, did not terminate on the east 
 at the Belon river, but extended as far as the said 
 Punta de Chame. 
 
 Pedrarias Davila governed Castilla del Oro until 
 1527, when he left to become Governor of Nicaragua.
 
 23 
 4. The Veragua of Felipe Gutierrez (1534). 
 
 Whilst the suit instituted by Don Diego Columbus 
 was still pending, but with the declaration made in hi^ 
 favor by the Crown respecting Veragua (excluding it 
 from the Government of Castilla del Oro), the widow, 
 Dona Maria de Toledo, as guardian of his children and 
 Vicereine of the Indies, determined to grant the Gov- 
 ernment of Veragua to Felipe Gutierrez, and applied 
 to the Council of the Indies for the issuance to him of 
 the requisite Royal proviaiones. But in accord with 
 the Council, the King Don Carlos preferred to ^rant 
 the concession directly to Felipe Guterrez ; this he did 
 by the capitulacion approved by the Royal cedula of 
 December 24, 1534 (Doc. No. 8), and at the same time, 
 by another Royal cedula, of the same date (Doc. No. 
 6), he declared that this '*is understood to be without 
 prejudice to any right that the said Admiral Don Luis 
 Columbus claims to have to the said government by 
 virtue of his privileges," In the Royal cedula of 
 February 6, 1535 (Doc. No. 9), the title of Governor 
 » of Veragua was conferred upon Felipe Gutierrez with 
 all that pertained thereto. 
 
 Both in the Royal cedula of capitulacion, as well as 
 in the title the text reads: 
 
 "The Province of Veragua, which is on the 
 coast of Tierra Firme of our Indies of the Ocean 
 Sea, whence terminate the boundaries of the 
 Government of Castilla del Oro, called Tierra 
 Firme, and which were designated to Pedrarias 
 Davila and Pedro de los Rios, who were our Gov- 
 ernors of the said province under the Provis- 
 iones which were given to them, as far as the 
 Cape Gracias a Dios."
 
 24 
 
 Felipe Gutierrez as Governor of Veragua, having 
 presented a com[)laint ai-i^ainst the Governor of Tierr'i 
 Fimie, because the hitter had invaded his territory, 
 the Royal cedula of July 14, 1536 (Doe. No. 10), was 
 issued, directing the latter not to enter within the lim- 
 its of the Province of Urraca, as it fell within that of 
 Veragua. The territories of Urraca were contiguous 
 to Xata and occupied the heights which, divided the 
 waters of the north and the south; so that by this 
 Royal cedula the eastern boundaries of the Province 
 of Veragua were concretely defined. 
 
 Almost at the same time Felipe Gutierrez abandoned 
 his charge and set out for Peru, having failed in his 
 undertaking and being unable to support so many 
 misfortunes. 
 
 III. 
 PROVINCE OF VERAGUA. 
 
 1. Creation of the Dukedom of Veragua; Royal Ce- 
 
 dulas of 1537. 
 
 The long suit based upon the claims of Christopher 
 Columbus, which his son Don Diego began in 1508 
 and which was continued by the widow of the latter, 
 Dofia Maria de Toledo — for herself and in the name of 
 her first bom, Don Luis, and other children — was de- 
 cided by the arbitral decision of July 7, 1536'; this 
 decision was delivered by the Cardinal Fray Garcia de 
 Loaysa, Bishop of Sigiienza, Confessor of the Em- 
 peror and President of the Council of the Indies, who 
 was appointed arbitrator by mutual agreement be- 
 tween the Vicereine and the Crown. 
 
 ' Document published by Fernandez Duro, Colon y Fincon.
 
 Tn£ VEfi/t6t/ft o^ /^£LiPE Gi/r/i»»e2. 
 
 HCCOItOINt 
 
 Aa/fOi/tTCo
 
 25 
 
 Carlos V, in his Royal cedula of January 19, 1537 
 (Doc. No. ]2), states how both parties entrusted the 
 settlement to the Cardinal in order that he might 
 ''determine and arbitrate therein as he shall deem 
 best, taking from one party and giving to the other, 
 accordingly as may appear to him proper;" he con- 
 firms the Cardinal's decision and, in pursuance thereof 
 creates the Dukedom of Veragua in favor of Don Luis 
 Columbus and his successors, making a grant to him 
 and to his house and estate of ''twenty-five leagues of 
 land in a square in the Province of Veragua which is 
 in Tierra Firme, with its civil and criminal jurisdic- 
 tion, high and low, simple, mixed imperial, leaving 
 the supreme to His Majesty." 
 
 The creation of the Dukedom of Veragua which 
 segregated a square of twenty-five leagues on each 
 side of the territory known under the name of Veragua 
 and the government of which had been granted to 
 Felipe Gutierrez, compelled provision to be made in 
 regard to the legal and the governmental situation in 
 which that territory was left, especially since, at the 
 end of 1536, the desertion of that governor had become 
 known in Spain. This led to the Royal cedula of 
 March 2, 1537 (Doc. No. 13), in which the Emperor 
 revoked the capitulacion and government of Felipe 
 Gutierrez, reproduced the disposition concerning the 
 creation of the dukedom and directed that the territo- 
 ries left in the said Province of Veragua, after taking 
 out the twenty-five leagues given to Don Luis Colum- 
 bus, be understood to belong to the Government of the 
 Province of Tierra Firme, called Castilla del Oro, 
 "during our will and pleasure." 
 
 By virtue of this Royal cedula, upon which counsel 
 for Colombia mainly rely in defense of her rights, the
 
 26 
 
 territory of the ancient Veragna granted to Felipe 
 Gutierrez was divided into two parts, which, in order 
 to distinguish them, are designated in the present con- 
 troversy Ducal Veragua and Royal Vcragua, refer- 
 ring respectively to that which constituted the Duke- 
 dom of Veragua and to that which was reserved bv the 
 Crown for its free disposal. 
 
 2. Limits of This Dukedom. 
 
 In this Royal cedula of March 2, 1537, as well as in 
 the earlier one of January 19th, the boundaries of the 
 Dukedom of Veragua were fixed in the following 
 manner: 
 
 ** * * * a square of land twenty-five 
 leagues, in the said Province of Veragua * * * 
 and they begin from the River Belcn, inclusive, 
 counting by a parallel, as far as the western 
 part of the Bay of Zoroharo; and all the leagues 
 that may be lacking for the said twenty-fivo 
 leagues, shall be counted forward from the said 
 bay by the said parallel; and where these 
 twenty-five leagues tenninate, another twenty- 
 five shall begin by a North-South meridian ; and 
 as many others begin from the said River Belen 
 by the said meridian of the said river, North- 
 South ; and where these said twenty-five leagues 
 shall end, there shall begin another twenty-five 
 leagues, which shall continue, counting by a 
 parallel, until they end where the twenty-five 
 k?agiies terminate that are counted proceeding 
 forward from the Bay of Zorobaro; which ter- 
 ritory we have commanded to be called the Bay 
 of Zorobaro, and with it we direct to be given 
 him the title of Duke * * ♦ "
 
 27 
 
 As may be seen, the <lemarcatioii is mathematical; 
 the grant forms a perfect quadrangle, which has one 
 side definitely (ietermined by the meridian coriespond- 
 ing to the Bolen river, included therein. It should l^e 
 noted that Zorobaro and the Belcn river were for 
 Christopher Columbus the indicatory points of the 
 Veragua discovered and coveted by him imder this 
 name; and it appears that between the meridian of the 
 Belen river and the Province of Castilla del Oro, which 
 the prior demarcations refer to as bordering on the 
 Province of Veragua, there were lands which were not 
 included in the Dukedom of Veragua. 
 
 These facts must be taken into consideration when 
 the time comes to interpret the Recopilacion de Indias 
 in its relation to the Royal cedula of March 2, 1537; 
 and without concerning ourselves now with the terri- 
 tory of the Royal Veragua left on either side of the 
 twenty-five leagues of the dukedom, let us see how the 
 latter was converted into the Province of Veragua 
 properly so-called. 
 
 3. Suppression of the Ducal Seignory (1556). 
 
 Don Luis Columbus was not fortunate in the con- 
 quest and government of the dukedom which was ex- 
 ercised and carried on by governors and captains ap- 
 pointed by him, and after the disaster in which his 
 brother Francisco perished and the failure of Rebol- 
 ledo, he made a cession to the Crown of the territories 
 and seignory of the Dukedom of Veragua, in consid- 
 eration of an annual pension of seven thousand ducats, 
 but the title he retained, as he stipulated with the 
 Council of the Indies in writing on July 4, 1556, which 
 stipulation the King approved and directed to be car-
 
 28 
 
 ried out by the Royal cedilla of December 2 of the same 
 year (Doc. No. 31). 
 
 The territory of the suppressed dukedom was left 
 added to the Government of the Province of Tierra 
 Firme, called Castilla del Oro, it not being true that 
 it was placed under the jurisdiction of the city of Natd, 
 as counsel for Colombia assert. The fact is that, by 
 the Roj^al cedula of January 21, 1557 (Doc. No. 32), 
 the Governor of Tierra Firme was authorized to per- 
 mit the inhabitants of Nata to settle the territory of 
 the dukedom as they had asked permission to do. 
 
 The inhabitants of Natii organized an expedition 
 under the command of Francisco Vazquez, who was 
 commissioned by the Governor of Tierra Firme, and 
 who, in May, 1558, entered the territory of Urraca, 
 founded some settlements and discovered some mines. 
 
 The Governor of Tierra Firme, Monjaraz, learning 
 of this, wanted to make the conquest himself, and set 
 out for Nata; but Vazquez hastened to make a com- 
 plaint to the Audieneia of Peru (Doc. No. 33) and 
 with his men resisted the entry of Monjaraz, defeating 
 him on the banks of the Gatu river, the boundary of 
 the Dukedom of Veragua on the side of Nata. 
 
 4. Organization of the Province of Veragua With a 
 Governor Captain-General (1560). 
 
 In view of the complaint instituted by Francisco 
 Vazquez the Audieneia of Peru, by Royal provision 
 of May 20, 1559 (Doc. 33), appointed Bernardino de 
 Roman to take up the matter and arrange its settle- 
 ment. Bernardino dc Roman was informed of all that
 
 29 
 
 had happened and then made a long report to the King, 
 giving an opinion very favorable to Vazquez.' 
 
 Philip II put an end to the question by the Royal 
 cedula of August 20, 1560 (Doc. No. 40), instituting 
 the Province of Veragua with a Governor Captain- 
 General and appointing for this post Francisco Vaz- 
 quez, to whom he granted all the attributes necessary 
 for the good government and administration of jus- 
 tice in that province. 
 
 The boundaries of the new Government were not 
 fixed; but there can be no doubt that it had for its 
 territory that of the suppressed dukedom, according 
 to the antecedents of this Royal cedula and to the lan- 
 guage used therein respecting the origin of the ques- 
 tion decided. Francisco Vazquez, in his petition to 
 the Audiencia of Peru, appears, represented by at- 
 torney, as a resident of the city of Nata by virtue of 
 the rights established by the Royal cedula of January, 
 1557, which, he says, ''commands the Governor of the 
 Province of Tierra Firme to appoint a person who 
 should settle and conquer the Province of Veragua, 
 that was the Dulcedom of the Admiral Don Luis Co- 
 lumbus, but which His Majesty had placed again under 
 the Royal Crown * * *." The Royal cedula of 
 1560, appointing him Governor, began by stating that 
 he made an agreement and capitulacion with the Gov- 
 ernor or Tierra Firme in order to settle the Province 
 of Veragua, as the latter had been authorized. 
 
 Francisco Vazquez, then, was the first of the gov- 
 ernors who ruled the Province of Veragua, which con- 
 tinued under that kind of authority during the whole 
 of the Colonial epoch. 
 
 ' Leon Fernandez, Coleccion de Documentos para la Ilistoria dc 
 Costa Rica, Vol. V, p. 153.
 
 IV. 
 
 PROVINCE OF COSTA RICA. 
 
 1. Royal Veragua; Province of Costa Rica; Govern- 
 ment of Sanchez de Badajoz (1539). 
 
 As we have said, by Royal codula of March 2, 1537, 
 the Veragua the government of which was granted to 
 Felipe Gutierrez, was left split up into two parts : the 
 dukedom, that is to say, the square of twenty-five 
 leagues given to Don Luis Columbus ; and the rest of 
 that territory, herein called for greater clearness 
 Royal Veragua, in contradistinction to Ducal Veragua. 
 
 The said Royal cedula, from which Colombia dejives 
 all her rights, simply says in respect of Royal Ver- 
 agua, that it was left in the Government of Tierra 
 Firme (Castilla del Oro) during the Monarch's pleas 
 ure ; and the Monarch repeatedly disposed of it, to that 
 extent, at least, therefore, repealing the Royal cedula 
 referred to. 
 
 In the first place the jurisdiction over Royal Ver- 
 agua passed from the Government of Tierra Firme 
 to the Audiencia of Panama, which replaced the for- 
 mer in 1538. 
 
 Because of the fact that Royal Veragua depended 
 upon the Government of this Audiencia, its Judge, Dr. 
 Robles, thought that he was authorized to make a capit- 
 ulacion giving it to his son-in-law, Hernan Sanchez de 
 Badajoz, who already, through the Vicereine, had the 
 Government of the dukedom under his charge, and 
 because **the one did not go without the other." It 
 was so stated by him in his letter to the Council of 
 the Indies of the 19th of July, 1539 (Doc. No. 15).
 
 31 
 
 But Rodrigo de Contreras, Governor of Nicaragua, 
 had commissioned two captains to undertake the ex- 
 ploration of the Desaguadero, or River San Juan, and, 
 as the hitter disembogued on the Veragua coast which 
 had been granted to Sanchez de Badajoz, the A\i 
 diencia of Panama informed that governor of the 
 undertaking by Royal pruvisiones of December 17, 
 1539 (Doc. No. 16) ;*in this he was told that the grant 
 to Sanchez de Badajoz comprised the right of conquest 
 and Captaincy-General of the Province of Costa Rica, 
 ''which extends from the borders of the Dukedom of 
 Veragua and Zoroharo as far as Guaymura (Cape 
 Camaron) and from Sea to Sea." This is the first 
 time that the name of Costa Rica appears officially, 
 and as equivalent to the wider acceptation of Veragua, 
 that is to say, to the coast discovered by Columbus 
 during his last voyage (as far as the dukedom) with 
 the addition of the extension ''from Sea to Sea." 
 
 The King, in accord with the Council of the Indies, 
 by Royal cedulas counnunicated to Sanchez de Bad 
 ajoz, and to the Audiencia, on April 24th, 1540 (Doc. 
 No. 17), declared void the concessions which the latter 
 made of "the lands which are left to us in the Province 
 of Veragua * * * because this is a matter that 
 must be treated solely by our Royal Person and in our 
 Council of the Indies." 
 
 2. Province of Cartage; Govemment of Diego Gutier- 
 rez (1540). 
 
 At the solicitation of Diego Gutierrez, brother of 
 Felipe, and in accord with the views of the Council 
 of the Indies, the Crown authorized him to undertake 
 the conquest and settlement of Royal Veragua, and
 
 32 
 
 issued the Royal cedula of November 29, 1540 (Doc. 
 No. 18), which api)roved the capitnlacion, and con- 
 ferred upon him by Royal cedula of December 16 of 
 the same year (Doc. No. 19), the title of Governor of 
 that province, which was then designated by the name 
 of Cartago. 
 
 As appears from these documents, the government 
 granted to Diego Gutierrez under this denomination 
 of Cartago, is the same as that which the Audiencia 
 of Panama improperly granted, under the name of 
 Costa Rica, to Sfincliez de Badajoz, but with greater 
 precision as to boundaries. 
 
 The line of the dukedom is fixed as a basis by the 
 meridian corresponding to the termination of the 
 twenty-five leagues which were to end towards the 
 Bay of Zoroharo; tiie province stretches in length 
 along the coast as far as the River Grande, to the west 
 of Cape Camaron; its width is fixed as from "sea to 
 sea" up to Nicaragua and then limited by this province 
 to fifteen leagues from its Lake Nicaragua and by that 
 of Honduras as far as the River Grande. 
 
 This demarcation established by the Royal cedulas 
 of 1540, was confirmed by that of January 11, 1541 
 (Doc. No. 20), in which all the governors of the prov- 
 inces were commanded to respect the boundaries of 
 the Province of Cartago; by the sentence of the Coun- 
 cil of the Indies, of April 9, 1541 (Doc. No. 232), in 
 the suit instituted in regard to the Desaguadero, and 
 by the Royal cedula of May 9, 1545 (Doc. No. 29), 
 adding the Province of Cartago to the Bishopric of 
 Nicaragua. All of these go to show that the vague 
 reference to the Royal Veragua, made in the Royal 
 cedula of 1537, had no importance and even no legal
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HI *r rut £MPtnom Cmt»LCi V 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 1 
 
 i 

 
 33 
 
 force after the recognition and delimitation of the 
 Province of Cartage. 
 
 Diego Gutierrez died in a fight with tlie Indians, and 
 the Crown, in confoniiity with the designation made 
 by his son in favor of Juan Perez de Cabrera, con- 
 ferred upon the latter the title of Governor of Cartage, 
 on February 22, 1549 (Doc. No. 30). The Council of 
 the Indies having agreed that the conquest of this 
 province be postponed, Cabrera was transferred to 
 the Government of Honduras (1552). 
 
 3. Province of Cartage, or New Cartago or Costa 
 Rica, From the Birth of the Province of Ve- 
 ragua (1560). 
 
 {(i) Differentiation of the Tivo Veraguas, After th<' 
 Suppression of the Ducal Seignory. 
 
 It may be thought that by the retrocession of the 
 Dukedom of Veragua to the Crown, in 1556, the dif- 
 ference betw^een the Dukedom of Veragua and the 
 Royal Veragua disappeared, and that they returned 
 to form the Province of Veragua as it existed before 
 the creation of that dukedom by Royal cedula of March 
 2, 1537. But such was not the case, for each con- 
 tiiuied with an independent life, with governments of 
 distinct origin and constituted as distinct provinces 
 under different names. 
 
 AVe have already seen liow the conquest and settle- 
 meat of the suppressed dukedom was made, from 
 Tierra Firrae, by Francisco Vazcjuez, under whose 
 command, as Governor and Captain-General, the 
 Province of Veragua was organized in 1560 — sinr^e then 
 tli(^ onh' province of that name.
 
 34 
 
 In order that the arabi^ity of the denomination oi 
 Vera^a might disappear and not be confused with 
 that of the ilukedom, the Audiencia of Panama called 
 the Royal Veraiiiia which was improperly granted to 
 Sjuichoz de Badajoz, Costa Rica, and Charles V called 
 that same Veragua which he granted to Diego Gutier- 
 rez, Car I ago, perhaps also by not admitting even the 
 name of that grant which he had revoked. 
 
 The historian, Fernandez de Oviedo, says that Diego 
 Gutierrez ordered that his Government be called Car 
 tago and Casta Rica, under penalty of a hundred lashes 
 to whoever should dare to call it Veragua. In the 
 period that intervened between his government and 
 the year 157o, it was designated indiscriminately by 
 the names of Cartago, New Cartago and Costa Rica, 
 and ^^itll eacli change the latter name came more fre- 
 quently to bo used. Costa Rica is, then, the province 
 
 that was definitively constituted in 1573 by the separa- 
 tion of the portion north of the Desaguadero, which 
 
 was to be called the Province of Teguzgalpa to dif- 
 ferentiate it from that of Veragua ; for the latter was 
 reserved the name of Veragua, which has led to so 
 much confusion. 
 
 Whilst the formative current of the Province of 
 Veragua came from the side of Tierra Firme, that of 
 the Province of Costa Rica proceeded from Nicaragua 
 and Guatemala, that is to say, from the opposite side. 
 
 (h) Ortiz de Elgueta (1559). 
 
 'i he King, Don Philip II, by an imquestionable act 
 of sovereignty and without the intervention of any 
 capitulacion whatever, entrusted the settlement and
 
 35 
 
 government of Royal Veragua to the Licentiate Alonso 
 Ortiz de Elgueta, as Alcalde mayor of the Province 
 of Nicaragua, by Royal cedula, dated at Toledo De- 
 cember 13, 1559 (Doc. No. 34), which begins thus: 
 
 *'We are informed that between that Province 
 of Nicaragua and that of Honduras and the 
 Desaguadero of Nicaragua, on the side of (a la 
 parte de) the cities of Nombre de Dios and 
 Panama, between the South Sea and that of the 
 North, there are many Indians without light or 
 knowledge of the faith, but who have shown 
 great evidences of yielding obedience and re- 
 ceiving the Christian doctrine; and since we 
 much desire that this country may be settled 
 and properly governed, as well as the natives 
 thereof enlightened and taught in our Holy 
 Catholic P^aith, and also that the Spaniards who 
 go that way be benefited and established and 
 may have a fixed location and livelihood * * * 
 We directed it to be discussed in our Council 
 of the Indies * * * and so we command you 
 that you undertake the same * * * and in the 
 said settlement and exploration you will ob- 
 serve, and will cause to be observed, the direc- 
 tions in this instnu'tion contain(Ml, which are as 
 follows:" (Then follow the directions.) 
 
 By Royal cedula of February 23, 1560 (Doc. No. 37), 
 this resolution was communicated to the Audiencia of 
 the Confines (Guatemala), directing it to give to the 
 Licentiate Ortiz "every encouragement and aid;" and 
 by another of the same date (Doc. No. 38) the com- 
 mission conferred upon the latter was reiterated, with 
 new instructions; in the latter he was authorized, as 
 he was in the former, to give lands to the settlers and 
 to exempt them from imposts, so that one could almost 
 sav that it had the character of a carta dr pnhlacion
 
 34 
 
 (Royal charter), Hko those which were given at the 
 period of the Spanish reconquest. 
 
 In both of these Royal cedulas the territory allotted 
 to the Alcalde maijur of Nicaragua is described in the 
 same words which we have underlined in that of De- 
 cember loth, from which it mav be instantlv inferred 
 that this territory was the same that was granted to 
 Sanchez de Badajoz under the name of Costa Rica, 
 and to Diego Gutierrez under that of Cartago, though 
 it is described with less precision of boundaries than 
 in the latter case. 
 
 The illustrious French jurisconsult, Monsieur Poin- 
 care, says in the third Memorandum in defense of Co- 
 lombia (No. 30), that "the province designated under 
 the nnijie of Costa Rica in the cedula of February 23, 
 1500, and granted to the Licentiate Ortiz, Alcalde 
 mayor of Nicaragua, did not embrace the ancient Prov 
 ince of Veragua and was no more than a little scrap 
 of Inn 1 {iin petit lamheau de terre) included between 
 the Provinces of Honduras and Nicaragua and the 
 Desaguadero." 
 
 But in reading this Royal cedula, the name of Costa 
 Rica is not to be found; on the other hand, it may bo 
 obsers'ed that jNIonsieur Poincare has omitted the last 
 part of the description * * * "on the side of the 
 cities of Nombre de Dios and Panama, between the 
 South Sea and that of the North." 
 
 With the text thus clipped, the result for Colombia 
 was that "/c petit lambeau de terre" called Costa 
 Rica was the Mosquito Coast extending from the Desa- 
 guadero or Iviver San Juan, toward the north, which 
 later became the Province of Teguzgalpa. And if it 
 is certain that this portion was also included in the
 
 37 
 
 Costa Rica of Sanchez de Badajoz and the Cartago of 
 Diego Gutierrez, it is not that the territory entrusted 
 (not granted) to the Alcalde mayor of Nicaragua 
 should terminate at the Desaguadero, but that it was 
 extended "to the side of {a la parte de) the cities of 
 Nombre de Dios and Panama, between the South Sea 
 and that of the North," that is to say, as far as Tierra 
 Firme, which signifies a furtlier abrogation of the 
 Royal cedilla of 1537, upon wliich Colombia bases her 
 rights. 
 
 (c) Juan de Cavallon (1560). 
 
 While Philip II conferred upon Ortiz de Elgueta 
 the commission mentioned, the Audiencia of the Con- 
 fines (Guatemala) gave a similar charge to the Licen- 
 tiate Juan de Cavallon, who had been Alcalde mayor 
 of Nicaragua ; and advised the King, on December 18, 
 1559 (Doc. No. 35), that it had commanded him to 
 make settlements in the Province of Veragua *' which 
 is otherwise called by the name of New Cartago * * • 
 in this district of ours;" the Audiencia also issued a 
 Royal provision on January 30, 1560 (Doc. No. 36), by 
 which the said Cavallon is granted the regulation and 
 license to explore, settle and govern (with the title of 
 Alcalde mayor) the Province of Cartago, or New Car- 
 tago and Costa Rica, from that of Nicaragua. 
 
 The King replied to the Audiencia of the Confines 
 by the Royal cedula of July 18, 1560 (Doc. No. 39), 
 which begins thus : 
 
 "You state that the Province of Veragua, 
 which is otherwise called by the name of New 
 Cartago, is in that district of yours and border >
 
 38 
 
 on tlie Pro\diice of Nicoya, where we alway.s 
 have a corregidor, * * * " 
 
 And referring to the propositions for its exploration 
 and settlement, the King states as follows: 
 
 "For the settlement of Nicoya and territory 
 adjacent thereto, we have provided the Licen- 
 tiate Ortiz, our Alcalde mayor of the Province 
 of Nicaragua, to whom was given the commis- 
 sion necessary therefor; and as to the territory 
 that there is in Veragua, on the side of Nata, 
 Captain Francisco Vazquez has settled it by 
 oui order. When the commission of each is 
 examined by you, the proper order will hi 
 given." 
 
 Colombia has brought to her defense a report pre- 
 pared by various distinguished archivists, librarians 
 and lawvers of Seville, where the Archives of the In- 
 dies are kept, concerning this Royal cedula of July 18, 
 1560; they interpret it as follows: 
 
 * ' The King established with perfect clearness 
 the difference that there is between the territory 
 of Nicoya, the settlement of which had been 
 entrusted to the Licentiate Ortiz, and the other 
 territory not contiguous to Nicoya, territory be- 
 longing to Veragua, and which, also by Royal 
 order, the Captain Francisco Vazquez was set 
 tling. The expression 'on the side of Nata* 
 (por la parte de Natd) merely indicates the 
 point from whence Francisco Vazquez set out 
 with his men to conquer the territory of Ver- 
 agua." 
 
 Monsieur Poincare, making this report his own, 
 states that there had been omitted in the copy of this 
 Royal codnla, cited by Costa Rica, a comma after
 
 30 
 
 "Veragua" and before "on the side of Nata," that 
 the name of the Licentiate Ortiz has been confused 
 with that of the Licentiate Cavallon, and that the grant 
 to the Licentiate Ortiz was from Honduras as far as 
 the Desaguadero (third Memorandum of Colombia, 
 No. 30). 
 
 Putting aside the latter assertion, which we have 
 just refuted, we will say that the comma does not 
 affect the sense of the text, which, indeed, could not be 
 clearer. The Royal cedula does not place the territory 
 of Nicoya in opposition to that of Veragua, nor does 
 it sav tliat only the former was entrusted to the Licen- 
 tiate Ortiz, because the latter belonged to the othe: 
 conquest which Francisco Viizquez had begun by Nata. 
 
 What this Royal cedula does state, and most clearly, 
 are the very conclusions we have just presented; that 
 is, that the ancient Veragua had been divided into two 
 parts; one, the grant under the government of Fran- 
 cisco Vazquez, by which the Province of Veragua was 
 instituted; and the other, that which was entrusted 
 to Ortiz de Elgueta, coterminous with Nicoya, and to 
 which the Audiencia of the Confines referred in de- 
 livering it to Cavallon, and of which, furthermore, the 
 King had disposed in conferring it upon the former. 
 The Royal cedula refers precisely to the commissioii 
 given to the Licenciate Ortiz who is mentioned therein 
 by name, which commission was not revoked until later, 
 and then in favor of Cavallon. It is impossible to 
 interpret a legal document with any degree of certainty 
 which is part of an historical series, without reading it 
 in connection with its antecedents ; the best experts will 
 fall into error if they do not follow this procedure or 
 if they undertake to consider that document as an 
 isolated fact.
 
 40 
 
 How Cavallon himself interpreted the concession 
 made to him by the Audiencia of the Confines is very 
 clearly shown by the legal authority which he granted 
 on September 22nd, 1560 (Doc. No. 41), to his asso- 
 ciate and deputy, Juan Estrada Ravago, so that he 
 might represent him in his charge and undertaking. 
 Cavallon declares that the Province of Cartago and 
 Costa Rica, the settlement of which belonged to him, 
 
 ***** is all the territory that is left in the Prov- 
 ince of Veragua, from sea to sea, inclusive, and 
 which begins from where ends the square of 
 twenty-five leagues that His Majesty granted to 
 the Admiral Don Luis Columbus, towards the 
 West * * * and it terminates at the Rio Grande, 
 towards the West, on the other side of Cape 
 Camaron." 
 
 Philip II, who had, as we have seen, reserved the 
 right to provide in regard to the matter, acted by Royal 
 cedula of Februaiy 5, 1561 (Doc. No. 42), addressed to 
 the Audiencia of the Confines, saying that he revoked 
 the commission which he had given to Licentiate Ortiz, 
 and directed that the Licentiate Cavallon execute it 
 under the same conditions provided as to the former, 
 and that, if the latter did not accept it, a Judge of the 
 said Audiencia should go, or that body should appoint 
 another person to carry out the commission in the same 
 manner. The same directions were given in another 
 Royal cedula of the same date, addressed to Cavallon. 
 
 It is clearly understood that when the King turned 
 over to Cavallon the undertaking he had entrusted to 
 Ortiz, he performed an act of pure sovereignty, estab- 
 lishing thereby a different demarcation of the Province 
 of Veragua which was under the charge of Francisco 
 Vazquez. 
 
 In view of the results of the expeditions of Cavallon
 
 41 
 
 the Audioiicia of the Confines thereunto duly author- 
 ized, appointed him, by Royal provision of May 17, 
 1561 (Doe. No. 44), Alcalde mayor of New Cartage 
 and Costa Rica, and stated that liis jurisdiction, was 
 to extend 
 
 "* * * from the boundaries of the villai^e of 
 Nicoya, of the said Province of Nicara<j:ua, for- 
 ward * * * as far as the limits and jurisdiction 
 of the city of Nata, of the Kingdom of Tierra 
 Firme, called Cast ilia del Oro, the length of the 
 land to the borders of the Dukedom of Veragua, 
 and from the South Sea to the North Sea, as far 
 as the Desaguadero, inclusive." 
 
 The King, by Royal ctklulas of August 4, 1561 (Doc. 
 Nos. 45, 46 and 47), confirmed the appointment of 
 Cavallon as Alcalde mayor and of Estrada Ravago as 
 his representative, congratulating both at the same 
 time upon the success of their expeditions, the one by 
 land and the other by sea; and he authorized Cavallon 
 to go back whenever he might desire to reside in the 
 Audiencia of the Confines, of which he was appointed 
 the Fiscal. 
 
 (d) Denial of the Request of the Governor of Tierra 
 Firme, Figuerola (1561). 
 
 Don Rafael Figuerola, Governor of Tierra Firme, 
 having received word of the death of the Governor of 
 the Province of Veragua, Francisco Vt'izquez, and that 
 the Audiencia of the Confines had authorized the Li- 
 centiate Cavallon "to make the entry into Costa Rica," 
 applied to the King for his own appointment as Gov- 
 ernor of the Province of Veragua, and asked that the 
 entry into that of Costa Rica should be prohibited to 
 everybody who did not come from him; he based this
 
 42 
 
 latter recjuest upon the fact that the Couut of Nieva, 
 Viceroy of Peru, had authorized him to enter into the 
 Dukedom of Vera<rua, as he in fact had <lone, continu- 
 ing into the ** interior territoiy," as he showed in the 
 report of an inquest, which accompanied his applica- 
 tion (Doc. No. 233). 
 
 Philip II communicated to him, by Royal cedula 
 dated at Madrid on August 9th, 1561 (Doc. No. 48), 
 the following resolution which is of the greatest im- 
 portance to the question we are discussing: 
 
 a* * * ^g gQQjj as We knew the death of 
 Francisco Vjizquez, wliom We had designated 
 for the government of the said Province of Vera- 
 gua, We appointed for the said government 
 Francisco Vazquez, his son * * *, And, also, 
 W^e have approved and held to be good the said 
 commission that was given by the said Audien- 
 cia of the Confines to the said Licentiate Caval- 
 lon, in order to make the exploration of the 
 Province of Cartago and Costa Rica * * *; 
 therefore, I conunand you that * * * you 
 leave the Government of the said Province of 
 Veragua to the said Francisco Vazquez, and that 
 you do not interfere to explore and settle the 
 said Province of Cartago and Costa Rica, but 
 leave it to be done by the said Licentiate Caval- 
 lon * * * and if you shall have made any 
 discovery or settlement, you shall leave it in 
 the state and condition it may be, without doing 
 more therein; and this you shall do and comply 
 with under the penalties imposed upon persons 
 who do not obey the commands of their King 
 and natural Lord." 
 
 Monsieur Poincare, in the third Memorandum of 
 Colombia hereinbefore cited (No. 32), attaches little 
 importance to this Royal cedula; he says that it shows
 
 43 
 
 that Costa Kica l)ordered on the Proviuee of Veragua 
 and was distinguished from it, but that the Province 
 of Veragua was distinct from the oUl dukedom "at- 
 tached {ratfache) to tlie city of Nata," and that just 
 as it was defined by the iioyal cedula of 1537 it be- 
 longed jointly with the dukedom itself to the Audii^iicia 
 of Panama. 
 
 So, then, if Costa iiica bordered on the Province of 
 Veragua and was distinguished therefrom, it is clear 
 that it wan not the Province of Veragua. The petition 
 of Don Kafael Figuerola giving expression to a per- 
 sonal desire was the same as tlie claim of Colombia and 
 was based upon the following syllogism: All \>ragua 
 constitutes one entity and belongs to the Government 
 of Tierra Firme; the Dukedom of Veragua and 
 Costa iiica are also Veragua and I am Governor of 
 Tierra Firme; therefore plac^ me in possession of 
 the Dukedom of Veragua and of Costa Rica. But 
 the King denied his petition, declaring that \'eragua 
 and Costa Kica were two distinct provinces, with dif- 
 ferent governments and forbade his interference in 
 either of them. 
 
 Substitute the name of Colombia or Panama for 
 Figuerola, and that of the xYrbitrator for Philip 11, 
 and the present conflict would be solved, without, how- 
 ever, denying to Panama her rights over the Province 
 of Veragua as- differentiated from Costa Pica. 
 
 "to" 
 
 (e) Vazquez de Coronado (1562). 
 
 Cavallon having left to assume his ollice of Fiscal 
 of the Audiencia of the Confines, the latter appointed 
 Juan Vaz(iuez de Coronado as Ahalde mayor of New
 
 44 
 
 Cartago and Costa Rica, in the Royal provision of 
 April 2, 15C2 (Doc. No. 49), and prescribed for that 
 office the same conditions as were imposed on Cavallon 
 when the latter ''was given jurisdiction." 
 
 Philip 11, well pleased with the great ser\dces of 
 Vazquez de Coronado, appointed him, by the Royal 
 cedula of April 8, 1565 (Doc. No. 52), Governor for the 
 whole of his life of ''the Province and territory of 
 Costa Rica," with all the necessary civil and criminal 
 jurisdiction. On the same date he also appointed him 
 Governor of Nicaragua for three years, in order to 
 facilitate the settlement of Costa Rica, conferred upon 
 him the title of Adelantado of Costa Rica, for himself 
 and his successors (Doc. No. 53), and made him a 
 grant of a square of land four leagues on each side, 
 wherever he might select them in the latter province. 
 Costa Rica, therefore, as may be seen, remained con- 
 stituted as such province and was to have its own 
 governor — an office which was increased in importance 
 through the fact that an Adelantado was going to be 
 the first to hold it. 
 
 The King instituted the province, provided, as 
 stated, with a governor, under the single name of 
 Costa Rica, and to it was given the same extension 
 which was determined upon when it was alloted to 
 Ortiz de Elgueta; this is shown by the Royal cedula of 
 August 7, 1565 (Doc. No. 54), directed to Coronado, 
 which begins thus: 
 
 "To Juan Vazquez de Coronado, our Gover- 
 nor of the Province of Nicaragua and Costa 
 Rica, and Adelantado of the said Province of 
 Costa Rica: Having been infoi-med that between 
 the said province of Nicaragua and that of Hon
 
 45 
 
 diiras and the Desagnadero of Nicaragua, on the 
 side of (j'l la parte de) the cities of Noinbre de 
 Dios and Panama, between the South Soa and 
 that of the North, lay the said PROVINCE OF 
 COSTA RICA, and that there were tlierein many 
 Indians without light or knowledge of the faith, 
 but who have shown a great desire to accept our 
 authority, and receive the Christian doctrine, the 
 President and Judges of our Royal Audiencia of 
 the Confines ordered you and gave you a com- 
 mission in our name and that you should go and 
 make settlements therein * ♦ * ^nd place 
 under our Crown and Royal Lordship the said 
 * * * territory." 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 And after stating Vvhat Coronado had done and that 
 he, the King, had directed "its consideration" in the 
 Council of the Indies, he charged him that "this tarri- 
 tory shall be settled and placed under good adminis- 
 tration and order," for which purpose he gave to him 
 the proper instruction. 
 
 This Royal cedula is a repetition of the one directed 
 to Ortiz de Egueta, and contains the same statemenr, 
 of boundaries in almost the same language, but in this 
 cedula the expression "the Province of Costa Rica," 
 is used concretely, the direction given by the Audiencia 
 of the Confines to Coronado is confirmed and the work 
 of exploration and settlement already realized within 
 those boundaries is approved, and authorization is 
 gi^'en for its conclusion in the same way tliat it had 
 been begun. 
 
 ft' 
 
 (/) Perafdn de Ribera (1566). 
 
 Vazquez de Coronado having perished on his return 
 voyage to America, the King appointed Perafan de
 
 46 
 
 Ribera Governor of the Province of Costa Rica, by 
 the Royal cedula of July 19, 1566 (Doc. No. 56) ; this 
 cedula, however, does not indicate the boundaries of 
 the territory, the same having been already fixed; 
 ])nt it does state that the governor shall exercise his 
 office "in the matters that it has been customary for 
 the Governors who have been up to this time in tho 
 said province to conduct." 
 
 Perafiin de Ribera continued the work of his prede- 
 cessors, and presented to the King on July 28, 1571 
 (Doc. No. 58), a "Relation of the Province of Costa 
 Rica," in which he gives a report of his journeys and 
 of the condition in which that province was found. 
 Wearied by his labors and broken down by his mis- 
 fortunes and poverty, he resigned his government and 
 left the province in 1573. 
 
 4. The Province of Costa Rica Definitively Or- 
 ganized; Government of Artieda (1573). 
 
 Cavallon, Estrada Ravago, Vazquez de Coronado 
 and Perafan de Ribera were the ones who by their 
 conquests and establishments created, in fact, the Prov- 
 ince of Costa Rica and within the legal boundaries 
 established by the Crown, at the initiation of that work 
 of discovery and settlement, by the orders and in- 
 structions given to the Alcalde mayor of Nicaragua, 
 Ortiz de Elgueta. 
 
 Philip II, knowing the results of the work he had 
 undertaken, and considering the general advantages to 
 be derived from those portions of his dominions, was 
 able with full knowledge of the matter to definitively 
 constitute the Province of Costa Rica and trace its 
 boundaries with certainty, as he did by his Royal
 
 47 
 
 cedula dated at the Pardo, December 1, 1573 (Doc. No. 
 62). 
 
 (a) Royal Cedula of Philip II, of December J, 1573. 
 
 This Royal cedula, issued after consultation with the 
 Council of the Indies, contains the capitulacion with 
 Diego de Artieda, to discover, settle and pacify, at his 
 own cost, the Province of Costa Rica, for which pur- 
 pose he was granted the Government and Captaincy- 
 General of this province for his own life and that of 
 an heir, with a salary of two thousand ducats. 
 
 The conditions under which ho was to settle and 
 govern the province were minutely fixed, and its boun- 
 daries indicated witii great precision; he was also di- 
 rected therein to take possession in the name of the 
 King "of that which might not have been appropri- 
 ated." 
 
 Twice are the boundaries fixed: the first time in 
 great detail, when the metliod to be pursued in making 
 the discovery and settlement is prescribed ; the second, 
 in more concise terms, when the government is granted 
 to Artieda. 
 
 In this second description of the Province of Costa 
 Rica, which Artieda is about to discover, settle, pacify 
 and govern, the Royal cedula of 1573 says that it is 
 
 (( * 
 
 * from the North Sea to that of the 
 South in latitude, and, in longitude from the 
 borders of Nicaragua, on the side of Nicoya, 
 straightforward to the Valleys of Chiriqui, as 
 far as the Province of Veragua on the South 
 side; and, on that of the North, from the mouth's 
 of the Desaguadero, which is on the side of
 
 43 
 
 Nicaragua, all the territory an far as the Prov- 
 ince of Veragua. ' ' 
 
 According to this demarcation, by virtue of the 
 Ro^-al cedula of 1573, there was segregated from the 
 Province of Costa Rica its upper part, from the Desa- 
 guadero of Nicaragua northward; with this part the 
 Province of Teguzgalpa (on the Mosquito Coast) was 
 formed, and the differentiation of the Provinces of 
 Costa Rica and Veragua was conlirmed, thus leaving 
 Costa Rica between Teguzgalpa and Veragua. 
 
 (h) Fonnafiou of the Province of Teguzgalpa by the 
 Segregation of that of Costa Rica Prior to 1573. 
 
 Comparing the demarcation of the Royal cedula of 
 1573 with the earlier demarcations of Costa Rica, it 
 will be at once observed in the description that part of 
 those demarcations, *M3etween the Province of Nicar- 
 agua and Honduras and the Desaguadero of Nicara- 
 gua" was suppressed, by which suppressed part it had 
 been made to reach from the latter as far as the River 
 Grande and Cape Camaron. The Royal cedula fixed as 
 the northern boundary of the Province of Costa Rica 
 the Corregimiento of Nicoya and the Desaguadero of 
 Nicaragua. 
 
 By this adjustment tribute was paid to historical 
 fact, and concession made to convenience in adminis- 
 tration, for alt^fough that portion was included in the 
 demarcation of Ortiz de Elgueta, those who, in ac 
 cordance therewith — Cavallon, Estrada, Coronado and 
 Ribera — made the conquest and the establishments of 
 Costa Rica, concentrated their undertakings between 
 the Desaguadero and the Province of Veragua, and the
 
 y. 
 
 CoSTfl RiCFI 
 
 /tCCO/fO/rs/S TO THE DEM/IRC/} T/Of^ 
 
 AiflDE Br Philip H 
 (RoYPi ctouLRS of= December I , JS/s 
 FEBRUf^RY /S, fS7¥ 
 
 December ^^, /-^3, etc.) 
 
 <l 
 
 a^
 
 49 
 
 King acted with much discernment in segregating the 
 upper territory which, from its geographical form and 
 its distance from the capital, presented great difficul- 
 ties in the way of administration. 
 
 This very segregation is the best proof of the error 
 of Colombia's counsel who located the little scrap {le 
 petit Jamheau) called Costa Rica in the portion segre- 
 gated, when in fact the province of that name was 
 definitively constituted at the time it lost that portion. 
 
 The result of that Royal cedula of 1573 was the issu- 
 ance of that of February 10, 1576 (Doc. No. 65), by 
 which Philip II created the Pro^TUce of Teguzgalpa out 
 of the segregated territory giving it by cnpituJacion to 
 Diego L6]^ez for settlement and government — a region 
 "which comprises all the territory that is included 
 from the mouth of the Desaguaclero on the North side 
 as far as Cape Camaron, in the same direction where 
 the Province of Honduras begins * * *" (Doc. No. 
 234). 
 
 This territory* bordering on Honduras and wiih 
 Nicaragua was for a long time disputed by these Re- 
 publics, until His Majesty the King of Spain, as arbi- 
 trator, decided the boundary question between the two 
 in his Award of December 23, 1906 (Doc. No. 437), 
 fixing the point of the divisionary- line, for the part that 
 belongs to each, at Cape Gracias a Dios. 
 
 In that arbitration Don Francisco Silvela defended 
 Honduras and Don Antonio Maura represented Nica 
 ragua. These are the same two distinguished juris- 
 consults who have defended the rights of Colombia 
 by maintaining that to her belonged all of the Veragua 
 of the year 1537, and making that province reach as 
 far as Cape Gracias a Dios.
 
 50 
 
 However, in the course of the argument in that arbi- 
 tral proceeding, both agreed in disregarding the claims 
 of Colombia to the territory of Veragua which began 
 at the Desagnadero and which was called the Province 
 of Teguzgalpa. 
 
 Senor Silvela alleges, as one of the principal bases 
 of the right of Honduras, the capitulacion of Artieda, 
 of December 1. 1573. saying distinctly: "THERE IS 
 ONE SINGULAE ThInG Ds THIS CAPITULA- 
 CIOX AND THAT IS THE FIXING DEFINI- 
 rn-ELY OF THE BOUXDAEIES OF COSTA 
 RICA." {Alegato of Honduras, 1905, p. 128.) 
 
 Senor Maura, in the Replica of Nicaragua, 1905, as- 
 serts that the Cartago of Diego Gutierrez's capitula- 
 cion of 1540 was framed out of the remains of the 
 break-up or division of the ancient Province of Ver- 
 agua (p. 109); that the capitulacidn of Artieda, of 
 1573, dearlv distinaruished Costa Rica from the Prov- 
 ince of Nicaragua (p. 72) : that nothing is so conclusive 
 as the capitulacion of Diego Lopez, of 1576, in which 
 there was included (in order to form the Province of 
 Teguzgalpa) all of the territory from the Desagna- 
 dero to Cape Camaron (p. 73) : and that neither Hon 
 duras nor any one, casts doubt of the annexation to 
 Nicaragua of the said coastal zone from the Desa- 
 gnadero or San Juan river toward the north or the 
 northeast (p. 77). 
 
 Costa Rica, then, can rely for support on the author- 
 ity of Senores Silvela and Maura, counsel for Colom- 
 bia, to combat the following broad assertion made by 
 the latter in her Summary of Conclusions, presented 
 to the President of the Republic of France and sub- 
 scribed bv Monsieur Poincare in Paris on Julv 4, 1900 :
 
 51 
 
 "All the Province of Veragua onglit then to 
 belong to Colombia. From its origin the Prov 
 ince of Veragna exten.ie-i as far as Cape Gra 
 cias a Dios. (See the Royal ^ of March 2. 
 
 1537.^ It has never been diviue-o- 
 
 <Toute la Province de V - - • - 't done ap 
 partenir a la Colomlde. . . e. la Pro- 
 
 vince de Veragna s'est etendne an cap de 
 
 Gracias a Dios ( Voir Cedole Royale dn 2 Mars 
 153* ). Elle n'a jamais ete divisee. 
 
 [ci Bounduries With the Prormce of Veragua. 
 
 The demarcation made to Ortiz de Elgneta (from 
 the bonn'iary of the s crre^ated territory with which 
 Tegczgalpa was formed) extended from sea to se^i. 
 "to the side of (a Jyj parte de) the cities of Xombre 
 de Dios and Panama.*' The Royal cednla of 1573 
 clearly fixed the Province of Veragna as the end of 
 Costa Rica, both on the north and on the south; it 
 did more, since it expressly inclnde*! within Costa Rica 
 the Bocas del Drago on the north, and on the sonth 
 the Valleys of ChiriqnL 
 
 In prescribing the manner in which Artieiia was to 
 carry ont his oharge. he is told *** * * and you 
 shall settle in the Province of Costa Rica three cities, 
 * * * one of which must be at the Port of Boc<is d^I 
 Drago, which is on the North Sea of said province." 
 
 By this name of Bocas del Drago there was desig- 
 nated the Bay of Ahnirante and the Lagoon of 
 ChiriquL, into which empties the GuaymL San Diego or 
 Cricamola river, it being perfectly explained that its 
 adjoining territories were included in Costa Rica be 
 cause they had been traversed and conquered by thf» 
 founders of this province, with the approval and prais*i
 
 52 
 
 of the King. Estrada Ravage foiiiuled, in 1560, the 
 city of Castillo de Austria on the Bay of Almirante; 
 Juan Vazquez de Coronado, in 1564, subjected all the 
 tribes of Indians that occupied its banks nearly as far 
 as the Escudo de Veragua; and Perafan de Ribera 
 traversed the same territories in 1570 and 1571. 
 
 Diego de Artieda always understood that they be- 
 longed to his Government, as is shown by his deeds and 
 his communications to the King, during the fourteen 
 years in which he had it in charge. The Royal cedula 
 of August 30, 1576 (Doc. No. 66), contains this phrase: 
 i(* • * ^^ being very well known that the said 
 Guaymi river and Bocas del Drago and the Almirante 
 Bay are the same thing. ' ' The former, in fulfillment of 
 the duty of founding a city at Bocas del Drago, 
 founded the one that he called '' Artieda," on the banks 
 of the Guaymi river, as is evidenced by the certificate 
 of December 8, 1577 (Doc. No. 67) ; and afterwards he 
 took possession of the Valley of Guaymi, as is evi- 
 denced by a certificate delivered by a notary in March, 
 1578 (Doc. No. 68). In front of this valley is the 
 island called Escudo de Veragua. The King showed 
 in his cedulas of June 3, 1580 (Doc. No. 69), that he 
 was informed of and satisfied with the settlements 
 made by Artieda at Bocas del Drago. 
 
 After Artieda, the indication of Escudo de Veraguas 
 was confirmed as the point of the divisionary line which 
 left within Costa Rica the lands adjoining the Bay of 
 Almirante and the Lagoon of Chiriqui. 
 
 The Royal cedula of Philip III of May 31, 1600 (Doe. 
 No. 71), directed to the Audiencia of Panama, indi- 
 cated the Island of Escudo de Veragua as the end or 
 western extremity of the warring Indian tribes of the
 
 S3 
 
 Province of Veragua. In a certificate delivered by a 
 notary on October 10, 1605 (Doc. No. 72), Don Diego 
 do Sojo testifies that by virtue of the commission given 
 to him by Don Juan de Ocon de Trillo, Governor and 
 Captain-General of Costa Rica, and in the name of the 
 King, he founded the city of Santiago de Talamanca 
 and, he says, he 
 
 "* * * indicated for it and gave to it for 
 jurisdiction in latitude all the territory and dis 
 trict which there is from the summit of the Cor- 
 dillera to the North Sea, and in longitude from 
 the river Tarire and the ford that is crossed 
 going from the said city to the Province of 
 Tariaca, all the territory that runs to the East, 
 which is the lengtli of it as far as the Escudo 
 DE Veragua, which is the end that separates this 
 Government from that of Veragua." 
 
 The Province or region of Talamanca continued to 
 belong to Costa Kica during the whole of the Spanish 
 domination. 
 
 The Valleys of Chiriqui constitute that part of th^ 
 Province of Costa Rica which borders upon that of 
 Veragua, on the Pacific side. Colombia argues in her 
 xMemoranda (Second, p. 89, and Third, No. 47), that the 
 capitulacion of Artieda does not speak of the Valleys 
 of Chiriqui as a foreign frontier with Veragua, but 
 only as designating a bearing, as though to say "in 
 the direction of" those valleys. But the text of the 
 Royal cedula of 1573 does not admit of this int<'r- 
 pretation, for, in stating the longitude of the Province 
 of Costa Rica, it says specifically, "from the borders 
 of Nicaragua, on the side of Nicoya, stralghtforivard 
 [derecho a) to the Valleys of Chiriqui, as far as the 
 Province of Veragua, on the South side." The direc-
 
 54 
 
 tion was indicated by the South Sea, that is the Pacific 
 Ocean; and in this direction the Royal cednhi expressly 
 declared the right of Costa Rica to the Valleys of 
 C'hiriqui. If it is claimed that those valleys only indi- 
 cated a direction, the longitude of Costa Rica may be 
 continued still further beyond them and its terminal 
 extended "as far as the Province of Veragua," 
 
 Such a declaration of right is not strange, inasmuch 
 as Vazquez de Coronado and Perafan de Kibera had 
 traversed and taken possession of the plains or savan- 
 nas of Chiriqui, and had considered them to be within 
 their jurisdiction. 
 
 Although Costa Rica had the right to the Valleys of 
 Chiriqui, the later governors tolerated the encroach- 
 ments of the Governors of Veragua as far as the 
 Chiriqui Vie jo river {old Chiriqui river — not to be 
 confused with others of the same name not having this 
 qualification) ; and this river was left as the divisionary 
 line of Costa Rica, which meant for that country a loss 
 of 208 square leagues (1872 square miles). 
 
 V. 
 
 THE QUESTION OF BOUNDARIES SETTLED BY 
 
 THE ROYAL CEDULA OF 1573 AND NOT 
 
 BY THAT OF 1537. 
 
 1. Importance, Confirmation and Subsistence of the 
 
 Royal Cedula of 1573. 
 
 The Royal cedula of Philip II of December 1, W7:\ 
 is immensely important because it settled the question 
 of boundaries pending between the Republics of Costa 
 Rica and Panama, as far as relates to Spanish colonial
 
 55 
 
 law, for thereunder the Province of Costa Rica was 
 definitively constituted and marked out; its legal ex- 
 istence and delimitation, however, is denied by the Re- 
 public of Panama, the successor to that of Colombia, 
 on the assumption that it belonged to the latter as an 
 integral part of the ancient Veragua. 
 
 It results from all that has been said in the first part 
 of our opinion, that the Royal cedula of 1573 marked 
 the end of the historico-legal evolution of Veragua, 
 from the time when the whole of the coast discovered 
 by Columbus, from Cape Honduras to the point of 
 San Bias, was understood by that designation until it 
 came to constitute three distinct provinces: that of 
 Veragua, properly so-called, that of Costa Rica and 
 that of Teguzgalpa. The differentiation of the primi- 
 tive Veragua into two parts, the Ducal Veragua and 
 the Royal Veragua, began by the creation of the Duke- 
 dom of Veragua (1537) and the granting of the capitu- 
 lacion of Diego Gutierrez (1540), the result of which 
 was the organization of two different provinces, in 
 1560: the Province of Veragua, under Francisco 
 Vazquez and that of Costa Rica under Cavallon. The 
 Royal cedula of 1573 divides the latter into two parts : 
 that which is called Teguzgalpa and that properly de- 
 nominated Costa Rica, in which latter is included Bocas 
 del Drago and the Valleys of Chiriqui, places border- 
 ing upon the Province of Veragua. 
 
 The demarcation established in this Royal cedula of 
 1573 was confirmed: (1) by that of February 18, 1574 
 (Doc. No. 63), which conferred upon Diego de Artieda 
 the title of Governor and Captain-General of Costa 
 Rica, and fixed at the same time the boundaries of his 
 jurisdiction; (2) by the Royal cedula of December 29, 
 1593 (Doc. No. 70), giving the government of this
 
 56 
 
 province to Don Fernando de la Cueva **as it was 
 held by Diego de Artieda Chirino;" and (3) by the 
 other Royal codnlas appointing governors and cap 
 tains-general, who held the position ^vith the same 
 salary and within the same bounded territory. 
 
 This demarcation is also confinned by the facts to 
 which we have referred relating to the boundaries, and 
 many acts of the Superior Government, of the aud- 
 iencias and of the governors, relating thereto may be 
 cited, since it was in force and subsisted until the end 
 of the Spanish domination. Counsel for Colombia do 
 not mention any other legal demarcation as a substi- 
 tute therefor, aside from what is stated in order to 
 impugn it; but seek for support in the Recopilacion 
 de Indias and in the Royal order of 1803. 
 
 2. Inefficacy and Abrog^ation of the Royal Cedula of 
 
 1537. 
 
 Colombia concentrates all hor forces in support of 
 the proposition that the question of boundaries with 
 Costa Rica was settled by the Royal cedula of Carlos 
 V, of March 2, 1537, which placed under the adminis- 
 tration of Tierra Firme (Castilla del Oro) all that was 
 left of Veragua after taking nway the twenty-five 
 leagues for the dukedom. 
 
 This means that from Colombia's viewpoint there is 
 no question of boundaries with Costa Rica ; rather is 
 it a question of "to be or not to be," involving 
 the ver>' existence of the latter as a nation, 
 for Colombia believes that Costa Rica had no legal 
 existence as a Spanish province and that her territory
 
 57 
 
 belonged to that of Tierra Firme, aa did all of Royal 
 Veragua. 
 
 Bearing in mind that Charles V, by this Royal cedula, 
 provided that Royal Veragua should be kept under 
 the Government of Tierra Finne ivhilst he might deem 
 it desirable, it will be easy to understand its ineffi- 
 cacy against later dispositions of the Crown, since in 
 issuing them it was not infringed. 
 
 But if there is any desire to keep it alive, forgetting 
 its conditional character, it must be said that it was 
 repeatedly abrogated, whenever, indeed, the Sovereign 
 made divisions of the territory of Veragua and cre- 
 ated different governments from that of Tierra Firme, 
 and also whenever he confirmed these changes. 
 
 Thus, the Royal cedula of March 2, 1537, was abro- 
 gated : 
 
 1. By the Royal cedulas of November 29, and De- 
 cember 16, 1540 (Doc. Nos. 18 and 19), giving under 
 capitulacion to Diego Gutierrez the Province of Car- 
 tago and appointing him the Governor thereof; that 
 of January 11, 1541 (Doc. No. 20), directing all the 
 governors of the Indies to respect the boundaries of 
 this Government, and that of February 22, 1549 (Doc. 
 No. 30), giving the title of Governor to Perez de 
 Cabrera, as successor to Gutierrez. 
 
 2. By the Royal cedula of December 13, 1559 (Doc. 
 No. 34), establishing the demarcation which was given 
 to Ortiz de Elgueta; that of February 23, 1560 (Doc. 
 No. 37), ordering the Audiencia of Guatemala to re- 
 spect it; that of February 5, 1561 (Doc. No. 42), re- 
 voking the commission given to Ortiz and turning it 
 over on the same terms to Cavallon, and that of August
 
 58 
 
 4, of the same year (Doc. No. 47), confirming the ap- 
 pointment of Alcalde mayor given by the Audiencia to 
 Cavallon, whose acts of settlement and those of his 
 deputy Ravago were approved. 
 
 3. By the Royal cedula of July 18, 1560 (Doc. No. 
 39), which divided Veragua into two parts, one al- 
 lotted to Ortiz de Elgueta and the other to Francisco 
 Vazquez; that of August 20th of the same year (Doc. 
 No. 40) appointing Francisco Vazquez Governor and 
 Captain-General of the Province of Veragua ; and that 
 of August 9, 1561 (Doc. No. 48) denying the claims of 
 Figuerola, by right of his office of Governor of Tierra 
 Firme and by order of the Viceroy of Peru, to govern 
 and settle the Province of Veragua and that of Costa 
 Rica, because these were under the respective charges 
 of Alonso Vazquez and Cavallon — a most important 
 cedula, therefore, inasmuch as those claims were the 
 same as those now made by Colombia and Panama. 
 
 4. By the Royal cedula of April 8, 1565 (Doc. No. 
 53), appointing Vazquez de Coronado Governor and 
 Captain-General of Costa Rica ; and by that of August 
 7, following (Doc. No. 54), describing the province 
 under his command in the same manner as in the com- 
 mission given to Ortiz de Elgueta. 
 
 5. By the Royal cedula of December 1, 1573 (Doc. 
 No. 62), approving the capitulacion of Diego de Ar- 
 tieda, by which Teguzgalpa was segregated from the 
 Province of Costa Rica and the boundaries of the 
 latter fixed with that of Veragua ; that of February 18, 
 1574 (Doc. No. 63), conferring upon him the title of 
 Governor and Captain-General of Costa Rica, with that 
 demarcation; that of February 10, 1576 (Doc. No. 65), 
 creating the Province of Teguzgalpa; that of August
 
 5') 
 
 30 of the same year (Doc. No. G6), definin<^ the boim- 
 daries of Costa Rica by Bocas del Drago; and that of 
 June 3, 1580 (Doc. No. 69), approving the conduct of 
 Diego de Artieda in respect to the settlements he made 
 within the limits of his jurisdiction. 
 
 6. By the Royal cedula of December 29, 1593 ( Doc. 
 No. 70), granting to Don Fernando de la Cueva the 
 Government of Costa Rica as it had been held by Diego 
 de Artieda ; the appointment of the later governors of 
 Costa Rica and the disposition concerning the adja- 
 cent audiencias, of which we will speak later. 
 
 There can not, then, be the slightest doubt that the 
 Province of Costa Rica was legally constituted and 
 marked out by the Royal cedula of Philip II, of 1573, 
 and not by that of Carlos V of 1537, which was in- 
 effectual in itself and the subject of so many abroga- 
 tions.
 
 60 
 
 PART SECOND 
 
 The Recopilacion de Indias Respected and Con- 
 firmed the Existence and Demarcation of Costa 
 Rica. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 I. The Recopilacion de Indias and its Abrogative 
 
 Force. 
 
 1. The Argument of Colombia. 
 
 2. General Consideration Concerning the Recopila- 
 
 cion de Indias and How Its Laws Respect and 
 Confirm the Existence and Demarcation of 
 Costa Rica. 
 
 II. The Demarcation of the Audiencias. 
 
 1. Importance of the Audiencias in the Government 
 
 of the Indies. 
 
 2. History of the Audiencias of Panama and Guate 
 
 mala. 
 
 3. Comparison Between Laws 4 and 6 of Title 15, 
 
 Book II, Which Treat of These Audiencias. 
 
 4. Interpretation of Law 4 ; What Were Castilla dei 
 
 Oro, Nata and the Government of Veragua, 
 Wliich Were Included by That Law in the 
 Audiencia of Panama. 
 
 5. Interpretation of Law 6; The Omission of the 
 
 Name of Costa Rica of no Importance in 
 Treating of the Audiencia of Guatemala.
 
 (1 
 
 III. Costa Rica was Expressly Recog^zed by the Re- 
 
 copilacion as a Province of the Audiencia of 
 Guatemala of the Viceroyalty of Mexico. 
 
 1. Law 1, Title 2, Book V, of the Recopilacion; Its 
 
 Importance. 
 
 2. This Law is a Resultant of the History of Costa 
 
 Rica, Which Always Depended Upon the 
 Audiencia of Guatemala: 
 
 (a) From the Creation of that Audiencia to 1563: 
 
 (b) From its Reestablishment (1568) Down to the 
 
 Promulgation of the Recopilacion (1680).' 
 
 IV. Interpretation of Law 9, Title 1, Book V, Declar- 
 
 ing that the Whole of the Province of Veragfua 
 is Under the Government of Tierra Firme. 
 
 1. It is Not Possible to Refer to the Veragua of 
 
 1537, as Constituting the Whole of Veragua. 
 
 2. Nor is the Hypothesis Admissible that Veragua is 
 
 a Major and Costa Rica a Minor Province. 
 
 3. Explanation of this Law, by Making it Refer to 
 
 the Province Emanating From the Dukedom. 
 
 4. Case of Supposed Contradiction of This Law 
 
 With Others. 
 
 V. Validity of the Royal Cedulas Which Are Demar 
 
 catory According to the Recopilacion. 
 
 1. Principles Established by the Recopilacion in Re- 
 gard to the Validity of the Royal Cedulas 
 Prior and Subsequent Thereto.
 
 62' 
 
 Legality of IV'nitoiial Division and tlio Boun- 
 daries of Districts. 
 
 Special Consideration of the Capitulaciones: 
 
 (a) Juridical Character of the Capitulaciones; 
 
 (b) The Capitulaciones in the Light of Book 4 of 
 
 the Recopilacion; 
 
 (c) Capitulaciones Originating the Provinces of 
 
 Veragua and Costa Rica. 
 
 Unilateral Acts of the Crown in the Unquestion- 
 able Exercise of Sovereignty and Titles of the 
 Governors ; Final Deductions. 
 
 THE REC0PILACI6N DE INDIAS AND ITS AB- 
 ROGATIVE FORCE. 
 
 1. The Argument of Colombia. 
 
 It seems impossible, after what we have said with 
 respect to the inefficacy of the Royal cedula of March 
 2, 1537, and its numerous abrogations (especially by 
 that of 1573), that Colombia could have maintained the 
 subsistence of the former in contravention of the legal 
 principle that "the later law abrogates the prior ones." 
 But she did; because, relying on this same principle, 
 she gives it as her understanding that the Recopilacion 
 de hidias reestablished the cedula of 1537 and repealed 
 all the dispositions that had abrogated it. 
 
 Seiior Silvela and Monsieur Poincare, in their briefs 
 in defense of Colombia, rely upon the Royal cedula of 
 Charles II, of May 18, 1680 (Doc. No. 91), which sane-
 
 tioned the RecopUacion, and which was published at 
 the beginning of it, when they make the assertion that 
 this code — a summary of all the Royal dispositions 
 which constituted the system of government for the 
 dominions of Spain beyond the seas — abrogated every- 
 thing that was not included within it, because the King 
 said, "it is our will that from now forward they sliall 
 not have any authority whatever. ' ' 
 
 Seiior Maura in his opinion embodied in the defense 
 of Colombia, formulates "the synthetical idea," of the 
 litigation, sa\dng that none of the documents prior to 
 the Royal cedula of May 18, 1680, can be taken into 
 consideration, except under the condition that they be 
 submitted to the obligator>^ force of tlie compiled laws, 
 which in every case must prevail over contrary dis- 
 position; and after adding that this principle greatly 
 simplifies the litigation, he goes on to show that the 
 Compilation of the Laws of the Indies was not a mere 
 collection but a real body of laws in which was re- 
 enacted all the preceding legislation, with the repeal 
 thereby of whatever was not included, as was done in 
 the "Fuero Juzgo," (ancient laws by the Gothic 
 Kings), the "Fuero Vie jo," (ancient laws), the '' Siete 
 Partidas" (the laws of Castile compiled by King Al- 
 fonso the Tenth) and the statutory compilations of 
 Aragon, Catalonia, Navarre and Majorca. 
 
 Starting from this basis, counsel for Colombia deny 
 the existence of the Province of Costa Rica, on the 
 ground that they do not find it mentioned in the laws 
 fixing demarcations of audiencias; they merge it in 
 the Province of Veragua, and put the latter back under 
 the Royal cedula of 1537 because they find the latter 
 cited in one of the laws, and, finally, take from the
 
 64 
 
 Royal eedulas that fix boundaries all of their authority, 
 because they do not find them converted into laws. 
 
 2. General Consideration Concerning^ the Recopila- 
 cion de Tndias and How Its Laws Respect and Con- 
 firm the Existence and Demarcation of Costa Rica. 
 
 The Recopilacion of the Laws of the Indies was not, 
 in fact, a collection ( repertorio or repertoire) compiled 
 with the single purpose of facilitating a knowledge of 
 the old dispositions ; neither was it a code in the scien- 
 tific acceptation of that word; that is a coordinate 
 grouping of a particular system of laws under onv) 
 common principle of unity, formulated once for all and 
 without continuous references to ancient laws further 
 than may be inspired thereby. 
 
 The Recopilacion de Indias was, like all compila- 
 tions, a collection of the laws of various periods. The 
 texts of these laws were reproduced, in whole, or part, 
 or in modified foi'm, the chronological sequence of some 
 having been changed for greater convenience, and the 
 citation of its origin or source having been inserted 
 at the head, or on the margin, of each; and it is clear 
 that it may be compared, in this respect, wdth other 
 compilations which were made in Spain, w^ith the ex- 
 ception of Siete Partidas, which possessed the char- 
 acteristics of a code. 
 
 It is certain that the Recopilacion de Indias did have 
 abrogative force; not absolute, however, as the coun- 
 sel for Colombia assert, but limited, as was clearly 
 expressed in said Royal cedula of Carlos II, of May 18, 
 1680, the latter part of which counsel persistently 
 omit. This Royal cedula, after directing that the Laws 
 of the Recopilacion shall control, specifically states,
 
 65 
 
 <( * * * 
 
 leaving in their force and vigor the Cedu- 
 las and Ordinances given to our Royal Audien- 
 cias, in so far as they are not contrary to the 
 Laws herein." 
 
 And in various texts of the Recopilacion the 
 subsistence of prior dispositions is declared, always, 
 of course, under the condition that they are not con- 
 trary to the said laws. 
 
 Therefore, the Laws of the Recopilacion respect and 
 confinn the existence of the Province of Costa Rica, 
 since, far from suppressing it, they expressly recog- 
 nized it ; they respect and confirm also the boundaries 
 which it then had, as they did not modify the deraar 
 cation of audiencias, and the law conceraing the boun- 
 daries of governments declares in force the existing 
 legal situation. 
 
 In the development of this thesis, we will take up all 
 the questions which have been the subject of contro- 
 versj' and relate to the Recopilacion de Indias, ex- 
 pounding them in the order which we consider most 
 desirable for clearness in the demonstration. 
 
 n. 
 
 THE DEMARCATION OF THE AUDIENCIAS. 
 
 1. Importance of the Audiencias in the Government 
 
 of the Indies. 
 
 Charles V divided the government of the American 
 territories into two great viceroyalties, that of New 
 Spain (Mexico) and that of Peru; he subdivided the 
 former into the four audiencias, of Santo Domingo, 
 Mexico, Guatemala and Guadalajara, which he cre- 
 ated; and the second into the three audiencias of Pan
 
 66 
 
 aina, Lima and Santa Fe, which he also created. The 
 number of the audiencias in Peru was increased by 
 Philip II, with the addition of those of Charcas and 
 Quito, by Philip UI with that of Chile, and, by Philip 
 IV, with that of Buenos Aires. 
 
 Tills division of territory into audiencias was not 
 merely judicial, but of a general character and admir- 
 ably adapted. Each audiencia had under its charge, 
 besides the administration of justice, the entire civil 
 and even military government of the provinces in- 
 cluded in its district. 
 
 Law 1, title 15, book II (Doc. No. 105), of the Re- 
 copilacion, states that in all the territory that had been 
 discovered up to that time in the Kingdom and Seign- 
 ories of tlie Indies, there were founded twelve audi- 
 encias and Royal chancelleries (the eleven mentioned 
 and tliat of Manila), "* * * in order that our vas- 
 sals may have those who may govern and rule them 
 in peace and witli justice; and whereas their districts 
 have been divided into Government, Corregimientos 
 and Alcaldias maj/ores * * * which are subordi- 
 nate to the Royal Audiencia * * *." 
 
 And in this same title the boundaries of the district 
 of each one of them are indicated. 
 
 The fact, therefore, that a province belonged to h 
 particular audiencia, not only signified that it de- 
 pended upon it judicially, but also for civil government. 
 
 2. History of the Audiencias of Panama and Guate- 
 mala. 
 
 Colombia, starting out with the theory that she is 
 the lieir of the whole of the territory which was under 
 the Audiencia of Panama (also called Tierra Firme)
 
 «7 
 
 makes every effort to prove that the Recopilacion, in 
 including all of the Province of Veragua in the Gov- 
 ernment of Tierra Firme — according to the Royal 
 cedula of 1537 — also included the territory of Costa 
 Rica by reason of its being comprehended in the Ver- 
 agua of that epoch. Leaving till later the interpreta- 
 tion of the law which especially refers to the Province 
 of Veragua, and which, as we shall see, is the province 
 that arose out of the dukedom, let us now examine 
 the laws that treat of the demarcation of the Audi- 
 encias of Panama and Guatemala. But before doing 
 so, the history- of those two audiencias should be brieflv 
 related because it is quite complicated, and also be- 
 cause it will tend to dissipate another of the equivoques 
 of which Colombia has made use in her quibbling; to 
 wit, that the Audiencia of Panama was a very different 
 thing, according to whether it is taken as existing 
 alone in that part of America, or in co-existence with 
 that of Guatemala. 
 
 The Audiencia of Santo Domingo of the Island of 
 Espanola was founded in 1526, the first of those estab- 
 lishe i in the Indies, and it had under its jurisdiction, 
 besides, the islands of the Sea of the Antilles, the terri- 
 tories on the coast discovered by Columbus during his 
 last voyage, to which were given the name of Veragua, 
 and the rest which were discovered on the Isthmus and 
 in southern America. 
 
 But at the same time that tlu^ con<}uest and govern- 
 ment of Veragua was being organized under Felipe 
 Gutierrez and the Dukedom of Veragua created — and 
 perhaps with the latter creation in view — the establish 
 ment of another audiencia was under way; to this was 
 given the name of Panama in Tierra Firme. We infer 
 this from Law 4, title 15, book II, of the Recopilacion
 
 48 
 
 (Doc. lOG), referring to this audiencia, which cites as 
 the origin thereof the Royal cedula of February 30, 
 ]5o5, issued two months after the approval of the 
 capifulaciou with Felipe Gutierrez, and that of March 
 2, 1537; that is, when this capitulacion was revoked, 
 the existence of tlie dukedom (created in the same 
 year) was ratified, and it was declared that the rest 
 of Veragua would be understood to be under the gov- 
 ernment of the Province of Tierra Firme, called Cas 
 tilla del Oro, until the Crown should otherwise provide. 
 The Audiencia of Panama, which was constituted 
 by the Royal cedula and ordinances of February 26, 
 153S (Doc. No. 14), comprised within its district "the 
 Province of Tierra Firme, called Castilla del Oro, and 
 Provinces of the Rio de la Plata and the Strait of 
 Magellan, and New Toledo and New Castile, called 
 Peru, and River San Juan, Nicaragua and Cartagena 
 and Dukedom of Zorobaro, and whatever islands and 
 provinces there might be both on the South Sea as 
 well as on the North Sea." 
 
 In view of the impossibility of governing such an 
 enormous territory (Central and South America), and 
 after the death of Pizarro in Peru and of Alvarado in 
 New Spain, Charles V divided it in his Ordinances of 
 Barcelona, November 20, 1542 (Doc. No. 26), called 
 the "New Laws" and also "Laws of Reformation of 
 the Indies, ' ' by suppressing the Audiencia of Panama, 
 creating the Viceroyalty of Peru with an audiencia in 
 Lima and directing another audiencia to be estab- 
 lished "within the confines of Guatemala and Nicar 
 agua * * *" which "shall have under its charge 
 the govemnient of said provinces and adjacent re- 
 gions." 
 
 By the Royal cedula of September 13, 1543 (Doc.
 
 69 
 
 No. 27), this latter audiencia was in fact created, and 
 denominated the Audiencia of the Confines (of the 
 confines, or borders, of Guatemahi), comprising within 
 its district the provinces of Guatemahi, Nicaragua, 
 Chiapa, Yocatan, Cozumel, Higueras, Cape Honduras 
 << * * * g^jjj ^jj other provinces and islands that ther*^ 
 may be on the coast and in the region of the said 
 provinces as far as the Province of Tierra Finne 
 called Castilla del Oro, inclusive"; that is to say, the 
 whole of Central America, including Veragua, although 
 it was not mentioned. This audiencia was first in- 
 stalled in the city of Gracias a Dios (1544) and after- 
 wards transferred to that of Santiago de los Cabal- 
 leros de Guatemala (1550), and from which it was 
 given the latter name. 
 
 But in moving from one capital to another, its 
 district was reduced ; Castilla del Oro w^as lost to it in 
 consequence of the reform made in the Audiencia of 
 Lima whereby a part of the latter was taken away to 
 form the Audiencia of Santa Fe de Bogotji in the New 
 Kingdom of Granada, in obedience to the Royal cedula 
 of June 17, 1549. And there is not the slightest doubt 
 but that Castilla del Oro was separated from the 
 Audiencia of the Confines, or Guatemala, and there- 
 fore from Veragua, for the Royal cedula of Charles V 
 of May 2, 1550 (Doc. No. 133), which is Law 7, title 1, 
 book V, of the Recopilacion de Indias, specifically says : 
 
 ''We command that the Province of Tierra 
 Firme, called Castilla del Oro, shall belong to 
 the Provinces of Peru and not to those of New 
 Spain (Mexico)." 
 
 Abuses committed by the Audiencia of the Confines, 
 or Guatemala, and the convenience of better service,
 
 70 
 
 led to its transformation into the Audiencia of Pan- 
 ama, upon the territorial basis of that of Guatemala, 
 with important modilications, however, by the Royal 
 cedilla of Philip IT, of September 8, 1563 (Doc. No. 
 50) ; and its headquarters were transferred to the city 
 of Panama. The audiencia lost, according to that 
 cedula, the Province of Guatemala and other terri- 
 tories in the north, and was given for a boundary the 
 Gulf of Fonseca, exclusive, and the Ulua river, and it 
 gained the Province of Castilla del Oro as far as the 
 Darien river, exclusive. 
 
 The Viceroy and the Audiencia of New Spain (Mex- 
 ico) stated to the King, on February 26, 1564, the de 
 fects in this reform, and begged that the Audiencia of 
 Guatemala might be re-established; this petition was 
 granted in January, 1567, and that audiencia replaced 
 in the condition it was prior to 1563. The Royal cedula 
 of June 28, 1568 (Doc. No. 57), expressly designated as 
 integral parts thereof, the Provinces of Guatemala, 
 Chiapa, Higueras, Verapaz, Cape Honduras, and Nic- 
 aragua "* * * and whatever other islands and 
 provinces there may be on the coast and in the region 
 of the said provinces, as far as the Province of Nicar- 
 agua." This audiencia was again installed in the city 
 of Santiago de los Caballeros on March 3, 1570. 
 
 The Audiencia of Panama, however, did not dis- 
 appear; there remained within it, in 1570, Tierra Firme 
 and the Province of Veragua which had been consti- 
 tuted in 1560, but not that of Costa Rica which was 
 contiguous with the Province of Nicaragua. 
 
 The Audiencia of Guatemala continued thereafter 
 as a dependency of the Viceroyalty of Mexico, whilst 
 that of Panama, after the re-establishment of the latter.
 
 belonged to the Viceroyalty of Peni, and they were, 
 respectively, tlie extrenaes and frontiers of the two 
 viceroyalties. 
 
 3. Comparison Between Laws 4 and 6, of Title 15, 
 Book II, Which Treat of These Audiencias. 
 
 Law 4, title 15, book II (Doc. No. 106), of the Re 
 copilaciofi dc Jndias (accordins: to the Royal cedulas 
 which it cites with others as complements thereof, and 
 to what was provided by Philip IV in the same Re- 
 copilacion), designates in the following manner the 
 district of the Andiencia of Panama: 
 
 "It shall have for district the Province of 
 Castilla del Oro, as far as Puertobelo and it*i 
 territory; the city of Nata and its territory, 
 the Government of Veragua; and, upon the 
 South Sea, toward Peru, as far as the Port 
 Buenaventura, exclusive; and from Puertobelo 
 toward Cartagena, to the River Darien, exclu 
 
 sive, with the Gulf of Uraba and Tierra Firme 
 
 * * * >> 
 
 And in fixing the boundaries of this district, it says : 
 
 II* * * bordering on the East and South 
 upon the Audiencias of the New Kingdom of 
 Granada and San Francisco de Quito; on tlu 
 West with that of Santiago de Guatemala; and 
 upon the North and South, upon the two seas 
 of the North and South." 
 
 Law 6 of the same title and book (Doc. No. 107), 
 of the Becopilacion (according to the cedulas men 
 tioned, which it cites with other complementary 
 cedulas, and to what was provided by Philip IV), es-
 
 n 
 
 tablisliGf] the district of the Aiidieucia of Guatemala, 
 as follows : 
 
 "It shall have for its district the said Prov- 
 ince of Guatemala, and those of Nicaragua, 
 Chiapa, Higiieras, Cape Honduras, Verapaz and 
 Soconusco, with the islands of the coast." 
 
 And it adds : 
 
 "* * * bordering on the East upon th'i 
 Audiencia of Tierra Firme, on the West, upo t 
 that of New Galicia, and upon the latter and 
 the North Sea^ on the North, and, on the Soutl:. 
 upon the South Sea. ' ' 
 
 The first thing that is noted in comparing these two 
 laws is that no geographical dividing line is desig- 
 nated between the Audiencia of Guatemala and that 
 of Panama. They only state that one begins where 
 the other ends; therefore they do not settle the ques- 
 tion of boundaries between the Provinces of Costa 
 Rica and Veragua. 
 
 But from the enumeration made by these two laws 
 of the provinces which are comprised in each of these 
 audiencias counsel for Colombia deduce that the ter- 
 ritory of Costa Rica w^as included in the Audiencia 
 of Panama, because this province does not appear to 
 be mentioned by Law 6 as among those of the Audi- 
 encia of Guatemala, whereas Law 4 expressly includes 
 the Government of Veragua in that of Panama. 
 
 Let us see in the first place how far Law 4 goes 
 with regard to the explicit inclusion, that being the 
 affiraiative part of the argument; we shall see later 
 what may be the effect of the omission of the name in 
 Law 6.
 
 73 
 
 4. Interpretation of Law 4; WYait Were Castilla del 
 Oro, Nata and the Government of Veragua, Which 
 Were Included by That Law in the Audiencia of 
 Panama. 
 
 Law 4 begins the description of the Audiencia of 
 Panama with the Province of Castilla del Oro, from 
 Portobelo as far as the Darien river, exclusive. This 
 province which, in some demarcations, appears as the 
 extreme limit of Royal Veragua, was included in the 
 Audiencia of the Confines, or Guatemala, on the ere 
 ation of the latter in 1543; but the Royal cedula of 
 May 2, 1550, directed that it should belong to the Vice- 
 royalty of Peru and not to that of New Spain (Mexico). 
 It returned to the Audiencia of the Confines when it 
 was transferred to Panama, in 1563, and remained in 
 that of Panama when the latter was dismembered by 
 the re-establishment of the Audiencia of Guatemala, 
 in 1568; and in the Audiencia of Panama it was re- 
 tained by the Recopilacion de Indias. These fluctua- 
 tions reveal the fact that it was an intermediate prov- 
 ince between the Viceroyalties of Mexico and Peru, 
 in which the jurisdiction of the latter prevailed. 
 
 In the direction of New Spain, Law 4, locates thi 
 city of Natd and its territoiy after Castilla del Oro, 
 and lastly the Government of Veragua. Counsel for 
 Colombia, continuing to juggle with the equivoque in- 
 volving this name, understand that this Government 
 of Veragua was the Royal Veragua, in which Costa 
 Rica was included, and not the Ducal Veragua, for the 
 latter has been added to the city and territory of Natd. 
 
 To dissipate this erroneous interpretation, it is 
 enough to refer to what we have said in Part First, 
 concerning the transformation of the Dukedom into
 
 74 
 
 the Province of Verau-na. Wiien the dnkodoin was sup- 
 pressed it was not added to Natd, but tlie residents of 
 that city were authorized to go into that country for 
 conquest and settlement; and it was by virtue of that 
 authority that Francisco Vazquez went there with his 
 men; he it was wliom the Crown appointed, soon after- 
 wards, Governor of the province that was then left 
 definitively constituted (1560) under the name of Ver- 
 agiia (Ducal Veragua) ; and this is the Government to 
 which Law 4 alludes, after speaking of the city of Nat.*^ 
 and its territory. 
 
 Ncitd, from its origin, in 1520, always belonged to 
 the jurisdiction of Panama (Province and Audiencia), 
 and was administered by an Alcalde mayor appointed 
 by the Governor or President of the Audiencia of 
 Tierra Pirme. The Province of Veragua, which was 
 formed from the dukedom, was raised to the status 
 of a government and captaincy-general, which office 
 was provided for by the King himself, it having by 
 reason of its class and salary a higher rank than that 
 of alcalde. Far from the Province of Veragua being 
 united, oi subordinated to the city of Nata, the resi- 
 dents of the latter were the ones who, tired of their 
 alcaldes may ores, petitioned for the aggregation of 
 their city to that province; but without success. 
 
 It cannot, therefore, be successfully maintained that 
 the Dukedom of Veragua was comprised in Nata, in 
 order, later, to include Costa Rica in the ** Govern- 
 ment of Veragua." The farthest counsel for Colombia 
 can go is to consider the two Veraguas — ducal and 
 royal — under this denomination. But to this is op 
 posed the history of the formation of the two provinces 
 of V^eragua and Costa Rica, the fact of their existence 
 at the time the Recopilacion was made, and the pro-
 
 75 
 
 visions of that Compilation, in its Law 1, title 2, book 
 V (Doc. No. 136), entitled, ''de provision dc oficios" 
 (provisions for appointments to office), under which 
 there was reserved to the King the right to fill the 
 office of Governor and Captain-General of the Province 
 of Vcragua (with a salaiy of one thousand pesos), 
 which is ''in our Royal Audiencia oi Panama," of Peru, 
 and that of the Governor and Captain-General of the 
 Province of Costa Rica (with a salary of two thousand 
 ducats), which is ''in our Royal Audiencia of Guate- 
 mala," of New Spain. 
 
 In deference to this law", promulgated in the time of 
 Charles II, when the Recopilacion was compiled, it is 
 not j)Ossible to interpret the "Government of Ver- 
 agua" by merging therein the Province of Costa Rica. 
 
 5. Interpretation of Law 6. The Omission of the 
 Name of Costa Rica of no Importance in Treating 
 of the Audiencia of Guatemala. 
 
 It is clearly established from what we have just said, 
 that the Government of Costa Rica was included in 
 the Audiencia of Guatemala, since it was so expressed 
 in the Recopilacion itself, and it was a thing distinct 
 from the Govermiient of Veragua, with which the de- 
 marcation of the Audiencia of Panama ends, as stated 
 by Law 4. 
 
 The description made by Law 6 of the Audiencia 
 of Guatemala is less detailed, doubtless because those 
 who prepared the Recopilacion did not consider it 
 necessary, after having specifically provided, in Law 4, 
 that the Audiencia of Panama terininated with the 
 Government of Veragua, deeming it sufficient to affirm
 
 76 
 
 that that of Guatemala bordered witli it on the east 
 The omission of the name of Costa Rica is explained 
 also by the fact that instead of writing? an entirely 
 new law, they took for a text that of the Royal cedula 
 of June 28, 1568, which, with some corrections, they in- 
 serted in the liecopilacidn. And as the main object of 
 this Royal cedula was the advantage of leaving well 
 deteimined the northern part, which, upon the re-es- 
 tablishment of the Audiencia of Guatemala, was united 
 to that audiencia, no description was made of the lower 
 part, which had always belonged to the Audiencia of 
 the Confines, for it was not the subject of doubt. 
 
 But, although Costa Rica was not named in said 
 Royal cedula, it was compreliended within the clause, 
 ((* * * ^jj^ whatever other islands and provinces 
 there may be on the coast and in the region of the 
 said provinces," among which was mentioned that of 
 Nicaragua. In ordering the promulgation of the ''New 
 Laws" of 1542, which created the Audiencia of th-j 
 Confines (of Guatemala and Nicaragua), it was pro- 
 vided that it should have under its charge "* * * 
 the Government of the said province and adjacent re- 
 gions," a phrase similar to that employed in the re- 
 establishment of that Audiencia, in 1568, under the 
 denomination of "Guatemala." 
 
 The Audiencia of Guatemala having been re-estab- 
 lished, that of Panama was advised, by Royal cedula 
 of August 12, 1571 (Doc. No. 59), that it must no 
 longer concern itself with the affairs of the former, 
 while the Royal cedula of July 17, 1572 (Doc. No. 61), 
 bestowed upon the Audiencia of Guatemala jurisdic- 
 tion over the affairs of the Provinces of Nicaragua and 
 Costa Rica.
 
 77 
 
 The aflFairs of Costa Rica continued to be depend- 
 ent upon the Audiencia of Guatemala when the Re- 
 copilacion de Indias was published in 1680; and coun- 
 sel for Colombia resort to the argument that even if 
 Costa Rica had existed legally as a province, the omis- 
 sion of its name in the laws of demarcation of the 
 contiguous audiencias signified its suppression, and 
 that the Recopilacion de Indias thus abrogated the 
 prior Royal cedulas relating to it. 
 
 But although Law 6 does not mention the Province 
 of Costa Rica, it includes it between Nicaragua and the 
 divisionary line of the district of the Audiencia of 
 Guatemala, unless it be assumed, as Colomlna does 
 assume, that the Government of Veragua, of the Audi- 
 encia of Panama, reached as far as Nicaragua. And 
 having proved that that Government did not include 
 that of Costa Rica, whicli was recognized by the Re- 
 copilacion as a province belonging to the Audiencia of 
 Guatemala, it must be agreed that Costa Rica was not 
 suppressed by Law 6, although it was not expressly 
 mentioned therein. 
 
 To the foregoing we must add that the laws of de- 
 marcation of audiencias are not Liws of creation and 
 suppression of component provinces of their respective 
 districts, but of differentiation of one from another, 
 for the purpose of establisliing the external boundaries 
 of the territorial jurisdictions of those audiencias. 
 
 Whatever subtleties counsel for Colombia may ap 
 peal to in order to show that the Province of Costa 
 Rica canic to an end with the publication of the Recop- 
 ilacion de Indias, their purpose cannot succeed in the 
 face of the decisive reason that the latter expressly 
 recognizes it and its author provided for its needs as 
 such province.
 
 78 
 
 m. 
 
 COSTA RICA WAS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED BY 
 THE RECOPILACIOIT AS A PROVINCE OF THE 
 AUDIENCIA OF GUATEMALA OF THE VICE- 
 ROYALTY OF MEXICO. 
 
 1. Law 1, Title 2, Book V, of the Recopilacion; Its 
 
 Importance. 
 
 The Kings of Spain having reserved to themselves 
 the power to fill directly the offices of viceroys, cap- 
 tains-general, presidents and judges of audiencias, and 
 the most important governments, corregimientos and 
 alcaldias mayores, the Law 1, title 2, book V, of the 
 Recopilacidn enumerated all of these offices with their 
 annual compensations, and submitted them, classified 
 under audiencias, for each of the two viceroyalties. 
 
 The enumeration of the offices under the provision 
 of the Crown, in the Viceroyalty of Peru, begins with 
 the Audiencia of Panama, in which district it says: 
 
 a* * * ^Tg have to provide the post of 
 Governor and Captain-General of the Province 
 of Tierra Firme and President of the Royal 
 Audiencia for eight years, which has a salary 
 of four thousand five hundred ducats; and thac 
 of Governor and Captain-General of the Prov 
 ince of Veragua, with one thousand pesos ensay- 
 ados (assayed dollars) ; the Government of the 
 Island of Santa Catalina, with two thousand 
 pesos ; and the Alcaldia mayor of San Felipe de 
 Portolx'lo, with six hundred ducats." 
 
 it then proceeds to speak of the other audiencias of 
 this Viceroyalty, that is to say, those of Lima, Santa 
 Fe, Charcas, Quito, Chile and Buenos Ayres.
 
 79 
 
 Under the denomination of New Spain, the law 
 enumerates the offices imder the provision of the King 
 in the Audiencias of Santo Domingo, Mexico, Guada- 
 lajara and Guatemala, in respect to which it says: 
 
 ^'In the district of our Royal Audiencia of 
 Guatemala, the post of Governor and Captain- 
 General and President of the Audiencia, for 
 eight years, with a salary of five thousand 
 ducats; that of Governor and Captain-General 
 of Valladolid de Comayagua, with two thousand 
 pesos de minas (mined dollars) ; that of Gov- 
 ernor AND Captain-General of the Pi^ovince 
 of COSTA RICA, with two thousand ducats; 
 that of Governor and Captain-General of the 
 Province of Honduras, with one thousand pesos 
 de minas; that of Governor of Nicaragua, with 
 one thousand ducats ; that of Soconusco, with six 
 hundred pesos de minas, and the Alcaldias 
 may ores of Verapaz, Chiapa, Nicoya, etc." 
 
 This law offers an almost complete exposition of the 
 organization of the Spanish Colonial Government, by 
 viceroyalties, audiencias, provincial governments and 
 alcaldias may ores ; it is at once a law of territorial di- 
 vision and one making appropriations. 
 
 As it states itself, the law was enacted by ''Don 
 Carlos II and the governing Queen, in this Recopila- 
 cion," in consultation with the Council and upon re- 
 ports from the Secretaryships of Peru and New Spain. 
 It is, therefore, of great importance as being a faithful 
 expression of the reality of the administrative division 
 at the very date on which the Recopilacion was pub- 
 lished (1680) and as affording a solution for the doubts 
 that might arise from prior enactments in the inter- 
 pretation of other laws of this Code.
 
 80 
 
 2. This Law Is a Resultant of the History of Costa 
 Rica, Which Always Depended Upon the Audiencia 
 of Guatemala. 
 
 The Law I, of title 2, book V, in specifically declar- 
 ing that the Government and Captaincy-General of 
 the Province of Costa Rica belonged to the Audiencia 
 of Guatemala and Viceroyalty of Mexico, not only rec- 
 ognized the existence of that province, but it brought 
 to the Recopilacion the result of its history, confirming 
 and ratifying such jurisdictional dependency. 
 
 [a) From the Creation of That Audiencia to 1563. 
 
 The importance that was given to primitive Veragua 
 by the capitulacion of Felipe Gutierrez and the forma- 
 tion of the dukedom (1534), determined the creation, in 
 1535, of the Audiencia of Panama, or Tierra Firme, 
 which was organized, in 1538, by segregating those 
 territories from the Government of the Island of Es- 
 panola and all others discovered toward the south, to 
 which it was impossible for said government to give 
 further attention. The Audiencia of Panama was then 
 the only one in existence for the government of the 
 American continent, from the line marking the end of 
 Mexico's territory down to the Strait of Magellan. 
 
 By this Veragua depended at first upon the Govern- 
 ment of Tierra Finne, as the Royal cedula of 1537 
 declared. 
 
 But when that vast government was divided by the 
 so-called "New Laws" of 1542, by the creation of the 
 Viceroyalty of Peru and the Audiencia of the Confines 
 (which was established in 1543 and afterwards called
 
 81 
 
 the Audiencia of Guatemala), Costa Rica formed a 
 part of that audiencia, never to be separated therefrom 
 throug-h all the vicissitudes this audiencia underwent 
 while dependent upon the Viceroyalty of Mexico; 
 whereas Tierra Firme was made subordinate to the 
 Viceroyalty of Peru by the Royal cedula of 1550, under 
 which it remained permanently after various altera- 
 tions. 
 
 It cannot be successfully maintained that the Ve- 
 ragua which was called Cartago or Costa Rica passed, 
 in 1550, with Tierra Firme to Peru, for it is clearly 
 shown by the Royal cedula of incorporation that only 
 Castilla del Oro was in question, and it has been shown 
 that the former continued in the Audiencia of the Con- 
 fines. It is enough to remember how the latter inter- 
 vened in the affairs of Costa Rica and how the King 
 addressed himself to it in everything relating to the 
 conquest and government which he entrusted to Ortiz, 
 Cavallon, Vazquez de Coronado, Perafan de Ribera and 
 Artieda. The Royal cedula of August 9, 1561 (Doc. 
 No. 48), denying the claims of the Government of 
 Tierra Firme with respect to the Province of Veragua 
 and that of Costa Rica, should be especially borne in 
 mind. 
 
 The Audiencia of the Confines disappeared in 15G3, 
 having been transformed into another, called the Au- 
 diencia of Panama, as result of the transfer to that 
 city of the capital of the former. And in that Audi- 
 encia of Panama (which, however, must not be con- 
 fused with the first of that name), Costa Rica con- 
 tinued, witli other provinces that had pertained to the 
 Audiencia of the Confines, from which Guatemala had 
 been segregated and to which Tierra Firme was incor- 
 porated. The Audiencia of Guatemala having been
 
 82 
 
 re-established in 1568, and that of Panama having been 
 dismembered, Costa Rica followed the former and 
 Tierra Firme remained in the latter. 
 
 (b) From Its Re-estahlishment {1568) Down to the 
 Promulgation of the RecopiUwion {16S0). 
 
 The Audiencia of Panama objected to being deprived 
 of the jurisdiction which had been segregated from it, 
 and it became necessary for the King, by the Royal 
 cedula of August 1571 (Doe. No. 59), to order that 
 it should not continue any longer to act in matters per- 
 taining to that of Guatemala and to declare, by the 
 Royal cedula of July 17, 1572 (Doc. No* 61), that the 
 affairs of Nicaragua and Costa Rica belonged to the 
 latter. 
 
 The Audiencia of Guatemala continued, in fact, to 
 occupy itself with the government of and the admin- 
 istration of justice in Costa Rica, as it had done before 
 its suppression. Thus we see it calling to account 
 Perafan de Ribera, Diego de Artieda, Fernando de la 
 Cueva, Ocon y Trillo and other governors; we see it 
 taking measures concerning allotments of Indians and 
 exemptions from tribute, and intervening in all the 
 other affairs of that province, by virtue of its inherent 
 powers, or by order of the King, until 1680, when the 
 Recopilacion was published, to say nothing of those 
 acts which are set forth with their dates in the defense 
 of Costa Rica. 
 
 The audiencia, however, had to refrain from ap- 
 pointing the Governors of Costa Rica, because the King 
 reserved their appointment to himself, according to 
 the Royal cedula of May 26, 1572 (Doc. No. 60), which 
 he addressed that body; but it did name those oflScers
 
 83 
 
 ad interim, pending permanent appointments hy the 
 King, in the case of Alonso de Anguciana (1573), Vo- 
 hizquoz Kamiro (1590), Gonzalo de Pahna (1592), Gon- 
 zalo Vazquez de Coronado (1600), Arias Mahlonado 
 (1662), etc. 
 
 And, finally, evidence that Costa Rica depended upon 
 the Audiencia of Guatemala, is found in the x)rotracted 
 proceedings arising out of the plan to aggregate it to 
 the Audiencia of Panama. On September 25th, 1609 
 (Doc. No. 75), Philip III asked the Audiencia of Guate- 
 mala whether it would be desirable to place the Prov- 
 ince of Costa Rica, ''which is under the jurisdiction of 
 your Audiencia," in the district of that of Panama; 
 Philip IV infoims the I're.sident of the latter, on Octo- 
 ber 2-1, 1623, that he is investigating the matter, and in 
 1627 and 1628 (Doc. Nos. 235 and 236), he calls upon 
 the GoA'ernor of Costa Rica for reports ; and Charles 11, 
 after having asked the xVudiencia of Guatemala for 
 further reports concerning the aggregation of the 
 Province of Costa Rica to that of Panama, declares in 
 Law 1, title 2, book V, of the RecopilacJon, that tlie 
 Government and Captaincy-General of Costa Rica shall 
 fonu part of the Audiencia of Guatemala, dependent 
 upon the Viceroyalty of New Spain (Mexico). 
 
 The foregoing clearly demonstrates that, after ma- 
 ture reflection and in harmony with its histor>', the 
 Province of Costa Rica was expressly recognized by 
 the Recopilacidn de Indias as such province and a 
 dependency of the Audiencia of Guatemala.
 
 rv^ 
 
 mTERPRETATION OF LAW 9, TITLE 1, BOOK 
 V, DECLARING THAT THE WHOLE OF THE 
 PROVINCE OF VERAGUA IS UNDER THE GOV- 
 ERNMENT OF TIERRA FIRME. 
 
 1. It is Not Possible to Refer to the Veragua of 1537, 
 as Constituting the Whole of Veragua. 
 
 Law 9, title 1, book V, of the Recopilacidn de Indias 
 (Doc. No. 135), begins by citing as its precedent the 
 Royal cedula issued by the Emperor at Valladolid on 
 March 2, 1537, which has for a caption: **Let the 
 Province of Veragua Belong to the Government of 
 Tierra Firme;" and its text contains the single order: 
 **Let the whole Province of Veragua belong to the gov- 
 ernment of Tierra Fimie." 
 
 This word ''whole," which does not figure in the 
 heading, and the above reference to the Royal cedula 
 of 1537, constitute the principal basis of Colombia's 
 argument in her effort to maintain that the Province 
 of Veragua to which the Recopilacidn de Indias refers 
 as subordinated to the Audiencia of Panama of the 
 Viceroyalty of Peru, comprised the whole of what was 
 Veragua in the purview of that Royal cedula. In her 
 argument Colombia seeks to make the law say, by its 
 citation and its text, that it restores things to the state 
 in which they were found in 1537 and therefore nulli- 
 fies everything that was done subsequently to that date. 
 
 We begin by making it clear that these citations of 
 cedulas and pragmdticas which are seen at the heads or 
 on the margins of the laws in the compilations, only 
 serve to indicate the origin or antecedents of the text,
 
 85 
 
 they form no part of the text. They have, therefore, 
 no virtue as precepts unless they are reproduced in 
 the text in which case their authority is revived. Still, 
 they always supply the historical explanation of the 
 respective laws, although not in every case as their 
 commentaries, since they may be complete negations 
 thereof. 
 
 The Royal cedula of Valladolid, of March 2, 1537, is 
 cited once at the beginning of this Law 9, title 1, book 
 V, relative to Veragua, and again at the beginning of 
 Law 4, title 15, book II (Doc. No. 106), which deals 
 with the Audiencia of Panama. Are there two cedulas 
 of the same date, or only one? If two, then the one 
 that is cited with reference to Veragua, could not be 
 the one which Colombia defends with so much earnest- 
 ness ; if there is but one, then, since it does not speak 
 of the Audiencia of Panama, the citation of Law 4 
 can be understood in no other sense than as the author- 
 ity for the formation of that audiencia. 
 
 It is impossible, therefore, to assert successfully that 
 by the mere fact of the citation of the Royal cedula of 
 March 2, 1537, by Law 9 it could re-enact that cedula 
 and abrogate everything that had been commanded 
 subsequently thereto ; that law cited the cedula as the 
 organic act of the Province of Veragua, just as another 
 law cited it as a precedent of the Audiencia of Panama. 
 
 Let it be observed, furthermore, that that invocation 
 of this Royal cedula by Colombia for the purpose of 
 showing that by virtue thereof the whole of Veragua 
 became a single province and belonged to the Govern- 
 ment of Tierra Firme, is from every point of view 
 contraproducentem. First, because this very Royal 
 cedula establishes the division of Veragua into two 
 parts, confirming the creation of the Dukedom of Ve-
 
 86 
 
 rafTua with its square of twenty-five leagues, and com- 
 manding that sueli hinds as might be left after taking 
 out these twenty-five leagues, should be subject to the 
 Government of Tierra Firme, called Castilla del Ore. 
 Second, because the dukedom granted to Don Luis 
 Columbus by the Royal cedula of January 19, 1537, 
 was expressly left subject to the jurisdiction of the 
 Audiencia of the Island of Espafiola. Therefore, when 
 the Province of Veragua was re-established in 1537, 
 the re-establishment did not involve the entirety of that 
 province but only that part which was left after segre- 
 gating the square of twenty-five leagues of the duke- 
 dom. 
 
 In order to defend the integrity of that Province of 
 Veragua which she has dreamed of as belonging to tho 
 Government of Tierra Firme, from Castilla del Oro 
 as far as Cape Gracias a Dios, Colombia must begin 
 by getting rid of the Royal cedula of 1537, and then 
 rely upon the dispositions which have abrogated it. 
 
 We have already seen how the primitive Veragua 
 was broken up, by virtue of its historical evolution 
 and the acts of the Sovereign, into three provinces, 
 each distinct fiom and independent of the other; the 
 Province of Veragua, properly so-called, and the only 
 one that kept this name, that of Costa Rica, and that 
 which began by calling itself Teguzgalpa. We have 
 seen, also, how from the birth of the Audiencia of the 
 Confines, or Guatemala, down to the time of the Re 
 copilacion, inclusive, the Province of Costa Rica be- 
 longed to it and to the Viceroyalty of New Spain, and 
 remained separated from the Government of Tierra 
 Firme w^hich depended upon the Viceroyalty of Peru. 
 We deem it unnecessary to insist further upon these
 
 87 
 
 propositions after the extended demonstration which 
 we have already made of them ; it will be sufficient* to 
 add this demonstration to the reasons stated, in order 
 to establish conclusively the fact that Law 9, title 15, 
 book V, cannot be interpreted in the sense of referring 
 to the Veragna of 1537 as embracing the whole of the 
 Province of Veragua. 
 
 2. Nor is the Hypothesis Admissible that Veragna is 
 a Major and Costa Rica a Minor Province. 
 
 Colombia defends herself in retreat, by referring the 
 totality of the Province of Veragua as of the year 1560 
 and seeking to construct the duality of the Govern- 
 ments of Veragua and Costa Rica, mentioned by the 
 Recopilacion, by distinguishing them as major and 
 minor provinces. 
 
 According to the opinion prepared by one of the 
 eminent counsel, the Royal cedula of July 18, 1560 
 (Doc. No. 39), reveals the fact that out of ancient 
 Veragua there had been formed two provinces, one a 
 large one which kept the tradition and the name of 
 Veragua, and the other a small one which was subject 
 to the jurisdiction of Nicaragua, this small one being 
 the province called Costa Rica. 
 
 In that very Royal cedula, the King specifically de- 
 clares the division of Veragua into two parts; that 
 entrusted to Francisco Vazquez, with which the Prov- 
 ince of Veragua was constituted and of which he was 
 afterwards appointed Governor and Captain-General ; 
 and the part confided by commission to Ortiz de El- 
 gueta, which his successors conquered and governed 
 under the name of Costa Rica and which reached as 
 far as the boundaries of the other.
 
 88 
 
 Not because it was indicated that the conquest would 
 be initiated on the side next to Nicova, or because Orti-i 
 was Alcalde mayor of the latter or because of the fact 
 that governors appointed for the fonuer were made 
 also governors of Nicaragua in order to facilitate tha 
 conquest, can it be maintained that Costa Rica was 
 reduced to the "little scrap" of which the Memoranda 
 of Colombia speak so disparagingly, or that Costa ,Rica 
 can be confused with Nicoya or Nicaragua. In our 
 opinion we have made sufficiently clear the nuxnner in 
 which the Province of Costa Rica was formed, from 
 the commission given to Ortiz de Elgueta and trans- 
 mitted to Cavallon, and it would seem to be unneces- 
 sary to return to that historical aspect. 
 
 On the other hand, the idea of a distinction into 
 major and minor provinces is not applicable, for ac 
 cording to Law 1, title 1, book V, of the Recopilacion 
 de Indias (Doc. No. 131), the designation of major is 
 only given to the districts of the audiencias, within 
 whicli were found the minor ones, such as the govern- 
 ments, alcaldia.s :naijor('s, etc., and Veragua never was 
 an audiencia, neither was Costa Rica. 
 
 But both were provinces, in the category of govern- 
 ments and captaincies-general, as they are expressly 
 considered by Law 1, title 2, book V, of the Recopila 
 cion. And as the salaries are in proportion to the 
 rank of the offices, and the latter with the character 
 or importance of the provinces, let us look into the 
 assignment of salaries made by this same law: Gov- 
 ernor and Captain-General of the Province of Costa 
 Rica, 2,000 ducats; Governor and Captain-General of 
 the Province of Veragua, 1,000 pesos ensayados; Gov- 
 ernor of Nicaragua, 1,000 ducats, and Alcalde mayor 
 of Nicoya, 200 ducats.
 
 K9 
 
 It will be noted that the salary of 2,000 ducats as- 
 signed to the Governor and Captain-General of Costa 
 Rica is the same that was provided for that office by 
 the Royal cedulas of 1573 and 1574, which constituted 
 the capitulac'wn and appointment of Diego de Arti- 
 eda— a new fact, by the way, in favor of its efficacy. And 
 if this salary be compared with the others mentionod, 
 how can it be imagined that the Government and Cap- 
 taincy-General of Costa Rica was of less importance 
 than that of Veragua, or that it could have been made 
 dependent upon, or, subordinated, to the mere Gov- 
 ermnent of Nicaragua or the Alcaldia mayor of Ni 
 coya? 
 
 Nor does the whole of the Province of Veragua to 
 which Law 9 alludes, constitute the whole of this sup- 
 posed major province of 1560, with the exception of 
 the "little scrap" {le petit lambeau) adhering to 
 Nicoya or Nicaragua. 
 
 3. Explanation of This Law, by Making it Refer to 
 the Province Emanating From the Dukedom. 
 
 In our opinion Law 9, title 1, book V, can only be 
 interpreted by construing it as referring to the Prov- 
 ince of Veragua into which the dukedom was converted, 
 because this interpretation is based on fact, on history, 
 on the reason for its being included in the Recopilacion 
 de Indias and on its harmony with other laws of the 
 same. 
 
 The only Province of Veragua in existence when the 
 Recopilacion was published, in 1680, w^as the one defi- 
 nitively constituted in 1560, proceeding from the sup- 
 pressed ducal seignory, and differing from the re- 
 mainder of the ancient Royal Veragua. This was
 
 90 
 
 called Costa Rica in the time of Sanchez de Badajoz 
 (1539) ; Cartago and Costa Rica in the time of Diego 
 Gutierrez (1540) ; Cartago or Xew Cartago and Costa 
 Rica in that of Cavallon (1561), and Costa Rica only 
 upon being constituted as a province on the occasion 
 of the appointment of Governor of Vazquez de Coro 
 Eudo (1565) ; the province retained that name after 
 the separation therefrom of Teguzgalpa when the gov- 
 ernment of Diego de Artieda was created (1573), and 
 until it ceased to be a Spanish province ; and it is not 
 to be imagined that, upon the publication of the Recopi- 
 lacion de Indias, its laws, could refer to any Pro\inces 
 of Veragua and Costa Rica other than those that then 
 existed, abandoning reality and going back over the 
 course of history in order to confuse them with the 
 primitive Veragua of the coast discovered by Colum- 
 bus, or of the ca pit ula clones with Nicuesa (1508), or 
 with Felipe Gutierrez (1534). 
 
 Colombia places a limit on this historical retrogres- 
 sion at March 2, 1537, and bases her arguments solely 
 upon the citation made in Law 9, giving to those cita- 
 tions which only indicate origins, a value they do not 
 possess ; but without noting that it was impossible to 
 revive the totality of the old Veragua by the enact- 
 ment of the Royal cedula of that date, since this Royal 
 cedula sanctioned its division into two parts: Royal 
 Veragua and Ducal Veragua. 
 
 It is just because this dicision was sanctioned in the 
 Royal cedula of March 2, 1537, that we can explain its 
 citation in Law 9, understanding that it mentions that 
 division as a historico-legal precedent of the Province 
 of Veragua, derived from the dukedom, which was 
 treated in the text, just as it also cited that cedula as
 
 91 
 
 an antecedent to tlie formation of the Audiencia of 
 Panama or Tierra Pirme. 
 
 Let til is citation be disregarded, as bein^ a mere 
 historical reference, and what remains to Colombia 
 wherewith to maintain that the Recopilacidn de Indias 
 abrogated everything subsequent to said Royal cedula? 
 The text of the law, far from enacting the Royal cedula, 
 differs therefrom as regards the argument of Colom- 
 bia, since it speaks of totality and not of division, as 
 does that cedula. 
 
 Why was such a text written into the Recopilacidn 
 de Indiasf For the purpose apparent in otlier similar 
 cases — that of explaining the territorial division and 
 settling the doubts that might be raised concerning the 
 respective jurisdictions. 
 
 Title 1, book V, which treats of *Hhe districts, divi- 
 sion and aggregation of the Governments," begins, in 
 its Law 1, by laying down the principle that governors 
 shall preserve the limits of their districts, continues 
 with the explanation of the dependency in which cer 
 tain audiencias are found in respect to the two vice- 
 royalties, and then defines the dependency of certain 
 governments with respect to the audiencias. 
 
 Because of the fact tliat the Audiencia of Panama 
 went through so many alterations, and was contiguous 
 with the Viceroyalty of New Spain and with other au- 
 diencias of the Viceroyalty of Peru, it was the one to 
 which the most attention was given, particularly with 
 reference to its Province of Tierra Firme. 
 
 Law 2 says (Doc. No. 132) : **The Province of TLerru 
 Firme belongs to the Government of Peru." And to 
 the end that there might be no doubt remainins:, by 
 reason of its having figured as a part of the Audiencia 
 of the Confines, Law 7 (Doc. No. 133) reproduces the
 
 92 
 
 Royal oc'dnla of 1550, saying that "* * * the Prov- 
 ince of Tierra Firme, called Castilla del Oro, shall 
 belong to the Provinces of Peru and not to those of 
 New Spain." 
 
 Law 8 (Doc. No. 134) thereupon indicates the eastern 
 limit on the north witli the Audiencia of Santa Fe, to 
 which the Province of Cartagena belonged, and de- 
 clared that the back portion of the Gulf of Uraba be- 
 longs to Tierra Firme. And finally, in order to fix 
 the western limit and banish all doubt of the fact, that, 
 according to Law 7, the Viceroyalty of Peru and Au- 
 diencia of Panama should terminate with Castilla del 
 Oro, Law 9 provides: *'* * * Let the whole Prov- 
 ince of Veragua belong to the Government of Tierra 
 Firme." 
 
 This Law, then, forms a harmonious whole \vith these 
 other laws of the same title, and responds to the same 
 idea that they do. x\nd it is in harmony also with 
 Law 1 of title 2 (Doc. No. 136), which follows there- 
 after, and includes the Province of Costa Rica in the 
 Audiencia of Guatemala and Viceroyalty of New Spain, 
 in conformity with the resolution taken by Charles II, 
 when the Recopilacion was published, after the long 
 proceedings which arose out of the plan to include that 
 province in the Audiencia of Panama. 
 
 There cannot, then, be tlie slightest doubt that the 
 Province of Veragua, to which Law 9 referred, was 
 that which arose out of the dukedom, and this is even 
 confirmed by the same citation of the Royal cedula of 
 1537, relative to the dukedom of which it was formed. 
 
 Dut if this is the simple and clear explanation of 
 IjUw 9, the heading of which says that the governmeni; 
 of tlie Province of Veragua belongs to Tierra Firme,
 
 03 
 
 how is the phicing of the word '* whole" at the begin- 
 ning of its text to be explained? 
 
 It may be redundancy, which is frequently made use 
 of to give more force to expression and to leave a 
 phrase more complete; but we think there were special 
 reasons for saying "the whole Province of Veragua." 
 
 The Law could not say *'the whole Dukedom of 
 Veragua," since it had been suppressed; neither could 
 it refer to the boundaries of the latter, because they 
 had not ))een actually traced ; nor were they in fact the 
 imaginarv boundaries mathematicallv fixed bv me rid- 
 ians and parallels. As to the contiguous provinces, they 
 had been altered in one way or another, and there were 
 also intermediate spaces which had been the object of 
 disputes, and others which at any moment might have 
 given rise to controversy. It is enough to remember that 
 from the meridian of the Belen river, the eastern boun- 
 dary of the dukedom, as far as Castilla del Oro, which 
 was fixed as the limit of the government of Felipe Gu- 
 tierrez (1534), there were territories which were not in- 
 cluded in the ducal demarcation ; that the demarcation 
 of Ortiz de Elgueta, Cavallon and Vazquez de Coronado 
 could lead to the belief that the boundaries of their 
 government reached as far as the line between Nombre 
 de Dios and Panama (1559-1565) ; and that the demar- 
 cation of Artieda (1573) fixed the limits of Costa liica 
 "as far as the Province of Veragua," making it com- 
 prise the Bocas del Drago on the north and the VaUeys 
 of Chiriqui on the south. 
 
 So that even if the Province of Veragua was formed 
 with the territory of the Dukedom of Veragua, it did 
 not coincide with its mathematical limits and it con- 
 tained parts which were not within their geometrical
 
 ^4 
 
 configuration. Ami il was in our judgment to avoid 
 doubt about the former dukedom, as well as to contirm 
 the solutions to doubts which had been raised regard- 
 ing the existence of the province, that the law said: 
 ''The whole of the Province of Veragua * * *," 
 which was equivalent to saj'ing, ' ' all that may be or is 
 the Province of Veragua," thus sanctioning its exist- 
 ence with the whole extension that it then had. 
 
 4. Case of Supposed Contradiction of This Law With 
 
 Others. 
 
 The result of the foregoing explanation is that Law 
 9, title 1, book V, is in perfect harmony with the other 
 laws of the Recopilacion de Indias; but if it be still 
 insisted that this law resuscitated the ancient Veragua 
 by re-enacting the Royal cedula of 1537 and abrogating 
 all provisions subsequent thereto, under which suppo- 
 sition that law would be found to be in contradiction 
 to others of the laws mentioned, we would suggest the 
 following to show how this contradiction might be 
 settled. 
 
 It is not unusual in the compilations to find laws which 
 are contradictoiy, because they have been collected 
 from different periods without due attention always to 
 comparing them, or because of the lack of antecedents 
 essential to their proper interpretation. So that, when 
 it is sought to settle conflicts between laws or parts of 
 a law in a certain compilation, which were originally 
 enacted at different dates, failing any other solution, 
 it may be taken as a rule that the earlier law shall be 
 considered as amended or abrogated by the later one, 
 as the case may be.
 
 95 
 
 Following this criterion, and supposing that Law 9, 
 title 1, book V, could have resuscitated tlie Government 
 of Tierra Firme of 1537 and included therein all Ve- 
 ragua, ducal and not ducal, that law must be considered 
 as abrogated by LaAv 7 of the same title; this is the 
 Eoyal cedula of 1550, according to which only Castilla 
 del Oro was incorporated into the Viceroyalty of Peru, 
 and all of Veragua was left in the Audiencia of the 
 Confines and Viceroyalty of New Spain. And although 
 the effort is made to negative the existence of tho 
 Province of Costa Rica by pointing out the omission 
 of its name in Law 6, title 15 of book II (Doc. No. 107), 
 and by saying that that law was enacted by Philip TV, 
 the reply is instantly forthcoming that the law was 
 modiiied by his successor, Carlos II, who decreed Law 
 1, title 2, book V (Doc. No. 136), which included the 
 Government and Captaincy-General of the ProA-ince of 
 Costa Rica in the Audiencia of Guatemala and Vice- 
 royalty of New Spain. 
 
 V. 
 
 VALIDITY OF THE ROYAL CEDULAS WHICH 
 ARE DEMARCATORY ACCORDING TO THE 
 RECOPILACION. 
 
 1. Principles Established by the Recopilacion in Re- 
 gard to the Validity of the RoyaJ Cedulas Prior and 
 Subsequent Thereto. 
 
 Counsel for Coloni])ia assume that the rights of 
 Costa Rica are supported only by Royal cedulas, and 
 then deny that those cedulas possess any legal force, 
 on the ground that the Becopilacion de Indias rendered 
 them whoUv innocuous.
 
 96 
 
 But it is not a fact, as we have already indicated in 
 speaking of the Recopilacion in general, that the latter 
 abrogated all the prior dispositions. The Royal cedula 
 of May 18, 1680, which authorized the publication of 
 that code and prefaced it, says: ''* * * leaving in 
 force and effect the Cedulas and Ordinances given to 
 our Royal Audiencias, in so far as they are not con- 
 trary- to the Laws herein." 
 
 Law 1, title 1, book II (Doc. No. 92), provides that 
 whenever the necessity may arise for making new laws 
 reports shall be made to the Council of the Indies and 
 it declares that the ordinances enacted for cities and 
 communities, as well as those made for the welfare of 
 the Indians and for good administration, shall continue 
 without alteration, provided they be not contrary to 
 the laws. And Law 2, of the same title and book (Doc. 
 No. 93), directs that in matters not covered by the 
 laws of the Recopilacion **or by Cedulas, Provisiones 
 or Ordinances issued for the Indies and not revoked, 
 or by those which are pronmlgated by our order," the 
 laws of Castile shall be enforced. 
 
 By Law 2, title 2, book II (Doc. No. 94), the Council 
 of the Indies is given supreme jurisdiction of all the 
 western Indies, and empowered it to "make, with our 
 advice, the general and special Laws, Pragmatics, 
 Ordinances and Provisiones * * * ;" and the Coun- 
 cil is further instructed that those '** * * provi- 
 sions and comnumds shall be in everything and by 
 everybody complied with and obeyed in all places." 
 
 In this way the Recopilacion de hidias laid down 
 these principles : First, that Royal cedulas which are 
 not in contradiction to its laws shall continue in force ; 
 and second, that all Royal cedulas thereafter issued
 
 97 
 
 should attain to the dignity of Laws, if enacted by th^» 
 Council of the Indies, by and with the advice of the 
 King. 
 
 2. Legality of Territorial Division and the Bound- 
 aries of Districts. 
 
 This is perfectly well settled by two laws decreed 
 
 by the very authors of the Recopilacion de Indias. 
 
 Law 1, title 15, book II, of Philip IV (Doc. No. 105), 
 after explaining how all the discoveries of the Indies 
 
 were divided into twelve audiencias, the districts of 
 Avhich were subdivided into governments, corregimien- 
 tos and alcaldias may ores, which were subordinate to 
 those audiencias, and ''* * * all to our Supreme 
 Council of the Indies, which represents our Royal Per 
 son, ' ' says : " * * * We establish and command, 
 that now and until We otherwise order, the said twelve 
 Audiencias shall be retained, and that within the dis- 
 trict of each one the Governments, Corregimientos and 
 Alcaldias Mayores which they now have shall be pre 
 served, and that no change he made therein, without 
 our express order or that of our said Council." Then 
 follow the laws making tlie demarcation of audiencias. 
 
 Law 1, title 15, book II, of Philip IV (Doc. No. 105), 
 after setting forth the advantages of the differentia- 
 tion of the districts and territories, says: '*We order 
 and command the Viceroys, Audiencias, Governors, 
 Corregidores and Alcaldes mayores to keep and ob- 
 serve the limits of their jurisdictions, as they may be 
 fixed by the Laics of this book, the Titles of their of- 
 fices, the Provisiones of the superior Government of 
 the provinces, or by use and custom legitimately intro- 
 duced." Then follow the laws designating the dis-
 
 98 
 
 tricts of various governments, among which are found 
 those of the Audiencia of Panama. 
 
 So, then, the RecopUacion de Indius recognized the 
 existing legality of tlie demarcations at the moment it 
 was published; and it not only recognized it, but it 
 contirmed it, in so far as it was not in contradiction 
 with its laws, and even prohibited any change therein 
 without express order of the King or of the Council of 
 the Indies. 
 
 These provisions relating to territorial division were 
 in accord with the general provisions concerning the 
 vahie of Royal cedulas prior and subsequent to the 
 Becopilaciou, and they all sanction the validity of the 
 Royal cedulas that established boundaries. Enact- 
 me7its prior to the Bccopilacion, continued in force not 
 only by reason of being Royal cedulas which did not 
 eoiilradict that code, but because they established the 
 statu f: quo of territorial division; those that were is- 
 sued afterAvards were required to be by the express 
 order of the King or the Council of the Indies, in order 
 to modify the demarcations existing in 1680. 
 
 The only condition that qualified the efficacy of the 
 Roval cedulas demarcatorv of boundaries, and deter- 
 mining the legal status of 1680, was that they should 
 not be in contradiction to what was provided by th.» 
 laws contained in the RecopUacion. But as these laws 
 only indicated in a general way the boundaries of the 
 audiencias and solved various doubts concerning thj 
 inclusion of certain provinces therein, the Royal de 
 marcatory cedulas which specified those boundaries 
 and indicated those of the governments — without being 
 opposed to the general demarcation — beside being 
 valid, had the importance of being complementary to 
 the Recopilacioti itself.
 
 99 
 
 3. Special Consideration of the Capitulaciones. 
 
 The Royal cedulas ai)provin<]: the capitulaciones for 
 the discovery and settlement of territories, being Royal 
 cedulas which were not opposed to the laws of the 
 RccopUacion, and having produced the legal status of 
 the demarcations, unite the conditions requisite to their 
 validity and efficacy in the matter of territorial divi- 
 sion ; they disregard the personal aspect of those 
 capitulaciones and consider them in their character as 
 demarcatory orders. But Counsel for Colombia only 
 see in them a contract, of no consequence in public 
 law; we are therefore impelled to a special considera- 
 tion of the subject. 
 
 {a) Juridical Character of the Capitulaciones. 
 
 Counsel for Colombia say : 
 
 *'The jurisdictional demarcations, the deter 
 mination of territories submitted to Viceroys, 
 Governors or Audiencias, were never made by 
 means of capitulaciones or contracts between 
 the State and private individuals, but by Royal 
 cedulas, Royal orders, acts of Public Authority 
 and of the sovereignty of a unilateral character, 
 such as the exercise of dominion over the terri- 
 torv of the Nation." 
 
 And, generalizing the question, they add : 
 
 '*It is a principle of Public Law, inherent in 
 the very essence of the sovereignly of the State, 
 that the territorial division shall be a matte/ 
 submitted directly to the decision of The sov 
 ereign. When the sovereignty is exercised over 
 the national territory, it is manifested l)y acts
 
 100 
 
 of Public Authority, in conformity with the con- 
 stitution of each State * * *, but to no one 
 aciiuaintcd with the law would it occur that the 
 concessions of the State to its subjects for the 
 exploitation of territories or regions, their cul 
 tivation or their administration under this or 
 that form, implied changes in the political and 
 civil jurisdiction." 
 
 In the lirst place, it may be said, in reply to these 
 assertions, that a capitulacion presents two aspects : 
 One of vcrson<il interest, that of the individual in 
 whose favor i1 was granted, and the other one of 
 publif interest, that of the discovery, the colonization 
 and administration of the territory designated — a 
 duality in aspect which also characterized the titles 
 of appointment to governorships. The personal aspect 
 disappeared with the individual or the one who held 
 the granted right ; tlie public aspect persisted, the ter- 
 ritorial entity beinu" left with the boundaries imposed 
 upon tlie contracting party or governor, as long as 
 these limits were not changed by any subsequent pro 
 vision. 
 
 Considering the capitulacion as a compact, it was in 
 effect a bilateral act, which produced reciprocal obliga- 
 tions l>etween an individual and the Crown. But prior 
 to the contract and above its capacity as a contract, 
 it had the character of a unilateral act of sovereignty, 
 since })y iiiaking use of it the Monarch provided this 
 mode of discovering, colonizing and administering a 
 certain territory that he marked out, approved the 
 capitulacion by Royal cedula, and when its term ended, 
 he appointed within that demarcation another person 
 to continue its administration. Thus were formed the 
 different territorial demarcations which, under the
 
 101 
 
 names of governments, corregimientos and alcaldias, 
 went to fill out or complete the general demarcations 
 of the audiencias, under a regime of territorial division 
 established by the Sovereign. The boundaries pre- 
 scribed in the capitulaciones were the boundaries of 
 governments, and the boundaries of the government^ 
 were respected and confirmed by the Recopilacion. 
 
 Even considering the capitulaciones as contracts, 
 they can never be compared with those of private law; 
 they must come under the category of contracts foi* 
 pul)lic works and services or of administrative con- 
 cessions. It is by the use of its sovereignty, and in no 
 sense by abdicating it, that the State undertakes in 
 this manner to perform services and works or to utilize 
 the public domain ; and in doing so, it imposes as con- 
 ditions those which belong to the nature of the con- 
 cession, work or service. The boundaries of the land 
 designated to the contracting party or the concession 
 aire subsist for the State as long as it does not modify 
 them. Who doubts, for example, when a railway line 
 granted to a corporation reverts to the State, that it 
 will have the same delimitation that it had previously? 
 
 Neither can there be any successful comparison be 
 tween capitulaciones and such administrative acts; 
 these taken altogether constitute a system of coloniz- 
 ation and government which Spain employed in her ex- 
 ploration, settlement, pacification and government of 
 those vast territories — a system responding to needs 
 that are not felt in countries completely formed to 
 which a law of territorial division is given. 
 
 The Recopilacion de Indias recognized and confirmed 
 the result of this system which had been employed, that 
 is to say, the status quo of the demarcations that liad
 
 102 
 
 been made at the time it was published; and far from 
 disregarding the c a pit ula clones it takes them up es- 
 pecially in its book IV, and gives to them the charac- 
 teristics of a most singular institution of Public Law, 
 based on the sovereignty. 
 
 (/;) The Capitulaciones in the Light of Book IV of the 
 
 Recopilacion. 
 
 Title 1, of book IV treats of "the discoveries" in 
 general, and lays down the principle that no discovery 
 or settlement may be made at the expense of the King, 
 unless the latter expressly authorizes it (Law 17; Doc. 
 No. 115). 
 
 It provides how the discoveries are to be granted; 
 no new grants were to be made unless the prior ones 
 should have been carried out and unless the King 
 should be consulted ; those to whom the right to make 
 such discoveries had been granted were to qualify as 
 men in whom reliance could be placed; and the con- 
 tracting parties were to be required to observe the 
 laws and instinictions, to give an account of their work 
 and to keep within the boundaries indicated; in the 
 event of any doubt or question concerning the bounda- 
 ries established by the capitulaciones they were to be 
 determined by the respective audiencia, and in case 
 two audiencias should be interested in the same matter 
 and fail to agree, then the matter was to be determined 
 by the Council of the Indies (Laws 1, 2, 4, 11 and 14; 
 Doc. Nos. 108, 109, 110, 113 and 114). 
 
 It directs that in all capitulaciones the word "con 
 quest'* should be omitted and that "pacification and 
 settlement" be used instead (Law 6; Doc. No. Ill),
 
 103 
 
 and authorizes the explorers to give names to the terri 
 tories, rivers and mountains they might discover and 
 to the cities they might establish (Law 8; Doc. No 
 112). 
 
 Title 2 concerns itself with discoveries by sea; it 
 requires special permission to undertake them (Law 1 ; 
 Doc. No. 117) ; it imposes the condition of providing 
 at least two ships (Law 2; Doc. No. 118) ; and cautions 
 the explorer that in making a landing upon any terri- 
 tory he must take possession in the name of the King 
 (Lawll;Doc. No. 119). 
 
 Title 3 treats of discoveries by land; it directs that 
 an inquest be taken before making the capitulaciones 
 (Law 1; Doc. No. 120) and fixes the powers of those 
 who enter into them. Among these are the power to 
 appoint judges in the territory delimited, which in- 
 cludes the right to dismiss therefrom those who were 
 already there, the power to divide this territory into 
 districts, to appoint alcaldes therein, to make ordi- 
 nances for its proper administration, etc. (Laws 13, 
 16 and 17; Doc. Nos. 123, 125 and 126). 
 
 Both in this title, and in the three that follow, which 
 speak of the pacifications of the settlements, and of 
 the explorers, pacificators and settlers, various rights 
 are stated as pertaining to the holders of capitula- 
 ciones, such as the erection of forts, the establishment 
 of cities, the exercise of jurisdiction during their lives 
 and its transmission to their heirs, the holding of the 
 title of alcalde mayor, if their territory borders with 
 that of viceroys or audiencias, and even that of Mar 
 quis if it were an Adelantado. 
 
 The Crown imposed obligations and restrictions 
 upon them in connection with the settlement and paci-
 
 104 
 
 fication of the country; Law 8, title 4 (Doc. No. 129), 
 for example, prohibited the discoverers from making 
 war on the Indians unless absolutely necessary, or 
 doing any other harm or injury, or taking anything 
 from them without pa>^nent therefor. 
 
 All of this shows very clearly the very special nature 
 of the capitidaciones, which were a real institution of 
 public law, under the shelter of which were formed 
 the provinces and their districts. The boundaries fixed 
 by the Council of the Indies in the capitulaciones grant- 
 ed by the King and placed under the protection of the 
 audiencias, were also, therefore, boundaries of pub- 
 lic law. 
 
 Law 7, title 7 (Doc. No. 130), provides that ''* * * 
 the district and territory which may be granted by 
 capitulacion for settlement," shall be allotted by first 
 holding out the town plots, commons and pasture lands 
 for the public, and then separating the remainder into 
 four parts, one for the founder and the other three 
 parts for equal division among the settlers. The de- 
 marcation thus made, it created rights in favor of the 
 settlement which were not extinguished with the dis- 
 appearance of the founder. 
 
 And, finally, the Recopilacion declared the capitula- 
 ciones to be in force provided they were not opposed 
 to it (Law 18, title 1, book IV; Doc. No. 116), as 
 follows : 
 
 "We order and command that all discoveries 
 and pacifications, and all capitulaciones and writ- 
 ings which may have been made concerning 
 them, are to be suspended if they are or may be 
 in contravention of the Laws of this book; and 
 that in all which may be made these Laws shall 
 be observed and executed, without exceeding in 
 whole or in part."
 
 105 
 
 (c) Capitulaciones Originating the Promnces of Ve- 
 ragua and Costa Rica. 
 
 By virtue of such capitulaciones the Provinces of 
 Veragua and Costa Rica began to take legal form 
 according to the general system of that period. 
 
 The Dukedom of Veragua had its birth, in 1536, 
 under the arbitral settlement of a suit growing out of 
 the capitulaciones made with Christopher Columbus in 
 1492. When the dukedom was suppressed by agree- 
 ment of Don Luis Columbus with the Council of the 
 Indies, in 1556, its territory was granted by capitula 
 don to Francisco Vazquez, who was thereunto author- 
 ized by the Royal cedula of 1557 ; and Philip II erected 
 it into a province when he appointed this same Fran- 
 cisco Vazquez as Governor and Captain-General by 
 Royal cedula of August 20, 1560. 
 
 Ancient Veragua having been divided into two parts 
 by the Royal cedula of March 2, 1537, in consequence 
 of the creation of the dukedom, the King disposed of 
 the remaining part by giving it to Diego Gutierrez in 
 the capitulacion and Royal cedula of November 29, 
 1540; that instrument fixed as the eastern boundary 
 the meridian that passed along the end of the twenty- 
 tive leagues of the dukedom, starting from the meridian 
 of the Belen river. If Colombia denies this Royal 
 cedula and goes back to that of 1537, she must recog- 
 nize that the remaining part to which this latter re- 
 ferred was the demarcation given by capitulacion to 
 Felipe Gutierrez in 1534 and then existing; according 
 to this demarcation the territory that later was to 
 become Costa Rica, reached as far as the limits of Cas- 
 tilla del Oro, which had been given to Pedrarias Davila
 
 106 
 
 aud Pedro de los Rios, subject to the rights of Co 
 lumbus. 
 
 The personal rights of Diego Gutierrez in the capit- 
 ulacion of 1540 having been extinguished, the explora- 
 tion and settlement of Costa Rica was made by order 
 of the King ivithout capitidaciones, but under the com- 
 mission given to Ortiz de Elgueta ; and the province of 
 that name was constituted in the form of a government 
 and captaincy-general when Vazquez de Coronado was 
 appointed to fill those offices in 1565. The capitulaci/m 
 of Artieda, of December 1, 1573, separated the northern 
 part, with which the Province of Teguzgalpa was 
 formed later on by the capitulacion of Diego Lopez of 
 1576, and it left the Province of Costa Eica definitively 
 bounded. 
 
 It is important to note that the capitulaciones of 
 Diego Gutierrez, of 1540, and of Artieda, of 1573, were 
 approved directly by the King in Royal cedulas and by 
 accord with the Council of the Indies, thus combining 
 all the requisites which the Recopilacion de Indias de- 
 mands for their validity and continuance in force. 
 
 It cannot be said that these capitulaciones expired 
 with the death of the persons with whom they were 
 made, for the demarcations made by the King always 
 remained and the boundaries fixed by them were those 
 that limited the jurisdiction of the governors who wer^ 
 afterwards appointed, those preserved by the superior 
 authorities in maintaining such governors in their 
 rights, and those sanctioned by use and custom — those 
 in fact which the Recopilacion commands to be re- 
 sy)ected and kept, as stated in Law 1, title 1, book V 
 (Doc. No. 131). 
 
 For the reasons above stated, in all the boundary 
 questions of the Spanish-American Republics, the
 
 107 
 
 \'a]iie of capihdaciones has been recognized as decisive 
 of tcrritoria] divisions; the extinction of the rights of 
 the holders produced no effects on those divisions. 
 This has been demonstrated in the controversies and 
 litigations between Colombia and Venezuela, Peru and 
 Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador, Chile and Argentina, Ar- 
 gentina and Brazil, etc. 
 
 In the boundary question between Honduras and 
 Nicaragua, which was decided by the King of Spain in 
 1906, the very same counsel who defended Colombia, 
 against Costa Rica not only recognized the value of 
 capi tula Clones, but they invoked those here cited in 
 sup])ort of the rights they were then defending, as we 
 have heretofore stated; Sefior Maura for instance, said 
 in defense of Nicaragua, that the Diego Gutierrez ca- 
 pitulacion of 1540 defined the eastern limit of Honduras 
 and that the Artieda capitulacion of 1573 clearly dis- 
 tinguished Costa Rica from Nicaragua; and Sefior Sil- 
 vela, in defending Honduras, asserted that this capitu- 
 lacion with Artieda definitively fixed the limits of 
 Costa Rica. 
 
 4. Unilateral Acts of the Crown in the Unquestionable 
 Exercise of Sovereignty, and Titles of the Gover- 
 nors; Final Deductions. 
 
 Although the Royal cedulas approving the capitu- 
 laciones Avere acts of pure sovereignty, as we have dem- 
 onstrated, it is important to remember that the Crown 
 constituted the Provinces of Veragua and Costa 
 Rica by unilateral acts of unquestionable sovereign 
 power. 
 
 Philip II, by himself and without contracting with 
 anyone, marked out the Pro\dnce of Costa Rica in the
 
 108 
 
 directions given by Royal cedulas of December 13, 
 1559, and February 23, 1560, to Ortiz de Elgueta, who 
 was to explore, settle and govern it; and he trans- 
 mitted this commission to the Licentiate Cavallon in 
 the sam^i tenns by Royal cedula of February 28, 1561, 
 in which ho charged the Audiencia of the Confines that, 
 if Cavallon did not accept, it should appoint a judge or 
 some other person to carry it out. The boundaries 
 given to Ortiz de Elgueta and to Cavallon were the 
 same as those stated in the appointment of Vazquez 
 de Corona do as Governor of Costa Rica by Royal 
 cedula of August 7, 1565. 
 
 Colombia will not be able to deny that these Royal 
 cedulas were unilateral acts of the Crown, expressions 
 of the purest sovereignty; indeed, were they preferred 
 to the capitulacion of Artioda it becomes evident that 
 Costa Rica could be understood as reaching as far as 
 the cities of Nombre de Dios and Panama. 
 
 The Royal cedulas in which audiencias were created 
 and suppres'=;od, in which Costa Rico was declared to 
 be included in the Audiencia of the Confines, or Guate- 
 mala, and by which, through that audiencia, questions 
 were determined relating to its administration — all 
 these were also acts involving the unquestionable ex- 
 ercise of sovereignty; and particularly in that category 
 were the cedulas making appointments of governors. 
 
 The titles issued to governors are of very great im- 
 portance in this connection, and for two reasons: as 
 Royal cedulas confinnatory of the demarcation made 
 in the capitulaciones, and as means of proof expressly 
 recognized by the RecopUacion in the matter of bound- 
 aries. 
 
 Let us remember that under Law 1, title 1, book V, 
 the audiencias, governors and other authorities, must
 
 109 
 
 keep the boundaries of their jurisdictions, "as they 
 may be fixed by Laws of this Book, the Titles of their 
 offices, etc.," the Titles of the Offices taking therefore 
 the first place, as matter of proof, immediately after 
 the laws; and we will now enumerate the titles of the 
 offices of the Government of Costa Rica, from the time 
 that the distinction was initiated in Veragua (Royal 
 and Ducal), confining ourselves simply to the princi- 
 pal ones and their enumeration only, since their history 
 has been fully written. 
 
 1. Title of Governor granted to Felipe Gutierrez, 
 by Royal cedula of February 6, 1536 (Doc. No. 9) in 
 consequence of the approval of his capitulacion of 
 1534; by that instrument there was placed under his 
 administration the whole territory, subject to the 
 rights of Columbus, as far as Castilla del Oro, the 
 boundaries of which were those assigned to Pedrarias 
 Davila and Pedro de los Rios. 
 
 2. Title of Governor granted to Diego Gutierrez, by 
 Royal cedula of December 16, 1540 (Doc. No. 19), in 
 consequence of the approval of his capitulacion of 
 November 29, giving him the administration of the 
 Province of Cartago, from the Rio Grande west of 
 Cape Camaron as far as the limit of the dukedom, 
 where terminate the twenty-five leagues granted to 
 Columbus, starting from the meridian of the Belen 
 river. 
 
 3. Royal cedulas of January 11, 1541 (Doc. No. 20), 
 directing that these limits be respected and observed 
 by all the governors of the Indies. 
 
 4. Title of Governor granted to Juan Vazquez de 
 Coronado, by Royal cedula of April 8, 1565 (Doc. No. 
 52), without capitulacion, giving to him the administra-
 
 110 
 
 tion of the Province aud territory of Costa Rica, with 
 all its jurisdiction. 
 
 5. Royal Cedula of August 7, 1565 (Doc. No. 54), 
 directed to the same Vazquez de Corouado, Governor 
 and Adelantado of the Province of Costa Rica, de- 
 claring that this province comprised the territory from 
 Honduras and Nicaragua *'* * * on the side of the 
 cities of Nombre de Dios and Panama, between the 
 South Sea and that of the North," in the same terms 
 in which the demarcation assigned to Ortiz de Elgueta 
 was fixed. 
 
 6. Title of Governor granted to Perafau de Ribera. 
 by Royal cedula of July 19, 1566 (Doc. No. 56), with- 
 out eapitulacion, giving to him the administration of 
 the Province of Costa Rica, " * * * in the matters 
 which it has been customary for the Governors who 
 have been up to this time in the said province to con- 
 duct." 
 
 7. Title of Governor and Captain-General granted 
 to Diego de Artieda, by Royal cedula of February 18, 
 1574 (Doc. No. 63), in conformity with that of De- 
 cember 1, 1573, approving his eapitulacion and giving 
 to him the Government and Captaincy-General of the 
 Province of Costa Rica, which it says extends from 
 the Desaguadero as far as the Province of Veragua, 
 including in Costa Rica the Valleys of Chiriqui on the 
 south and the Bocas del Drago on the north. The 
 latter denomination embraced the Bay of Almirante 
 and the Lagoon of Chiriqui, in which region he was 
 directed to establish a city, this he did, giving to the 
 city the name of Artieda. 
 
 8. Royal cedula of December 29, 1593 (Doc. No. 70), 
 o-iving the government of the Province of Costa Rica,
 
 Ill 
 
 with rapiiulacion, to Don PeriiaTido dc la Cuova. 
 " * * * as it was held by Die.ofo de A rtieda C^ii rino. ' ' 
 
 'rh(- province having hetm bounded d<^finitively by 
 the Royal cedulas of 1573 and 1574, the ai)|)ointinents 
 of governors subs<'quent to Ai-tieda and Ciieva were 
 conferred with like jurisdiction. We have seen how 
 the Audieneia of Guatemala filled those offices ad in- 
 terim and now we will add that the Crown continued 
 to exercise its rights to appoint their proprietors. 
 
 In fact, after Cueva, the Crown did appoint, as Gov- 
 ernors and Captains-General of this Province of Costa 
 Rica, Juan de Ocon y Trillo, in 1603; Juan de Men- 
 doza, in 1612; Alonso del Castillo, in 1618; Juan de 
 Echauz, in 1622; Juan de Villalta, in 1629; Gregorio 
 de Sandoval, in 1634; Juan de Chaves, in 1644; Juan 
 Fernandez Salinas, in 1650; Andres Arias Maldonado, 
 in 1655; Juan Lopez de la Flor, in 1663; Juan Fran- 
 cisco Saenz, in 1673, and Miguel Gomez de Lara, on 
 August 7, 1680 — that is, two months after the Royal 
 cedula which sanctioned the Recopilacion (May 18, 
 1680). 
 
 In the titles of these appointments no boundaries 
 were assigned to these Governors and Captains-Gen- 
 eral of Costa Rica that were distinct from those estab- 
 lished by the demarcation of Artieda. And if the 
 Monarch who published the Recopilacion de Imlias 
 recognized in that code the existence of the Govern- 
 ment and Captaincy-General of Costa Rica and di- 
 rected that the boundaries stated in the Titles of the 
 Governors must be respected, is the same one who 
 a])pointed Governors and Captains-General of Costa 
 Rica (Saenz and Lara), before and after sanctioning 
 it, without modifying the traditional boundaries clearly
 
 112 
 
 established in prior titles, counsel for Colombia show 
 inueh temerity in disregarding not only the boundaries 
 mentioned, but the very existence ev^en of that prov- 
 ince. 
 
 Let us conclude, then, by afSrming that the Recopi- 
 hcion de Indias respected and confirmed tlie existence 
 of the Province of Costa Rica, with the demarcation 
 established by the Royal cedulas of December 1, 1573, 
 and February 18, 1574.
 
 U3 
 
 PART THIRD 
 
 Cotta Rica Continued in the Same Legal Status 
 of Dif f erentation From Veragua From the Recopila- 
 cion Down to the Independence. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 I. From the Recopilacion (1680) to 1803. 
 
 1. Creation of the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe and Vi- 
 
 cissitudes of the Audiencia of Panama, Un- 
 til Tts Suppression (1717 to 1751). 
 
 2. The Province of Veragua Passed Into Depend- 
 
 ence Upon the Viceroyalty and Audiencia of 
 Santa Pe; ( Vsta Rica Continued Dependent 
 Upon the Audiencia of Guatemala of the 
 Viceroyalty of Mexico. 
 
 3. The Grown Continued to Appoint Governors and 
 
 Captains-General of the Province of Costa 
 Rica. 
 
 4. Boundaries of the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe With 
 
 Costa Rica as a Province of the Audiencia 
 of Guatemala and Bordering Thereon: 
 
 (a) Antecedents; 
 
 (b) Description of the Kingdom of Tierra Firme 
 
 by the Comandante general of Panama, Don 
 Antonio Guill, in 1760; 
 
 (c) Description of the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe by 
 
 its Viceroy, the Marquis de la Vega de 
 Armijo, in 1772;
 
 114 
 
 (d) Report of the Governor of V'eragua, Don 
 
 Felix Francisco Bejarano, in 1775; 
 
 (e) Description of the Vicero^-alty of Santa Fe, 
 
 of Tierra Firme and of Veragua, by the 
 Missionary Sobreviela, in 1796; 
 
 (f) Official Communication of the Governor of the 
 
 Islands of San Andres, in 1802; and 
 Resume. 
 
 II. The Royal Order of November 20, 1803, Referring 
 
 to the Mosquito Coast. 
 
 1. Antecedents, Formation and Text of the Order. 
 
 2. That Order Was Not Applicable to Costa Rica. 
 
 Because What Was Called the Mosquito 
 Coast Ended Before That Province Began. 
 
 3. Militar)^ and Transitory Character of This Royal 
 
 Order. 
 
 4. The Order Could Not Change the Laws of Terri- 
 
 torial Division. 
 
 5. The Inefficacy and Al)rogations of This Royal 
 
 Order. 
 
 III. Last Years of the Spanish Sovereignty. 
 
 1. First Period of the Constitutional Regime in 
 Spain ; 
 
 (a) General Organic Provisions; 
 
 (b) Continuation of the Dependency of the North- 
 
 ern Coast of Costa Rica Upon the Govern- 
 ment of That Province; 
 
 (c) Description of the Province of Costa Rica in 
 
 the Proposal Made by Its Deputy in the 
 Cortes For the Creation of a Bishopric.
 
 as 
 
 2. Absolute Government of Fernando VII. 
 8. Sooond Constitutional Period. 
 
 IV. The Independence and the "Uti Possidetis." 
 
 1 . rnde])eudenc'e of tlio Provinces of Guatemala and 
 
 of New Granada. 
 
 2. The Principle of Colonial "Uti Possidetis/' 
 
 3. Application of This Principle. 
 
 I. 
 
 FRQM THE RECOPILACION (1680) TO 1803. 
 
 1. Creation of the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe and Vicis- 
 situdes of the Audiencia of Panama, Until Its Sup- 
 pression (1717 to 1751). 
 
 In the XVIIIth century the territorial division es- 
 tablished by the Recopilacion de Itidias was modified, 
 by the creation of two more viceroyalties, that of Santa 
 Fe and that of Buenos Aires. 
 
 The Viceroyalty of Santa Fe, or of New Granada, 
 was created by decree of the King" and Royal cedula 
 of May 27, 1717 (Doc. No. 155), recasting in the Audi- 
 encia of Santa Fe the Audiencias of Panama and Quito, 
 all of which depended upon the Viceroyalty of Peru, 
 and adding the Cotnandancia of Caracas, which be- 
 longed to the Audiencia of Santo Domingo. There was 
 placed at the head of this new circumscription a vice- 
 roy, who was to loside in the city of Santa Fe and who 
 should be Governor, Captain-General and President 
 of the Audiencia of that name, *'* * * in the same
 
 lib 
 
 manner as are those ol* I'ti u and New Spain, and with 
 the same powers." 
 
 This viceroyalty, not having produced the results 
 expected of it, was suppressed a few years later, in 
 1723, and the Audiencia of Panama, which had been 
 suppressed when it was formed, was re-established in 
 the latter year. 
 
 But in view of the claims of New Granada and of 
 what was proposed by the Council of the Indies, the 
 King provided for the re-establishment of the vice- 
 royalty, by Royal cedula of August 20, 1739 (Doc. No. 
 163), which reads as follows: 
 
 "I have resolved to esta])lish anew the Vice 
 royalty of the New Kingdom of Granada ami 
 have appointed therofor the Lieutenant-General 
 Don Sebastian de Eslava * * *^ being also 
 President of my Royal Audiencia of the city of 
 Santa Fe in said New Kingdom of Granada and 
 Governor and Captain-General of the jurisdic- 
 tion thereof and provinces that have been added 
 thereto, which are: that of Panama with the ter- 
 ritory of its Captaincy-General and Audiencia. 
 that is to say those of Portohelo, Veragua and 
 Darien; those of Choco, Kingdom of Quito, Po- 
 payan and Guayaquil * * * the Audiencias 
 of Panama and Quito to continue and subsist 
 as they are, with the same subordination and 
 dependency from this Viceroy as the others have 
 that are subordinated to the Viceroyalties of 
 Peru and Mexico, with regard to their respec- 
 tive Viceroys." 
 
 Within the new viceroyalty and under the depend- 
 ency of its viceroy, he established three Comandancias 
 generales: those of Panama, Cartagena and Caracas.
 
 117 
 
 The Audiencia of Panama, then, passed from the 
 Viceroyalty of Peru to that of Santa Fe. But it was 
 suppressed later on, by the Royal cedula of July 17, 
 1751 (Doc. No. 168), because of the small amount of 
 business it was called upon to transact, tho many con- 
 flicts it produced and the decadence of its provinces. 
 The Kinp: directed that all the political and military 
 matters of the Citv of Ptmama and KiuG^dom of Ticrra 
 Firmo should be left in charge of a goveraor and lieu- 
 tenant-general ''upon the same footing as the Gover- 
 nors of Cartagena and Veracruz serve," under the 
 jurisdiction of the Audiencia of Santa Fe. 
 
 2. The Province of Veragua Passed Into Dependence 
 Upon the Viceroyalty and Audiencia of Santa Fe; 
 Costa Rica Continued Dependent Upon the Au- 
 dencia of Guatemala of the Viceroyalty of Mexico. 
 
 The Viceroyalty of Santa Fe having been created 
 and the Audiencia of Panama suppressed, the Province 
 of Veragua passed, together with that of Tierra Firme, 
 Portobelo and Darien, as the said Royal cedula of 1739 
 expressly states, into dependence upon the Viceroyalty 
 and Audiencia of Santa Fe, or upon the New Kingdom 
 of Granada, and so remained until the independence. 
 
 On the other hand the Province of Costa Rica, which, 
 from the creation of the Audiencia of the Confines, or 
 Guatemala, formed part of it, continued to depend 
 upon the Audiencia and Captaincy-General of Guate- 
 mala, of the Viceroyalty of New Spain (Mexico), until 
 its colonial emancipation. 
 
 This is clearly shown by the fact that the Audiencia 
 of Guatemala continued, as it did before the Re-
 
 118 
 
 copilacion de Indias, to act, in all the affairs of Costa 
 Rica, as the superior of its governors and to receive 
 the communications and orders of the King for their 
 discharge, as appears from the numerous cases cited 
 in the documents submitted in this litigation. 
 
 And this is corroborated by the fact that the Audi- 
 encia of Guatemala constantly filled the offices of gov- 
 ernor and captain-general of Costa Rica, ad interim, 
 until the Crown made the api)ointments. It was in 
 this temporary fashion that the Audiencia of Guate- 
 mala appointed, as Governors and Captains-General 
 of Costa Rica, Diego de Herrera Campuzano (1704), 
 Jose iVntonio Lacayo de Briones (1712), Pedro Ruiz 
 de Bustamente (1716), Francisco Carrandi (1736), 
 Francisco de Olaechea (1730), Luis Diez Navarro 
 (1747), Francisco Fernandez de la Pastora (1704), 
 Jose Gonzalez Rancano (1757), Francisco Javier de 
 Oriamuno (1763), Juan Flores (1781), Jose Antonio 
 Oriamuno and Juan Martinez de Pinillos (1789). 
 
 3. The Crown Continued to Appoint Governors and 
 Captains- General of the Province of Costa Rica. 
 
 Charles II who, before the publication of the liecopi- 
 lacion. appointed Juan Francisco Saenz as Governor 
 and Captain-General of Costa Rica, and Miguel Gomez 
 de Lara after he gave his royal sanction to that code, 
 rippointed two others: Manuel de Bustamente (1692) 
 and Francisco Serrano de Reiua (1695), fully demon- 
 strating, therefore, that in his compilation of laws, he 
 had not intended to suppress, nor 1i;id he su]ipressed, 
 the Province of Costa Rica. 
 
 His successors continued to fill those offices in pro- 
 prietorship, as appears by the appointments of Lo-
 
 119 
 
 renzo Antonio de Granda (1703), Diego de la Hay a 
 Fernandez (1718), Baltasar Francisco de Valdeirama 
 (1724), Antonio Vazquez de la Cuadra (1733), Juan 
 Gemmir (1738), Cristobal Ignacio de Soria (1748), 
 Manuel Soler (1757), Jose de Nava (1765), Juan Fer- 
 nandez de Bobadilla (1771), Jose Perie (1777), Jose 
 Vazquez Tellez (1789), Tomas de Acosta (1796), Juan 
 de Dios de Ayala (1810) and Bernardo Vallarino 
 (1818). 
 
 The titles of these governors and captains-g&neral 
 were conferred by Royal cedulas, granting to them the 
 same jurisdiction that their predecessors exercised, 
 but without changing the boundaries of the province. 
 
 Senor Maura states in his opinion in behalf of Co- 
 lombia (page 23) that it is idle to give any attention 
 to the period subsequent to 1680, because both parties 
 were agreed that the designation of the frontier dis- 
 tricts of the Audiencias of Panama and Guatemala 
 did not suffer any alteration whatever during the cen- 
 turies that followed. 
 
 4. Boundaries of the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe With 
 Costa Rica as a Province of the Audiencia of Guate- 
 mala and Bordering Thereon. 
 
 After the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe was created and 
 the Audiencia of Panama was recast, the boundaries 
 of the Province of Costa Rica continued as a matter 
 of fact to be the same, on the east, as they were be- 
 fore; that is, as separating the Audiencia of Guate- 
 mala from the Audiencia of Panama, a dependency of 
 the Audiencia of Peru.
 
 120 
 (a) Antecedents. 
 
 We have already seen, in treating of the demarcation 
 of Artieda of 1573, how, by virtue thereof, there was 
 left included in the Province of Costa Rica, the Valley 
 of Guaymi on the north and within the limit marked by 
 the Escudo de Veragua, and the Valleys of Chiriqui 
 on the south. 
 
 Dr. Alonso Criado de Castilla, the Senior Judge 
 of the Audiencia of Panama, on May 7, 1575 (Doc. No. 
 64), wrote his '* Description of the Kingdom of Tierra 
 Firme, Which is Subject to the Royal Audiencia ot 
 Panama," in which he told the King: 
 
 **The territory' that is settled in this King- 
 dom, as far as the jurisdiction of your Royal 
 Audiencia of Panama extends, is eighty leagues 
 in length, that is, from the Gulf of San Miguel 
 as far as Concepcion de Veragua; and twenty- 
 four in width, which is from the same city of 
 Concepcion to Philipina." 
 
 Regarding the Province of Veragua, he asserted that 
 it 
 
 ««* * * jj^g .^ district thirty leagues in 
 length, extending from the said city of Coyi- 
 cepcion, as far as the village of Mariato, and 
 in width twenty leagues in its greatest extent, 
 which is from the river Calobre as far as the 
 said city of Concepcion." 
 
 According to this description of the Audiencia of 
 Panama, the demarcation of Artieda was located out- 
 side of it. In order to decide the conflict, which had 
 arisen between the latter and the Governor of Veragua 
 in regard to the settlements Artieda had been planning
 
 121 
 
 to make tlio King, by Royal cedilla of August 30, 
 1576 (Doe. No. 66), entrusted to tlie Audiencia of 
 Guatemala the duty of determining upon which side 
 those establishments were going to lie since they should 
 have been dependencies of the governor to whom the 
 Guaymi river, the Bay of Alrairante and Bocas del 
 Drago belonged as the boundaries of his government. 
 And, indeed, Artieda founded the city of his name in 
 1577, and took possession of the Valley of Guaymi in 
 1578 (Doc. Nos. 67 and 68). 
 
 The President of the Audiencia of Guatemala and 
 the Judge Inspector (Juez Visitador) of Costa Rica 
 issued a commission, in 1591 (Doc. No. 78), to Captain 
 Cabral, in the execution of which he travelled over all 
 of Bocas del Drago and the Bays of Almirante ; and 
 
 i<* * * having entered the Guaymi river, 
 he traversed with the soldiers the whole of the 
 isthmus of land which lies from the North Sea 
 to the South Sea and came out to the savannas 
 of Chiriqui. " 
 
 We have seen, also, how in 1605, Sojo, the deputy 
 of Ocon y Trillo, Governor of Costa Rica, founded the 
 city of Santiago de Talamanca, the territory of which 
 was marked out as far as the line of the Escudo de 
 Veragua, the end of the Government of Costa Rica. 
 Dr. Alonso Criado de Castilla, who knew so well the 
 Audiencia of Panama, was then President of the Audi- 
 encia of Guatemala and in his letter to the King of 
 November 30, 1608 (Doc. No. 74), he speaks of the 
 territory of the Bay of Almirante as belonging to 
 Costa Rica, ''* * * which borders upon that of 
 Veragua belonging to the district of the Royal Audi 
 encia of Panama," and he makes allusion to the con-
 
 122 
 
 quest of Talamanca and the boundaries of the Valley 
 of Duy. 
 
 During the XVIIth centurj^ the governors of Costa 
 Rica and the Audiencia of Guatemala made great ef- 
 forts to subdue the Indians of Talamanca, and the King 
 approved the undertakings that were carried on, and 
 even bestowed special rewards on their leaders (Doc. 
 Nos. 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 137, 
 138, 139, 153, 161, 237, 238 and 239). The mission 
 aries worked admirably in the XVIIIth century to 
 pacify and reduce the Indians of Talamanca, the mis- 
 sions having their headquarters in Guatemala, the 
 audiencia of which, and the Province of Costa Rica, 
 helped them so far as they were able by supplying them 
 with necessities and protecting them with military 
 escorts (Doc. Nos. 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 149, 152, 
 153, 158, 164, 170, 172, 175, 178, 217 and 240). 
 
 On the southern side of the Province of Costa Rica, 
 the Valleys of Chiriqui, expressly embraced in the de- 
 marcation of Artieda, were always a border region 
 with the Province of Veragua, although by toleration 
 they did not remain wholly within the former, for the 
 Chiriqui Vie jo river was considered as the division 
 ary line. At that river was fixed the boundary of the 
 Corregimiento of Quepo and Boriica, to which the 
 Royal cedulas of April 28, 1709 (Doc. No. 146), Sep- 
 tember 1, 1713 (Doc. No. 152), and May 24, 1740 (Doc. 
 No. 164), refer. 
 
 Such was the state of things when the Viceroyalty 
 of Santa Fe was created; but by its creation the Audi- 
 encia of Guatemala suffered no change whatever in 
 its boundaries, because all action in the matter of that 
 audiencia was reduced to the effort to preserve its 
 contigiiitv with the Audiencia of Panama, although
 
 123 
 
 dependent upon the new viceroyalty instead of the 
 Viceroj^alty of Peru; and wlien that audiencia (of 
 Panama) was suppressed and its jurisdiction merged 
 in the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe, in which it was recast, 
 there was no variation in the boundaries of Costa Rica. 
 
 But it is very interesting to follow the descriptions 
 of the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe, because in stating its 
 boundaries with that of New Spain and the Audiencia 
 of Guatemala, those of Costa Rica are confirmed, and 
 as a province Costa Rica remained dependent upon the 
 latter down to the end of the colonial epoch as has 
 been demonstrated. 
 
 (b) Description of the Kingdom of Tierra Firme by 
 the Comandante General of Panama, Don Antonio 
 Guill, in 1760. 
 
 The Audiencia of Panama having been suppressed 
 in 1751, and its government converted into the Coman- 
 dancia general of Tierra Firme, it was directed by 
 Royal order of May 1, 1758, that a description should 
 be made of it; this was done by Don Antonio Guill y 
 Gonzaga, who was then the Comandante general, in a 
 report addressed from Panama, September 30, 1760 
 (Doc. No. 171), to the Minister of the Indies. 
 
 According to that description, the Government of 
 Tierra Firme, w^as composed, in 17G0, of Darien, Pan- 
 ama, Portobelo and Veragua. The Province of Ver- 
 agua was ruled by a governor, who had under his 
 orders the sub-governors or deputies of Nuestra 
 Sefiora de los Remedios and of Santiago al Angel 
 (Alanje), or Chiriqui. The last settlement of the Prov- 
 ince of Veragua, on this side, was Bugaba, to the east
 
 124 
 
 of Chiriqui Viojo river and distant, two leagues from 
 the frontier of Costa Rica. 
 
 (c) Description of the Viceroy alty of Santa Fe, by Its 
 Viceroy, the Marquis de la Vega de Armijo, in 1772. 
 
 In the Description and Status of the Viceroyalty of 
 Santa Fe, by its Viceroy, the Marquis de la Vega de 
 Armijo, written by Dr. Moreno y Escandon, Fiscal 
 Protector of the Indians, in 1772 (Doc. No. 174), it is 
 stated that this viceroyalty borders on that of Mexico 
 by Costa Rica, ' ' and being divided from the Audiencia 
 of Guatemala there is left for its district, that of the 
 Province of Alanje and Veragua, all the South Coast, 
 from the Bay of Chiriqui (or of David) by that of 
 Guayaquil to near Cape Blanco * * *." 
 
 The description goes on to treat of the country to 
 the north, east and south down to when it says: 
 ii* * * until by Portobelo and the Government of 
 the Province of Veragua it closes the boundary upon 
 the Audiencia of Guatemala and Viceroyalty of New 
 Spain * 
 
 * )> 
 
 {d) Report of the Governor of Veragua, Don Felix 
 Francisco Bejarano, in 1775. 
 
 The Governor of Veragua, Don Felix Francisco Bej- 
 arano, at the request of Guatemala, reported in 1775 
 (Doc. No. 175), that the end of Veragua reached as 
 far as the frontier of Talamanca, which is left in Costa 
 Rica, and therefore with its Bay of the Almirante 
 (Bocas del Toro) and its Islands of Tojar, or Colon, 
 etc.
 
 125 
 
 (e) Description of the Viceroy alty of Santa Fe, of 
 Tierra Firme and of VeraqiM, by the Missionary 
 Sobrevicla, in 1796. 
 
 In the most interesting work of Fray Manuel So- 
 breviela, Missionary of Ocopa, entitled: ''Description, 
 Historic-Oeograpliical, Political, Ecclesiastical and 
 Military, of Southern America," (Lima, 1796; Doc. 
 No. 181), the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe is first described 
 generally, by the statement that it embraces 
 
 < ( * 
 
 * from the River Chiriqui, of the King- 
 dom of Tierra Firme, which is the dividing line 
 of this Viceroyalty and of the two Americas by 
 the District of Costa Rica, of the Province of 
 Guatemala, as far as the neighborhood of the 
 Gulf of Maracaibo." 
 
 It then takes up the Kingdom of Tierra Firme, and 
 says that it 
 
 "* * * is bounded on the East by the Prov- 
 ince of Cartagena, from which it is separated 
 by the River San Juan; on the West by the 
 River Chiriqui, which serves as the boundary 
 of the Province of Costa Rica, in the Kingdom 
 of Guatemala; on the North by the Nortli Sea 
 and on the South by the Pacific. It is two hun- 
 dred leagues in length from East to West; that 
 is, from the River Atrato or Gulf of Darien, as 
 far as the River Chiriqui (Vie jo, or old, of 
 South), and eighty in width from North to 
 South, at the widest part, which is from the port 
 or bay of Mariato to the point of the bay or port 
 of the River Chagres. This Kingdom is divided 
 into three provinces, which are Panama, Ver 
 aguas and Darien."
 
 126 
 Continninc: it takes up Veragua: 
 
 **It is bounded on the North by the North Sea ; 
 on the South by the Pacific Ocean; on the East 
 by the Province of Panama, and on the West by 
 the River Chiriqui, which divides it jrom 
 Cosia Rica and Kingdom of Guatemala. It is 
 sixty leagues from East to West, from the city 
 of Nata to the village of Chiriqui and eighty in 
 width from the Cape of Conejos on the South 
 Sea to the extreme of the Escudo de Veraguas 
 in the North Sea." 
 
 And in describing the principal rivers of the Prov- 
 inces of the Kingdom of Tierra Firme, it says : 
 
 "The first is the River Chiriqui, which rises 
 in the mountains in the South part of the Prov- 
 ince of Veragua and empties into the South Sea 
 or Pacific (Gulf of Chiriqui or Sinus Chiri- 
 quensis of the Map of the Jesuits Brentano and 
 La Torre). It serves as boundary to this prov- 
 ince and to all Southern America which it sepa 
 rates from the Northern and from the District 
 of Costa Rica in the Kingdom of Guatemala." 
 
 It is thus seen that the description is complete and 
 agrees perfectly with the antecedents we have set forth. 
 
 (/) Official Communication of the Governor of the 
 Islands of San Andres, in 1802; and Resume. 
 
 In concluding, let us add that the Escudo de Ver 
 agua was even recognized as a border point by the 
 Governor of the Islands of San Andres, Don Tomas 
 O'Neille, of whom we shall speak hereafter as the in- 
 stigator of the Royal order of 1803, which, according 
 to Colombia, incorporated Costa Rica in the Viceroy- 
 alty of Santa Fe.
 
 127 
 
 O'Neille, addressing himself to the President of 
 (xuatemala, in an official communication of October 
 22, 1802 (Doc. No. 184) said: 
 
 *'If Your Worship will be pleased to write 
 to said Chief (the Viceroy of Santa Fe), and 
 get from him a frequent visit of the vessels of 
 the King in these waters, for they only go as 
 far as the ESCUDO DE VERAGUA, tvhich 
 is the limit of the demarcation between the two 
 Kingdoms, it would avoid great injury to th.i 
 State, etc. * * *." 
 
 To recapitulate: the boundaries of the Viceroyalty 
 of Santa Fe with the Audiencia of Guatemala at the 
 beginning of the XlXth century were : on the north the 
 line extending from the Escudo de Veragua which 
 corresponds to the Chiriqut (not Viejo, or old), or 
 Culebra, or Calobebora river (by which various names 
 it is called) ; and on the south the Chiriqui Viejo river. 
 And, therefore, those were also the boundaries of Costa 
 Rica, the last province of the Audiencia of Guatemala, 
 bordering on that Viceroyalty. 
 
 11. 
 
 THE ROYAL ORDER OF NOVEMBER 20, 1803, RE- 
 FERRING TO THE MOSQUITO COAST. 
 
 1. Antecedents, Formation and Text of the Order. 
 
 From the time of the conquest of Jamaica, the Eng- 
 lish never ceased their encroachments upon the Islands 
 of San Andres and the Mosquito Coast, which acts 
 became a source of continuous conflicts; to this, how- 
 ever, the Treaty of London, of July 14, 1786 (Doc. No. 
 176), sought to put an end by agreeing that the Eng-
 
 128 
 
 lisb should evacuate the places where tliey had estab- 
 lished themselves. 
 
 Those islands of San Andres (embracing under that 
 appellation those of San Andres, Santa Catalina and 
 Providencia), were the subject of serious attention by 
 the Spanish rulers, nearly all of their inhabitants hav- 
 ing been English and the islands themselves centres of 
 smuggling and of forays upon the Mosquito Coast. 
 
 Don Tomas O'Neille, a captain of infantry who had 
 been in the military service of the Viceroyalty of Santa 
 Fe, was commissioned, in 1789, to visit those islands, 
 where he became intimate in friendship and business 
 ^vith the Taylor brothers who exercised great influence 
 there. The Taylor brothers, in 1794, through the Vice- 
 roy of Santa Fe, applied to the King asking that the 
 English might be allowed to continue in the islands, 
 that a governor be appointed (whose salary they would 
 pay), and that Don Tomas O'Neille be named as such 
 governor. 
 
 Lieutenant Don Jose del Rio of the Navy w^ho also 
 visited those islands by order of the King, gave His 
 Majesty a very minute account of them in his extended 
 report from Trujillo, dated August 23, 1793 (Doc. No. 
 179) ; in this he advised that the islands be abandoned 
 and that with their settlers an establishment be made 
 at Bluefields on the Mosquito Coast. 
 
 By Royal order of November 6, 1795 (Doc. No. 180), 
 it was provided that "for the present" the English 
 should not be compelled to evacuate the Island of San 
 Andres and establish themselves at Bluefields; that this 
 might be accomplished later, on a suitable occasion, 
 and that Don Tomjis O'Neille should be Governor "dc 
 pendent upon your Captaincy-General (of Guate- 
 mala)."
 
 129 
 
 Scarcely had he taken possession of his office when 
 he fell out with the Captain-General of Guatemala, 
 who ordered him to leave the islands until the conclu- 
 sion of peace with England, and assigned him to vari- 
 ous military duties in Nicaragua. Having had occa- 
 sion to go back to the islands, he petitioned that there 
 should be conferred upon him the political and mili- 
 tary command of the establishments of Trujillo, Cape 
 Gracias a Dios and San Juan de Nicaragua, with a 
 salary of 3,000 pesos, and other extraordinary condi- 
 tions, all of which the Captain-General of Guatemala 
 refused. 
 
 Once back at San Andres he undertook to free its 
 government from that of Guatemala, to this end mak- 
 ing use of his friends, the Taylors, and counting upon 
 the support of his protectors in Santa Fe. 
 
 Under date of December 5, 1802 (Doc. No. 185), 
 O'Neille addressed himself to the Minister of War, 
 sending him two statements, one from the Alcalde, 
 Juan Taylor, of November 25 (Doc. No. 187), and the 
 other his own, of December 4 (Doc. No. 186), in which 
 he asked for the aggregation of those islands of the 
 Mosquito Coast to the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe; these 
 statements he forwarded through that viceroyalty in- 
 stead of the Captain-General of Guatemala — because 
 of the difference in distance, he said. 
 
 Both statements went to the Board of Fortifications 
 and Defense of the Indies which, on September 2, 
 1803 (Doc. No. 189), reported favorably thereon, add- 
 ing that it would be desirable to follow the same course 
 with regard to the establishments of Cape Gracias a 
 Dios and the Bay of Bluefields on the desert Mosquito 
 Coast. The record in the case was returned to the 
 Board on the 23rd of the same month, and its attention 
 called to the fact that if this plan were carried out it
 
 1 M) 
 
 would leave Guatemala uiulefeuded ou the Atlantic 
 side. Tlie Board insisted, in its second report of Oc- 
 tober 21st (Doe. No. 190), confining itself to the state- 
 ment that the segregation would not be injurious to 
 Guateniahi, since the Mosquito Coast was a wilderness. 
 In accord with these r(-ports it was determined to issue 
 the lioyal order whii-h Don Miguel Cayetano Soler, 
 acting as Minister of War, comraunicated, on Novem- 
 l)er 20, 1803, to the Captain-General of Guatemala. 
 
 This same Minister in another communication, trans- 
 mitted the order to thu Vicerov of Santa ^6, and this 
 communication is the one that was invoked l)y Colom- 
 bia ; it reads as follows : 
 
 '*San Lorenzo, Novem!)or oO, 1803. 
 "Most Excellent Sir: 
 
 "Don Jose Antonio Cal/allero, in a letter of 
 the 20th instant, writes to me, as follows: 
 
 " 'The King has resolved that the Islands of 
 San Andres and the part of the Moscpiito C^oast 
 from Cape (Jracias a Dios. inclusive, toward the 
 Kiver Chagres, shall be segregated from the 
 Cai)taincy-Genoral of Guatemala and be depend- 
 ent upon the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe. And His 
 Majesty has been pleased to grant to the Gover- 
 nor of the said islands, Don Tomas O'Neille, 
 the salary of 2,000 pesos fnertes, instead of the 
 1,500 which he at present enjoys. By Royal 
 Order I inform Your Excellency that the Min- 
 istry in your charge should take the necessary 
 steps for the fulfillment of this sovereign man- 
 date;' all of which I state to you by His Maj- 
 esty's command, for its due execution. 
 
 "May God keep Your Excellency many years. 
 
 "SOLER." 
 "To the Viceroy of Santa Fe."
 
 131 
 
 That Order Was Not Applicable to Costa Rica, Be- 
 cause What Was Called the Mosquito Coast Ended 
 Before That Province Began. 
 
 The importance attributed by Colombia to this RoyaJ 
 order is very great, for she assuiiies that it incor- 
 porated into the Vice royalty of Santa Fe the long 
 stretch of territory that extended from Cape Gracias 
 a Dios as far as the Chagres river, within which ex- 
 tension Costa Rica was embraced. That is to say, that 
 just as Colombia argued that "all Veragua, and there- 
 fore Costa Rica, belongs to Tierra P^irme," now she 
 argues that "all of the Mosquito Coast as far as the 
 Chagres river, and therefore Costa Rica, belongs to 
 the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe. ' ' 
 
 But this Royal order was not applicable to Costa 
 Rica for the very simple reason that it referred only 
 to the Mosquito C!oast which ended on the south before 
 that province began. 
 
 The origin of the name and the extent of the Mos- 
 quito Coast are clearly shown by the official documents. 
 
 The BisJtop of Nicaragua, Fray Benito Garret, in 
 his report to the King of November 30, 1711 (Doc. 
 No. 151), relates that in the year 1641 a vessel laden 
 with negroes was wrecked on the coast that extends 
 from Trujillo as far as the mouth of the San Juan 
 river; that these negroes were forced into a fight with 
 the Carib Indians, and the latter, defeated, withdrew 
 through the mountains towards the territories oj^ Se- 
 govia and Chontales; that the victors took to them- 
 selves the women of defeated Indians, and that their 
 descendants were called " Xambos/' the issue of ne- 
 groes and Indians. This accords, he says, with the
 
 133 
 
 account given by a negro, named Juan Ramon, "who 
 lives now in this city (Granada de Nicaragua) and 
 whose advanced age accords well with the recollection 
 which he asserts that he has of the facts he narrates." 
 The Bishop complained to the King of the lament- 
 able ravages and captures made by the Zamhos who 
 occupied the locality called Puntagorda and the said 
 Mosquito territory which is, as indicated in a paren- 
 thesis, the "sea coast from the mouth of the River 
 San Juan as far as the city of Trujillo in the Province 
 of Honduras," the longitude of which, he adds fur- 
 ther on, would be about sixty leagues. And he asks 
 the King for the su])jugatioa of the Zamhos, suggest- 
 ing the best means to that end. 
 
 By Roijal cedula of April 30, 1714 (Doc. No. 154), 
 the King directed the Captain-General of Guatemala 
 to undertake the conquest of the Mosquitos, he ascribed 
 their origin to the same source as that given in the 
 Bishop's account, and took into consideration the re- 
 ports of the said captain-general regarding the settle- 
 ments of the Carib Indians, negroes and Zamhos in 
 Mosquito island, on the side of the Province of Nicar- 
 agua; and said further that it was well known that 
 they were on the coast of the North Sea, spread over 
 an area of fifty to sixty leagues, beginning to count 
 at twelve leagues from the San Juan river up to twenty 
 from tlie city of Trujillo; that Zamhos were skillful 
 in the handling of arms, and were assisted and pro 
 tected by the English of Jamaica, with whom they 
 carried on their trade. 
 
 The attempt to subdue the Mosquitos was not sue 
 cessful. These people, clever in the management of 
 boats and even the firearms with which they were sup- 
 plied by t])r> English, made continual incursions by
 
 133 
 
 sea and land upon the neighboring settlements, carry 
 ing with them desolation, captivity and death. As the 
 result of a report from the Captain-General of Guate- 
 mala dated May 10, 1737, and relating to a treaty of 
 peace proposed by {he so-called "King" of the Mos- 
 quitos, and to the two settlements which the English 
 had begun to establish on that coast, the Council of 
 the Indies rendered an opinion setting forth the means 
 for subduing the Mosquitos and avoiding the evils of 
 their relations with the English; this opinion was ap 
 proved by the King in the Royal cedula of August 8, 
 1739 (Doc. No. 162). 
 
 In that Opinion of the Council of the Indies, of July 
 8, 1739 (Doc. No. 162), the following appears: 
 
 ''These people owe their appellation and ori- 
 gin to the Island of Mosquitos, where, in the 
 year 1641, there arrived a vessel laden with 
 negroes (who captured the Indians in order to 
 sell them as slaves and kept the women for pur- 
 poses of procreation) * * *^ According to 
 reports from the President and others, they oc- 
 cupy at the present time more than sixty leagues 
 of land extending from the jurisdiction of Co- 
 mayagua (Honduras) as far as that of Costa 
 Rica of the dominions of Your Majesty adjoin 
 ing the coast of the North Sea, their territor>- 
 being in width only three leagues of productive 
 and habitable land extending up to the slope of 
 the mountains that separate them from the do- 
 minions of Your Majesty * * *. In those 
 sixty leagues they have established for their 
 dwellings twenty-four settlements or hamlets 
 * * * ; by the last and most reliable news that 
 has been received, the Mosquitos number 2,000 
 men who bear arms. They also have among 
 them Spaniards, French, English, apostate In- 
 dians and fugitive slaves, their territory being
 
 134 
 
 a general asylum for all the scoundrels who flee 
 from justice * * *. The care of the Council 
 is growing on account of these enemies, because 
 they are found to have considerably increased; 
 and not only have they a chief * * ♦, but they 
 have the boldness to call him a King and demand 
 that Your Majesty shall recognize him as such 
 in a treaty of peace and commerce, which un- 
 heard of, insolent audacity leads us to suspect 
 that it does not come from them alone. This 
 presumption becomes probable * * * when 
 it is noted that these barbarous Mosquitos are 
 intimate and in league with the English of Ja- 
 maica, of New England, etc. * * 
 
 >> 
 
 The Captain-General of Guatemala, Don Pedro de 
 Rivera, in a report of November 23, 1742 (Doc. No. 
 166), addressed to the King in response to his order, 
 concerning the measures for the expulsion of the Mos- 
 quitos, says of them : 
 
 "At a short distance from Cape Gracias a 
 Dios, which is on the coast of the Province of 
 Comayagua, there is a small island named Mos 
 quitos, in which, in the year 1650 (acc^ording to 
 tradition) a vessel was wrecked which carried 
 negroes under the charge of Lorenzo Gramalxo, 
 of the Portuguese nation • • •; they inter 
 bred with the Indians, and produced the Zam 
 bos, under the designation of "Mosquitos," de- 
 rived from the island upon which the negroes 
 were shipwrecked, and this is the distinctive ap- 
 pellation by which they are known, and this 
 name applies to all those that dwell with them, 
 they being the heathen Indians that inhabit 
 those territories, the mulattoes and negroes who 
 have left the dominions of His Majesty in order 
 to enjoy the free life without any subjection 
 * * *. The English who live among the Zam 
 bos are most degraded * * * ; the Zambos are
 
 135 
 
 so far subordinate to the English nation that 
 they obey its orders as if they were under its 
 sovereignty, and the one that they have among 
 them under the title of King is invested with it 
 by the Governor of Jamaica." 
 
 The Captain-General of Guatemala enumerates 
 twenty-seven hamlets which the Zamhos occupied at 
 that time and which lay generally along *'the rivers 
 which are to be found between the two Provinces of 
 Honduras and Costa Rica," also mentioned by him. 
 And he describes the Island of San Andres, on which 
 Kved the Zambos "in conjunction with the English," 
 situated thirty leagues from that coast. 
 
 It results from these official documents that the evi- 
 dence is clear that it was the Mosquito Coast that was 
 occupied by this little race of Zambos, which sprang 
 from the union of the negroes who came to the Island 
 of Mosquitos and the Carib Indians located in the 
 Province of Nicaragua, between the Provinces of Hon- 
 duras and Costa Rica. Its length is fixed at sixty 
 leagues. 
 
 The Columbian publicist and statesman, Don Pedro 
 Fernandez Madrid, claims, like the majority of English 
 geographers, that the Mosquito Coast begins at Cape 
 Honduras, but he says that it ends at Punta Gorda, 
 near the most northern arm of the San Juan river of 
 Nicaragua. The Bishop of Nicaragua counts the sixty 
 leagues from the mouth of the San Juan river to the 
 city of Trujillo, indicating Punta Gorda as the last 
 point in the south occupied by the Zambos, from 
 whence they make their raids. The Royal cedula of 
 1714 begins to count the fifty or sixty leagues, which 
 it says this coast has, at twelve leagues to the north
 
 136 
 
 of the San Juan river up to twenty from the city of 
 Trujillo. The Council of the Indies, in its opinion of 
 1739, starts from the end of Comayagua ; according to 
 this the sixty leagues of which it speaks begin at Cape 
 Gracias a Dios and end in the centre of the lagoon of 
 Bluefields. 
 
 It must be remembered that the Province of Costa 
 Rica ended on the north at the Desaguadero, or San 
 Juan river, and that this boundary is found some ten 
 leagues beyond Punta Gorda, twenty from Bluefields 
 and eighty from Cape Gracias a Dios. Therefore Costa 
 Rica was not embraced in the Mosquito Coast . 
 
 It is true that Costa Rica reached as far as Cape 
 Gracias a Dios and even Cape Camaron in the early 
 times, still it did not extend beyond the Desaguadero, 
 or San Juan river, after it was definitively bounded, 
 in 1573, with the Artieda's Government. The portion 
 segregated from Costa Rica in that year, is that with 
 which, in 1576, the Province of Teguzgalpa was formed, 
 and that which corresponds to the Mosquito Coast. 
 This northern portion was divided between Honduras 
 and Nicaragua, by Royal cedulas of August 23, 1745, 
 establishing as the divisionary point Cape Gracias 4 
 Dios, which is the point that was fixed as the boundary 
 between the present republics of those names by the 
 award of the King of Spain hereinbefore cited. 
 
 Because the Royal order of 1803 says : '' * * * the 
 Islands of San Andres and the part of the Mosquito 
 coast from Cape Gracias a Dios, inclusive, toward the 
 River Chagres, shall })e segregated, etc.," Colombia 
 claims that Costa Rica was also segregated, since 
 it lay that side of the Chagres river. But the 
 Royal order does not say hasta (to, or as far as) but 
 hacia (toward) the Chagres river, and consequently
 
 137 
 
 this river does not mark the boundary, but only indi 
 cates the direction. Let us remember the laws of the 
 demarcation of audiencias and the numerous Royal 
 orders which we have cited, and it will be seen that 
 whenever it was desired to indicate a boundary, the 
 word naturally employed was " hasta" (to, or as far 
 as) ; whereas, when it was desired to indicate direction 
 the word used was *'hacia" (toward) or "a la parte 
 de" (on the side of). These latter words are more ex- 
 pressive, for instance, when, in the demarcation of the 
 Province of Costa Rica assigned to Ortiz de Elgueta, 
 Cavallon and Vazquez de Coronado, it says from Hon- 
 duras and Nicaragua '' a la parte de (on the side of) 
 the cities of Nombre de Dios and of Panama"; and 
 yet Colombia will not acknowledge that this signified 
 that the Province Costa Rica should have reached as 
 far as the line determined by those two cities. Nor can 
 Colombia be understood as meaning to say that the 
 territory incorporated in the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe 
 was that which reached as far as the Chagres river, 
 next to Portobelo, since Portobelo and the Province 
 of Veragua already belonged to it. 
 
 If the reports of the Board of Fortifications (Doc. 
 Nos. 189 and 190), by virtue of which the Royal order 
 of 1803 was issued are read, it will be seen that they 
 do not refer to the whole of the Mosquito Coast, but 
 only to the establishments of Cape Gracias a Dios and 
 Bay of Bluefields. When, by virtue of the Treaty of 
 London, of 1786 (Doc. No. 176), the English evacu- 
 ated the Mosquito Coast, four settlements or estab 
 kshments of Spaniards were directed to be created 
 therein ; and it was especially in order to protect these 
 establishments that that Royal order was issued. If 
 it says the part of the Mosquito Coast from Cape
 
 13R 
 
 Gracias k Dios towards the Chagres river, it is in 
 order that it should not be understood as meaning 
 from Cape Gracias (i Dios in the direction of Honduras, 
 but towards the south, and as far as those establish- 
 ments, which had as tlieir maximum limit the Desa 
 gnadero or San Juan river, might reach. 
 
 3. Military and Transitory Character of That Roy^ 
 
 Order. 
 
 Even assuming that it had been desired to include 
 Costa Rica in the Royal order of 1803, that order 
 lacked the force to change the legal status of the 
 province as to administrative dependency and boun- 
 daries, as we are about to show; and as such a hypo- 
 thesis is only supported by the words ''toward the 
 River Chagres," it cannot be seriously considered as 
 a sufficient basis for the suppression of a province or 
 its transfer from one viceroyalty to another or from 
 one audiencia to another. 
 
 From its preparation and its purpose that Royal 
 order can only be characterized as a military order. 
 It was issued by the Minister of War, as a result of 
 petitions addressed to him, and the approval not of 
 the Supreme Council of the Indies, but of the Board 
 of Fortifications and Defense of the Indies; and it 
 was promulgated by the same ministry to the military 
 and not to the civil authorities. Its purpose, as shown 
 by the reports of that Board and deduced from the 
 history that has been given of the Mosquitos, allied 
 with the English, was to provide a better defence for 
 the Islands of San Andres and the Spanish establish- 
 ments on the Mosquito Coast, against the attacks from 
 the Zambos and English.
 
 139 
 
 Responding to these needs for protection, and also 
 for the prevention of smuggling, other provisions had 
 been previously enacted entrusting the guardianship 
 of these coasts to the neigliboring governors without 
 any idea of making thereby any change in the demar- 
 cations of their respective districts. Thus, we see the 
 Royal cedula of August 23, 1745 (Doc. No. 167), which 
 appointed the Governor of Nicaragua, Don Alonso 
 Fernandez de Heredia, Corruindante General de las 
 Armas, and sought to prevent illicit commerce through- 
 out the territory embraced between Cape Gracias a 
 Dios and the Chagres river; the Royal order of Sep- 
 tember 24, 1786 (Doc. No. 177), addressed to the Cap- 
 tain-General of Guatemala, in which he is informed 
 that the Viceroys of Mexico and Santa Fe have been 
 directed that he shall be given whatever he asks for in 
 order to facilitate the evacuation of the Mosquito ter- 
 ritory; that of February 26, 1788, to the ComandarUe 
 de Marina of Havana, to place himself at the orders 
 of the Captain-General of Guatemala, etc. 
 
 Such measures were merely transitory in character, 
 and they ceased to be effective when there came a 
 change in the circumstances or personnel which had 
 called them forth. O'Neille knew how to take advan- 
 tage of the circumstances in which those islands, and 
 the establishments of the Mosquito Coast, were placed 
 by the orders for evacuation given to the English and 
 the latent state of war with England, in order to ad 
 Vance his personal ambitions. But the Royal order 
 of 1803 served only to give to O'Neille the Govern- 
 ment of the Island of San Andres ; this he surrendered 
 to the English, in 1806, but it was soon afterwards 
 restored by them to Spain.
 
 140 
 
 4. The Order Could Not Change the Laws of Terri- 
 torial Division. 
 
 If, nevertheless, the Royal order of November 20, 
 1803, be considered to be a measure not military and 
 transitory in character, but rather one hav^ing, as Co- 
 lombia claims, the capacity of a legislative mandate 
 which changed territorial division, then, the question 
 being placed on this ground, we are impelled to as- 
 sert — and most positively — that the Royal order in 
 question, according to the laws of the Recopilacion 
 de Indias, which governed when it was issued was null 
 and void. 
 
 Both parties are in accord in recognizing that the 
 Recopilacion de Indias gave the character of laws to 
 all those which it embraced in its text, and commanded 
 that they should be obeyed and complied with as such, 
 as directed by the Royal cedula of May 18, 1680, which 
 sanctioned it; and it is important to remember what 
 we have heretofore stated in regard to the value of 
 those laws when discussing their relations to the Royal 
 dispositions prior and subsequent to the publication 
 of that code. 
 
 Law 1, title 1, book II (Doc. No. 92), lays down the 
 doctrine that 
 
 ii# * » those only (the laws of the /Jccopt^- 
 cion) shall have the force of law and pragmatic 
 sanction^ in that which they decide and determine ; 
 and if it should be desirable that others be made 
 besides those contained in this book, let the Vice- 
 roys, Presidents, Audiencias, Governors and Al- 
 caldes mayores advise and inform us as to the 
 
 ' A pragmatic sanction has the force and effect of a solemn ordinance 
 or decree by the legislative authority of the State.
 
 141 
 
 •lame through the Council of the Indies, giving 
 the motives and reasons why tliey are suliinitted 
 in order that, being understood, siicli resolution 
 may W taken as is most desirable; and they may 
 be added in a separate volume." 
 
 Law 2, title 2, book II (Doc. No. 94), confers on the 
 Council of the Indies supreme jurisdiction over all the 
 Western Indies, and empowers that body to ''order 
 and make, with our advice the general and special 
 Laivs, Pragmatics, Ordinances and Provisiones." 
 
 Law 1, title 15, book II (Doc. No. 105), of Philip IV, 
 declares that all the territory that is discovered in the 
 Indies is divided into audiencias, wliich are subordi- 
 nate '** * * to our Supreme Council of the Indies^ 
 which represents our Royal Person"; and it commands 
 that the audiencias and the governments shall be pre- 
 served as ''they now" are in the district of each, and 
 that "* * * no change shall be made therein, with- 
 out our express order or that of our said Council. 
 
 ) J 
 
 To these laws, which we have hereinbefore cited, 
 should be added the following, from title 2, book II, in 
 which the direction is confirmed that measures of a leg- 
 islative character and, in general, those referring to 
 the administration of the Indies must be passed upon 
 by the Supreme Council of the Indies, which council 
 was to be subject to a fixed procedure, and charged 
 witli the execution and observance of those laws. 
 
 Law 6 (Doc. No. 95) charges the Council of the 
 Indies that it shall always have a description and full 
 investigation made of all matters concerning the con- 
 ditions of the Indies "* * * which may become 
 matters for the administrative or legal action." And 
 Law 12 (Doc. No. 96) reads:
 
 142 
 
 "Thus We command, that whenever those of 
 our Council of the Indies may have to provide 
 and direct the Laws and general Provisions for 
 the good government of the Indies, they may 
 be very well informed and sure beforehand of 
 what has already been provided in the matters 
 in question, and they must previously acquire 
 the fullest possible information and notice about 
 the things, affairs and territories concerned, and 
 hear also the advice of those who govern therein 
 and of those who might be able to throw any 
 light on the matters, unless delay in asking for 
 information may cause detriment. 
 
 >> 
 
 Law 14 (Doc. No. 97) requires that the Council of 
 the Indies shall meet in fxdl membership "* * * for 
 the consideration of general matters of government, 
 such as making Laws and pragmatics and the inter- 
 pretation of derogation thereof, the estahlishment of 
 audiencias, erection of churches and dismemberment, 
 division and union thereof, and other matters which 
 in the opinion of the President or Governor are im- 
 portant." And not only this, but it is particularly 
 provided in Law 15 (Doc. No. 98), that two-thirds of 
 the members of the Council "must agree in an opin- 
 ion" whenever there shall be a question as to "making 
 new Laws or repealing the old ones." 
 
 Law 17 (Doc. No. 99) entrusts to the Council the 
 execution of the orders of the King for better pro- 
 vision and certainty; Law 18 (Doc. No. 100) provides 
 that the Council shall report to the King whenever it 
 may receive orders of doubtful interpretation ; Law 24 
 (Doc. No. 101 ) charges it to arrange always that the 
 new laws and provisions be published where and when 
 it may be best, and Law 25 (Doc. No. 102) directs it 
 ' * to ascertain and understand how the Laws 
 
 n *
 
 143 
 
 We provide and order are being obeyed and fulfilled; 
 and that they severely punish according to law those 
 who by perversity or neglect shall not comply there- 
 with or execute them." 
 
 We will cite, finally, Law 23, title 6, book II (Doc. 
 No. 104), providing that the provisions and despatches 
 in judicial matters between parties, which are issued 
 by the Council of the Indies, shall be issued in the 
 name of the King, without the formality of his signa- 
 nature; but that all other matters of government, 
 mercy and justice arising in the Indies shall he con- 
 sidered and despatched by the King, as had been done 
 theretofore. 
 
 All of these laws \vere violated by tlu' Koyal order 
 of November 20, 1803, since it was not given by the 
 King, but in the name of the King — it was not dic- 
 tated in consultation with the Supreme Council of the 
 Indies, but upon a report of the Board of Fortifica- 
 tions ; and not having been acted upon by the Council 
 (to v,'hich was entrusted the supreme jurisdiction in 
 this regard), the guaranties were left unfulfilled iu 
 respect of the information to be given by the authori- 
 ties interested, the full quorum and the minimum of 
 votes, which the Recopilacion required in order to 
 change the laws of the Indies. 
 
 And as it was not the intention of the Govennnent to 
 make a law which should change the prior laws of 
 territorial division, all of which had been made in 
 the Council of the Indies, but simply to dictate a Royal 
 order of a ministerial character, the order was signed 
 "in the name of the King," and was transmitted by the 
 Secretaryship of the Department of War, in order to 
 conform to military convenience. 
 
 Counsel for Colombia, who expend so much effort
 
 144 
 
 in insisting upon legislative acts for the establishment 
 of territorial division — to the extent, even, of denying 
 validity to the Royal deniarcatory cedulas that ante- 
 dated the RecopUacion de Indian — deliberately ignore 
 that code in order to give legislative force to the Royal 
 order of 1803, and maintain that all the Royal orders 
 issued by the absolute Monarchy had the same legal 
 force as the laws now made by the King and the Cortes, 
 in the Constitutional Monarchy. But that is not 
 correct. 
 
 It is true that when the absolute Monarchy had once 
 been consolidated and the glorious traditions of the 
 Cortes of Castile and Aragon had been lost, the will of 
 the Monarch was law, subject to no external limita 
 tions; but this will established differences with regard 
 to the exercise of power and limited itself by dictating 
 rules of a general character, to which resolutions had 
 to be adjusted, according to the nature of the particular 
 cases. 
 
 Although the division of powers now in operation did 
 not then exist, the differences between the function oi' 
 legislatinfj and that of administering could not have 
 been ignored; neither was it possible for the King to 
 have done everything by himself. Therefore the juris- 
 diction was divided into that which was retained and 
 that which was delegated, accordingly as the King 
 reserved to himself the direct exercise of that Dower 
 or delegated or confided it to the councils, ministers or 
 judges. It is clear that the King did exercise the 
 legislative power, by himself alone, and to avoid all 
 doubt as to the authority from which those legislative 
 acts ('nianated, they must have been headed with the 
 name of the King and borne the signature, '*I, the 
 King." In this manner the resolutions in matters of
 
 145 
 
 government and administration reserved to tlio Mon 
 arch were headed and signed. Such provisions ema- 
 nated directly from the King, and were called prag- 
 matics and Royal cedulas; they differed essentially 
 from Royal orders, which could be issued in his name 
 without his signature. 
 
 Notwithstanding the delegation of power to the 
 Council of the Indies was so ample, the Recopilacion 
 established the rule that the provisions for govern- 
 ment, mercy and justice for the Indies, were to be 
 issued and despatched by the Kjng, as he had been 
 doing ; that is to say, by Royal cedulas. And that code, 
 in treating of the territorial division, positively pro- 
 hibited any alteration be made thereof, ** without the 
 express order of the King or of the Council of the 
 Indies. ' ' 
 
 So, then, the Royal order of November 20, 1803, 
 which was not a Royal cedula enacted by the King, 
 but a ministerial order issued **in the name of the 
 King," without the advice of the Council of the Indies, 
 and as the concluding act of an administrative pro- 
 ceeding, almost of a personal character (the govern 
 ment of Don Tomas O'Neille), it was lacking in leg- 
 islative force, or even in the legal value of a decree in 
 a matter of civil demarcation and jurisdictional fixing 
 of boundaries. 
 
 The authority of absolute monarchs, as in every 
 other kind of government, was of two kinds: discre- 
 tionary and regulated, accordingly as it was directed to 
 matters that were or were not subject to pre-existing 
 regulations. The monarch was under no compulsion to 
 issue such rules, but once issued he had to act in accord- 
 ance therewith, unless he modified them or declared
 
 146 
 
 exception thereto. Tlie Recopilacion de Indias estab- 
 lished the procedure for the amendment of the laws 
 whieh it contained and for the adoption of new laws, 
 and recjuired previous information to be given to the 
 Council of the Indies, the consideration by the latter 
 in full nienibership, the favorable opinion of two-thirds 
 of the voting members and the intervention of that 
 Council in the publication and execution of the law. 
 None of these things was done in respect of the Royal 
 order of 1803; therefore, it could not have the char- 
 acter of a law. 
 
 Spanish legislation did not tolerate such transgres 
 sions of legal procedure. It declared to be null and 
 void all dispositions which were not in conformity with 
 legal formalities, or which might be contrary to pre- 
 existing law which might be in force. Law 2, title 4, 
 book in of the Novisima Recopilacion, says : 
 
 *' Since it happens that by importunity of 
 some or in some other way We may grant and 
 deliver some letters or Royal patents in contra- 
 vention of right or contrary to law or statute 
 in force, therefore We command that such let- 
 ters or Royal patents shall he of no value nor 
 shall they be complied with, although they may 
 contain the provision that they are to be exe- 
 cuted notwithstanding any statute or law or 
 ordinance or any other ab rogatory clauses 
 whatsoever. ' ' 
 
 And this is applicable to the present case, not only 
 because it shows that the general system of Spain in 
 the matter of legislation was not one of despotism, but 
 also for the reason that Law 2, title 1, book II (Doc. 
 No. 93), of the Recopilacion de Indias directs that the 
 legislation of Castile shall be supplemental thereto.
 
 147 
 
 It is important, also, to note that the laws of the 
 Recopilacion de Indias continued in force in the Span- 
 ish-American provinces until their independence, in 
 so far as they may not have been moditied by subse- 
 quent provisions of a legislative character; and the 
 publications of that code which were made after 1680 
 were nothing more than mere new editions thereof. 
 The fact is that the Royal order of November 20, 1803, 
 does not figure in the chronological list of the Royal 
 cedulas. Royal orders and decrees embraced in the 
 notes appended to the Laws of the Indies, in the Fifth 
 Edition (1841), approved by the Court of the Indies 
 {Sala de Indias) of the Supreme Tribunal and the 
 Regency of the Kingdom, which we have before us. 
 
 We will say, finally, that Colombia's argument, in 
 support of the legal force of the Royal order of 1803, 
 based as it is on the fact that there was another order 
 of like character issued July 15, 1802, relating to the 
 segregating of the Government and Comandancia. 
 General of Maynas from the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe 
 and its aggregation to that of Peru, proves quite the 
 contrary from what Colombia desires to prove and it 
 constitutes the best possible confirmation of the doc- 
 trine which we have stated. 
 
 It was not by a Royal order, dictated in the name of 
 the King, but by the Royal cedula of July 15, 1802 
 (Doc. No. 183), by the King himself, speaking in his 
 own name, issued to the viceroys affected thereby, that 
 the Government and Comandancia General of Maynas 
 was created ; it was formed out of territory' which was 
 minutely marked out, segregated from the Viceroyalty 
 of Santa Fe and incoiporated into that of Peru. It 
 was the result of protracted proceedings that extended 
 over a period of twenty-five years, initiated by Don
 
 148 
 
 Francisco Requeiia, Royal Commissioner of Bounda- 
 ries, who administered that territory for a long time. 
 It was pursued from the very beginning before the 
 Council of the Indies which, after the fullest informa- 
 tion from the viceroys and audiencias interested, and 
 in conformity with the opinions of the Fiscales (Attor- 
 neys General) of Peru and New Spain and of the 
 Contadur'ia General (General Financial Office), agreed 
 in full membership to suggest this change in an opinion 
 to the King. The Royal cedula approving it was com- 
 municated, as was provided therein, to the Viceroys of 
 Peru and New Granada, to the President of the Au- 
 diencia of Quito, to the Archbishop of Lima and to 
 the Bishops of Quito and of Trujillo; all obeyed and 
 complied with it. And besides it was proclaimed from 
 town to town.^ 
 
 This was the legal course to be pursued, and the 
 course which would have been pursued had it been de- 
 sired, by the issuance of the Royal order of 1803, to 
 change the demarcation of the Viceroyalties of Santa 
 Fe and New Spain and the jurisdictional limits of 
 their respective audiencias and governments. 
 
 5. The IneflBcacy and Abrogation of This Royal Order. 
 
 Furthermore, the Royal order of November 20, 1803, 
 called that of *'San Lorenzo," fell morally still-born; 
 no one took any notice of it, and it was contradicted by 
 
 (i) This Royal cedula of 1802, relating to the Government of 
 Maynas, is discussed at length in the work written by one of the 
 counsel herein. See "A Study of the Question of Boundaries 
 between the Republics of Peru and Ecuador" (Estudio de la cues- 
 tion de limites entre las Rcpublicas del Peru y del Ecuador), Madrid, 
 1907. Translated into English by Harry Weston Van Dyke, Wash- 
 ington, 1910.
 
 149 
 
 numerous provisions, which proceeded in every case as 
 though it had never existed. 
 
 As soon as the Brigadier, Don Roque Abarca, In 
 spector of Militia of the Captaincy-General of Guate 
 mala, received knowledge of this Royal order, he sent 
 a communication (Doc. No. 194) to the Captain-General 
 and President of the Audiencia, Don Antonio Gonzalez, 
 setting forth the great injuries that would result from 
 its execution, and showing that even were it to be in- 
 sisted upon, it was undesirable in every way to confide 
 its execution to O'Neille. The President, Gonzalez, 
 fonvarded these observations to the Minister of War, 
 in the despatch of June 3, 1804 (Doc. No. 195), making 
 them his own and stating that they were in accord with 
 his information and the documents which he had before 
 him. 
 
 The Brigadier Abarca declared that O'Neille 's sole 
 purpose was to carry on contraband trade on a large 
 scale, as he already had been doing (or protecting it) 
 with Jamaica; that for this purpose he falsified the 
 facts and contradicted what he had said in writing; 
 that the accepted plan of O'Neille was the very same 
 which he had proposed to them, the captain-general 
 and himself, and which they had rejected with indigna- 
 tion; that the plan conceived by O'Neille was imprac- 
 ticable and its realization could only be considered as 
 the work of a crazy person, or of expert smugglers; 
 and that the plan which ought to be pursued for the 
 colonization of the Mosquito Coast was another and 
 very different one, the one which he advised — slow 
 but sure. 
 
 So energetic an attack by the Captain-General of 
 Guatemala took away all the moral authority of the 
 Royal order of 1803, and left it but a dead letter.
 
 150 
 
 The Captain-General of Guatemala kept right on 
 acting in the matters relating to the Mosquito Coast, 
 as is proved by numerous documents and especially by 
 the Royal order of November 13, 1806 (Doc. No. 197). 
 That official had applied to the Secretaryship of State 
 and War (Doc. No. 193), in a complaint against the 
 Intendant of Comayagua (Honduras), who claimed to 
 have the administration of the establishments of the 
 Mosquito Coast, saying that they had '* always de- 
 pended immediately upon this Captaincy-General," 
 and the Eoyal order says: 
 
 ''The King having been informed by the let 
 ters of Your Worship * * * and by the 
 documents accompanying them * * * jjiy 
 Majesty has resolved that Your Worship is the 
 one who must have sole charge and the absolute 
 cognizance of all the affairs that arise in the 
 Colony of Trujillo and other military posts of 
 the Coast of Mosquitos, relating to the four 
 matters referred to (Justice, Police, P^inance 
 and War), in compliance with the Royal Orders 
 issued since the year 17()2, ■.vlik-h authorized yo-i 
 to occupy, defend and settle that Coast, until 
 that object being in whole or in part secured, 
 His Majesty may deem it suitable to change the 
 actual system * * *" 
 
 So that, even supposing that the Royal order of 
 1803 ever had any legal value and could have been put 
 into practice, it was abrogated by this order of 180G 
 which retained the Mosquito Coast under the depend- 
 ency of Guatemala, in the four departments of Justice, 
 Police, Finance and War. 
 
 By Royal order of March 31, 1808 (Doc. No. 198), 
 addressed to the Captain-General of Guatemala in re- 
 ply to his communications of January 3 and June 18,
 
 151 
 
 1805, it was provided that the San Juan river of Nica- 
 ragua should remain open to navigation and commerce, 
 that, in order to promote the clearing and cultivation 
 of the immediate lands the same favors were granted 
 to their inhabitants that were conceded to the new 
 settlers of the Mosquito Coast by the Royal order of 
 November 20, 1803 (a different order from that of the 
 same date which is invoked by Colombia (Doc. No. 
 474) ; that, for a period of ten years there was to be 
 exemption from duties and tithes on the products that 
 might be har^^ested within a distance of ten leagues 
 from the river, on either bank thereof; and that the 
 establishment of a settlement should be undertaken 
 near the said San Juan de Nicaragua river. Those ten 
 leagues of the coast to the north lay in what was called 
 the Mosquito Coast ; and the ten on the soutli belonged 
 to Costa Rica. This Royal order of 1808 proves, there- 
 fore, that the jurisdiction of the Captaincy-General of 
 Guatemala continued upon the Mosquito Coast, at the 
 mouth of the San Juan river, and also in Costa Rica, 
 and that the Royal order of 1803, did not operate 
 against this jurisdiction. 
 
 The Valley and Coast of Matina, which Colombia 
 claims as embraced within the Mosquito Coast, con- 
 tinued under the cemmand of the Governor of the 
 Province of Costa Rica, as is shown by several orders 
 which its governor, at that time Don Tomas de Acosta, 
 gave to the Judge and Comandante of Matina, and the 
 communications of this Governor to the Captain-Gen- 
 eral of Guatemala concerning matters in that district 
 (1808 and 1809). The official communication of Don 
 Tomas de Acosta to said captain-general, of Septem- 
 ber 20, 1809 (Doc. No. 199), merits special attention. 
 In that communication he gives an account of the let-
 
 152 
 
 ter which the Governor of the Island of San Andres 
 had written to him, telling him that the Government of 
 Matina belonged to that of San Andres, by reason of 
 its command of the coast from Cape Gracias a Dios as 
 far as the Chagres river; against this Acosta protested, 
 on the ground that it was contrary to immemorial tra 
 dition, and he ended by stating to the Captain-General 
 as follows: 
 
 **In this Government the Royal Orders of 1803 
 and 1807 which O'Neille cites do not exist; 
 wherefore and perhaps because he has not given 
 to them the proper understanding, I will con- 
 tinue without change in the command of this 
 province and its coasts, until Your Worship may 
 otherwise provide or consult His Majesty ia 
 order to avoid disputes." 
 
 On November 7, 1809, the Captain-General of Guate- 
 mala, replied to the Governor of Costa Rica stating 
 that the Governor of the Island of San Andres had no 
 authority whatever over the Coast of Matina (Doc. 
 Nos. 200 and 201). 
 
 The Cortes of Cadiz, on the petition of the Deputy 
 for Costa Rica, Don Florencio del Castilla, without op- 
 position by the representatives of the Viceroyalty of 
 Sante Fe, and after the Council of the Regency had 
 been heard, resolved by decree of December 1, 1811 
 (Doc. No. 204), that the Port of Matina should be 
 opened, and exemption from duties on exports granted 
 for ten years. The Captain-General of Guatemala re 
 ferred the decree to the Governor of Costa Rica, on 
 May 25, 1812, because of the fact that the Port of 
 Matina was under his jurisdiction, and the latter gov- 
 ernor replied, on July 1st, that he was fully advised of
 
 153 
 
 this sovereign provision for its execution (Doc. No. 
 208). 
 
 To summarise; neither the Mosquito Coast, nor the 
 coastal portion of the Province of Costa Rica, passed 
 to the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe, but continued as a de- 
 pendency of the Captaincy-General and Audiencia of 
 Guatemala in the Viceroyalty of New Spain. The only 
 effect produced by the Royal order of November 20, 
 1803, was the creation of the government of O'Neille 
 which was confined to the Islands of San Andres. Those 
 islands having been the subject of continuous dispute 
 between the Spanish and the English, were left to Spain 
 until the struggles for independence. In 1818 a band of 
 pirates commanded by Captain Louis Aury, took pos- 
 session of them and held absolute sway for three years ; 
 and in 1822 Colombia occupied them, not by rights de- 
 rived from the Spanish Colonial regime, but by having 
 driven off the pirates. The dependency of the islands 
 could not affect, and did not affect, the Province of 
 Costa Rica. 
 
 in. 
 
 LAST YEARS OF SPANISH SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 1. First Period of the Constitutional Regime in Spain. 
 
 (a) General Organic Provisions. 
 
 Spain being under invasion, in 1808, by the troops 
 of Napoleon, and Fernando VII absent from the coun- 
 try, the Supreme Central Junta governed in the Pen- 
 insula and in America, and recognized the existence 
 of the Province of Costa Rica. This is shown by the 
 summons for the election of deputies in 1809, in which
 
 154 
 
 that province took part (electing for the extraordinary 
 Cortes, Don Florencio del Castillo) and by the appoint 
 ment of Don Juan de Dios de Ayala as governor of 
 that province in 1810. 
 
 America had a numerous and brilliant representa- 
 tion in the Cortes of Cadiz which established the con- 
 stitutional regime in Spain ; indeed, several of its 
 Deputies — among them the same Don Florencio del 
 Castillo — were elevated to the Chairmanship in recog- 
 nition of their merit, and out of respect for America 
 whose provinces were always looked upon by the Cor- 
 tes as sisters of those of the Peninsula and subsisting 
 under a common politico-administrative system. 
 
 By the side of Don Florencio del Castillo, Deputy 
 for Costa Rica, were the representatives of Guatemala, 
 Nicaragua, Panama and New Granada — Larrazabal, 
 Lopez de la Plata, Ortiz, Mexia Lequerica and Count 
 of Puiionrostro ; and when we see that every one as- 
 sented to the declarations made and the resolutions 
 passed in that body with respect to Costa Rica, we 
 may safely assume that they responded to the actual 
 facts and to the conveniences of the provinces inter- 
 ested. The Deputy for Panama, Don Jose Joaquin 
 Ortiz, went farther. In his statement to the Cortes, 
 on April 28, 1812 (Doc. No. 475), he confirmed the his- 
 torical boundaries between Costa Rica and Panama, 
 saying : 
 
 **That important Isthmus (of Panama) has, 
 from the village of Chepo, which borders on the 
 country of the wild Indians of Darien, as far as 
 the village of Boqueron, in the jurisdiction of 
 Chiriqui, which borders upon the Kingdom of 
 Guatemala, a length of 118 leagues. * * *"
 
 155 
 
 The Constitution of Cadiz, of 1812, in its Art. 10 
 (Doc. No. 205), maintained the separation of Guate- 
 mala (which it expressly mentioned) and New GranadM 
 (Sante Fe), and preserved the territorial division ex- 
 istins^ in the Spanish dominions, until another more 
 convenient division should be made by means of a 
 constitutional law, as declared in Art. 11 (Doc. No. 
 205). 
 
 After the Constitution had been adopted the repre 
 sentative Cortes passed two important decrees of a 
 lecrislative character; one relating to judicial organiza- 
 tion and the other concerning provincial government 
 
 The Decree of October 9, 1812 (Doc. No. 210) pro- 
 vided in Art. 1 that until a new division of the territory 
 should be made there would be an audiencia in each 
 of the provinces that then had one, and mentioned as 
 still subsisting, the Audiencias of Guatemala and Santa 
 Fe; it declared in Art. 2 that those audiencias should 
 retain the territory they then had, and the same resi 
 dential seat. The Province of Costa Rica continued, 
 then, to belong to the Audiencia of Guatemala, and 
 preserved the same eastern boundaries, which were 
 the boundaries of that audiencia with that of Santa Fe. 
 
 The Decree of May 23, 1812 (Doc. No. 207), estab 
 lished a new provincial regime, and created the su- 
 perior political chiefs of the provinces and the pro 
 vincial deputations, as provided for in the Constitu- 
 tion. In pursuance of that decree there was to be a 
 provincial deputation in each of the provinces espe- 
 ciallv mentioned in Art. 10 of the Constitution and 
 therefore in Guatemala; but in Guatemala the decree 
 provided, there was to be another, to be established in 
 Leon de Nicaragua ''with the Province of Costa Rica."
 
 156 
 
 This provincial deputation was called that of Nica 
 ragua and Costa Rica. 
 
 (h) Contmuation of the Dependency of the Northern 
 Coast of Costa Rica Upon tlie Government of That 
 Province. 
 
 Although in the light of such provisions of a gen 
 eral organic character, it clearly follows that the Prov- 
 ince of Costa Rica in no way depended upon Santa Fe 
 or New Granada, we shall have to insist, as regards this 
 northern coast (which Colombia pretends to consider 
 as embraced in the Mosquito Coast), upon adding more 
 proofs of the inefficacy and abrogation of the Royal 
 order of San Lorenzo, of November 20, 1803. 
 
 We have already shown how the extraordinary Cor- 
 tes, at the petition of Don Florencio del Castillo, 
 Deputy for Costa Rica, decreed the opening of the 
 Port of Matina, belonging to that province, on Decem- 
 ber 1, 1811, and how its governor, Don Juan de Dios de 
 Ayala, by order of the Captain-General of Guatemala, 
 stood ready to carry that decree into effect. 
 
 The governor continued to act in connection with 
 the Captain-General of Guatemala in everything that 
 related to Matina, as shown by his communications of 
 August 5, and October 5, 1813 (Doc. Nos. 212 and 213) 
 
 The Provincial Deputation of Nicaragua ihaving 
 been charged with making the provincial division of 
 districts, resolved, as its secretary certifies, to propos<» 
 the creation of two political sub-chiefs; of these, ac- 
 cording to the official communication of its president of 
 April 27, 1814 (Doc. No. 214), to the Minister of 
 Ultramar (Affairs Beyond the Seas), one was to be 
 assigned to Granada, where the vessels unload which 
 
 ...
 
 157 
 
 arrive at the port of the San Juan river, on one of 
 whose banks it was suggested to locate a settlement of 
 300 families — and the other in Cartago, capital of the 
 Province of Costa Rica, because of its extent • * * 
 **and because upon its coasts, it has the ports of Punta 
 de Arenas on the South and Matina on the North." 
 This resolution demonstrates that the Mosquito Coast 
 continued under the jurisdiction of Nicaragua, and the 
 coast of Matina under that of Costa Rica, and that the 
 establishment of settlements on the San Juan river, re 
 f erred to in the Royal order of March 31, 1808 (Doc. 
 No. 198), proceeded in due course. 
 
 By Decree of April 29, 1814 (Doc. No. 215), the 
 Cortes resolved to open the port of Punta de Arenas, 
 located to the south **of the Province of Costa Rica." 
 
 (c) Description of the Province of Costa Rica in the 
 Proposal Made by Its Deputy in the Cortes For the 
 Creation of a Bishopric. 
 
 In the session of the Cortes of May 31, 1813, pre- 
 sided over by Don Florencio del Castillo, Deputy for 
 Costa Rica, the proposal of the latter relating to the 
 creation of a Bishopric of that name was read; it 
 begins as follows: 
 
 '*In the Committee on Affairs Beyond the 
 Seas there is a Memorial from the Noble Mu- 
 nicipal Council of the city of Cartago, capital 
 of Costa Rica, which asks for the separation of 
 the said province from the Bishopric of Leon 
 de Nicaragua to which it is now added, to the 
 end that a separate diocese being created in 
 Costa Rica, there shall be erected and estab- 
 lished an Episcopal See in the aforesaid city of 
 Cartago."
 
 158 
 
 In presenting its arguments, the petition describetj 
 the province in general, as follows : 
 
 "Costa Rica has for the boundaries of its 
 territory the River Chiriqui. which separates it 
 from the ProvirKe of Panama, and the River 
 Salto, which diWdes it from that of Nicaragua, 
 between which two provinces it is located. It 
 has for its boundaries on the North and the 
 South the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. 
 From one of the rivers that are designated to 
 the other, it is more than 150 leagues, by verj' 
 rough roads and almost impassable on accounl 
 of the multitude of mountains and the large 
 rivers that must be crossed. The distance from 
 one sea to the other is not uniform, but the av- 
 erage is about 70 leagues." 
 
 The petition goes on to speak of settlements in that 
 province of the number of races among its inhabitants, 
 and sums up by saying: 
 
 I 
 "For these reasons Costa Rica was always 
 considered and held since its discovery as a 
 province separate and independent from the 
 others ; governed in political and military affairs 
 by a chief with the title of Governor and Com 
 andante de las Armas, who recognized no other 
 dependency than upon the Audiencia and Cap- 
 taincy-General of Guatemala; so that it is only 
 in ecclesiastical matters that it has been added 
 to the diocese of Nicaragua." 
 
 It is impossible to describe in a more concrete and 
 positive nmnner the status of the Province of Costa 
 Rica in 1813; and that status conforms perfectly with 
 the status which, according to the evidence adduced 
 from the great mass of official documents we have 
 cited, always subsisted.
 
 159 
 2. Absolute Government of Fernando VII. 
 
 Fernando Vli on his return to Spain, in 1814, after 
 tho evacuation of the Peninsula by the French, an- 
 nulled all the acts of the constitutional roi^nme, and re- 
 established the absolute government that had previ- 
 ously existed. 
 
 He left Don Juan de Dios de Ayala as Governor of 
 the Province of Costa Ric^i, and, in 1818, appointed to 
 that office, Don Beniardo Valhirino. On the death of 
 the latter, the Audiencia of Guatemala filled the office 
 temporarily, by the appointment of Don Jutm Manuel 
 de Canas. 
 
 The Governor of Costa Rica continued in authority 
 on the coast and at the Port of Matina, keeping in com- 
 munication with the Captain- General of (iuatemala, as 
 may be seen by various official communications from 
 1815 to 1819 (Doc. Nos. 218, 219, 220, 225, 226, 227 and 
 229). By Royal cedula of May 26, 1818 ( Doc. No. 228), 
 addressed to the Captain-General of Guatemala, the 
 King commanded a report to be made in regard to the 
 amendment of the impost upon cacao derived from the 
 Valley of Matina. 
 
 The territory of Talamanca continued to belong to 
 the Province of Costa Rica, as shown by the account 
 given by Fray Ramon Roxas, Comisario prefecto of 
 the Missions, to the Bishop of Nicaragua, dated July 
 3, 1815 (Doc. No. 217) ; in this he tells the Bishop that 
 ^l* * * ^YiQ reduction of Talamanca is upon the 
 borders of this diocese, on the side adjacent to that of 
 Panama," and relates how the governors of Costa 
 Rica protect the missions of Talamanca. 
 
 Although the Cortes was dissolved, Fernando VTI 
 by Royal order of June 17, 1814, exhorted those who
 
 160 
 
 had been deputies of the American provinces, to sub- 
 mit to him the petitions that they had pending, and any 
 other matters pertaining to their respective provinces. 
 This was done by Don Florencio del Castillo, ex-Dep- 
 uty for Costa Rica, in his statement to the King of 
 July 12 of the same year (Doc. No. 216), in which he 
 reproduces what he had presented to the Cortes on 
 May 31, 1813, repeating the paragraphs that we have 
 transcribed regarding the limits of Costa Rica and 
 insisting that it had always been a province separate 
 from the rest, ruled by a governor dependent solely 
 upon the Captaincy-General and Audiencia of Guate- 
 mala. 
 
 By Royal cedula of May 26, 1818, in accord 
 with the Council of the Indies, Fernando VII 
 commanded the Captaincy-General of Guatemala to 
 report concerning the proposal of Don Florencio del 
 Castillo respecting the creation of a Bishopric of Costa 
 Rica, and took counsel with the Intendant and the 
 Bishop of Nicaragua, the Fiscal (Attorney General) 
 and the Audiencia of Guatemala, in order to determine 
 what was best to be done. 
 
 3. Second Constitutional Period. 
 
 The Constitution of Cadiz was re-established in 1820, 
 and with it the Provincial Deputation of Nicaragua 
 and Costa Rica; whereupon that deputation on De- 
 cember 13, 1820 (Doc. No. 476), again took up the 
 proposition for the division by districts (enumerating 
 the principal places of each) and the creation of po- 
 litical sub-chiefs. In the note accompanying the com- 
 munication concerning those matters addressed to the 
 Minister of Affairs Beyond the Seas, it is shown that
 
 161 
 
 the Province of Costa Rica was under the charge of a 
 political and military governor independent of the 
 Governor of Nicaragua, save in the matter of Hacienda 
 (Finances), of which a sub-intendant had charge mider 
 the Ordinance of 1786, and he depended upon the In- 
 tendancy- General of Nicaragua. By Royal order of 
 February 27, 1822, it was directed that this plan be 
 forwarded to the Minister of the Interior for investi- 
 gation. 
 
 In the session of the Cortes of May 17, 1821, Don 
 Jose Mariano Mendez, Deputy for one of the Guate- 
 mala districts, presented a memorial of which he was 
 the author, entitled, "Memorial of the Political and 
 Ecclesiastical Condition of the Captaincy -General of 
 Guatemala, a Plan for the Division into Eight Prov- 
 inces, With as Many More Provincial Deputies, Politi- 
 cal Chiefs, Intendants and Bishops," which memorial, 
 according to the records, was favorably received by 
 the Cortes and referred to the Committees on Pro- 
 vincial Deputations, Ecclesiastical Affairs and Finance. 
 
 This very interesting memorial (Doc. No. 230) be- 
 gins by saying : 
 
 *' Guatemala, situated in Northern America, 
 longitude from 282 degrees to 295 degrees, and 
 latitude from 8 degrees to 17 degrees, has a 
 length of 13 degrees, which makes 227 Castilian 
 leagues of 17Vii to the degree; and by road it is 
 calculated at more than 700 leagues from Chi 
 lillo. tlie end bordering with the Audiencia of 
 Mexico, as far as Chiriqui, the frontier line of 
 the jurisdiction of the Audiencia of Santa Fe 
 de Bogota. In width it is 9 degrees, from the 
 southern territories of Costa Rica to the north- 
 ern ones of Chiapa. * * * It borders on the 
 West with the Intendancv of Guaxaca; on the
 
 162 
 
 East with the Province of Veragua, district of 
 Tierra Fimie and Santa Fe; on the North with 
 the Ocean and on the South with the Pacific." 
 
 It then goes on to explain that 
 
 *'* * * throughout the extent of this 
 Kingdom there is but one Audiencia, which sits 
 in the capital of Guatemala, with its Captain 
 General, who has a large number of subordinat :• 
 chiefs for the political and military administra- 
 tion and Government of the fifteen provinces 
 into which it is divided." 
 
 This number is made up of eight alcadias mayores, 
 two Gorregimientos, the Government of Costa Rica and 
 the Intendancies of Nicaragua, Chiapa, Comayagua de 
 Honduras and San Salvador. 
 
 It indicates the inconveniences of this division and 
 suggests that eight provinces be created, each with its 
 respective civil and ecclesiastical authorities. 
 
 Of the Province of Costa Rica — the first of the 
 eight — he speaks as follows : 
 
 ''This city (of Cartago) is the capital of the 
 province of Costa Rica, situated in the center, 
 at 80 leagues from the frontier line of Nicaragua 
 and as raanv more from that of Costa Firme, 
 jurisdiction of Veragua, and at thirty leagues 
 from the Port of Esparza on the South Sea, and 
 at a like distance from that of Matina, on the 
 North Sea ; so that the total length is 160 leagues 
 and the width 60. * * * In 1813, its Dep- 
 uty in the Cortes endeavored to have it erected 
 into a Bishopric * * * and this same effort 
 was repeated in the present Cortes, asking for a 
 Provincial Deputation * * * ; its better ad- 
 ministration and government can only be at-
 
 163 
 
 tained by means of a Provincial Deputation, 
 Political Chief, Intendant, University, College 
 and Bishop without canons." 
 
 IV. 
 
 THE INDEPENDENCE AND THE "UTI POSSI- 
 DETIS." 
 
 1. Independence of the Provinces of Guatemala and 
 
 New Granada. 
 
 During this second constitutional period, Costa Rica 
 was emancipated from the sovereignty of Spain. 
 
 The news of the Spanish rovolutionaiy movement of 
 1820, revived the insurrection of Mexico which had 
 been suppressed; General Itiirbide placed himself at 
 its head and on February 24, 1821, p'.it forth the mani- 
 festo of Iguala (Doc. No. 243), proclaiming the inde- 
 pendence of Mexico. Following this example, Guate- 
 mala also declared itself independent of Spain, in Sep- 
 tember, and Costa Rica, in October, of the same year 
 (the governor then being Don Manuel de Caiias). 
 
 General Iturbide caused himself to be proclaimed 
 Emperor of Mexico, with the name of Augustin I, in 
 May, 1822. The provinces of the old Captaincy-Gen- 
 eral of Guatemala joined the new Mexican Empire; 
 but on the dissolution of the latter, in March, 1823, 
 they united and sent representatives to a constituent 
 assembly which, in July of that year, ratified their 
 independence from both Spain and Mexico. That as- 
 sembly adopted the Constitution of the JJuiftd Prov- 
 inces of the Center of America, of November 22, 1824 
 (Doc. No. 254), thus forming a republican confedera
 
 Ib4 
 
 tion composed of five States : Guatemala, Salvador, 
 Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, each of wliicti 
 had its own constitution. 
 
 This confederation lasted for fourteen years, until 
 the federal compact, having been broken by the con- 
 gress of 1838, there were born the five republics that 
 now bear those names, each with an entirely inde- 
 pendent life. 
 
 The insurrectionary movement of the provinces of 
 the Viceroyalty of New Granada was distinct. It had 
 its principal center in Santa Fe de Bogota which, in 
 July, 1810, rose against the viceroy and attempted to 
 form a confederation of those provinces. The move 
 ment, however, failed of success until Bolivar, who had 
 achieved the independence of Venezuela, placed him- 
 self at its head. The Congress of Angostura (in Vene- 
 zuela), of February 19, 1819, decreed the formation of 
 the Republic of Colombia, with the provinces of Vene- 
 zuela and New Granada. The Congress of Rosario de 
 (yueuta approved the Constitution of this Republic on 
 August 30, 1821. 
 
 The Province of Panama, where the Viceroy, Sam- 
 ano. was established, was proclaimed independent of 
 Spain, in November, 1821, and agreed to cast in its 
 lot with the Republic of Colombia. 
 
 So, that, in November of 1821, the sovereignty of 
 Spain <jnde(l in the two provinces of Costa Rica and 
 Panama, bordering on the two viceroyalties and au 
 diencias, each, on its emancipation, attaching itself to 
 those provinces witii which it had been united — Costa 
 Kii»a with the Guatemala provinces; Panama with those 
 of New Granada.
 
 165 
 
 2. The Principle of Colonial "Uti Possidetis." 
 
 *'Uti possidetis" was the term used in the Roman 
 law to designate the interdict of retention of possession 
 which the praetor pronounced, in the interest of tho 
 holder of property, to protect him in his possession 
 80 long as he was not defeated in a trial of ownership, 
 using a long phrase which was condensed into these 
 words, ''uti possidetis, ita possideatis;" that is, '*as 
 ye possess, so may ye possess (so may ye continue 
 possessing)." 
 
 This term, ''uti possidetis," having been adopted 
 into international law, serves to designate the principle 
 of ''the conservation of the possessory status" in in- 
 ternational relations. The principle of the "colonial 
 uti possidetis" signifies the recognition of the posses- 
 sory status in which the provinces or regions were 
 found when they were colonies, and the continuity 
 thereof after they had been emancipated and formed 
 independent states. 
 
 The importance of this principle may be easily un- 
 derstood in the demarcation of the states that sprang 
 into existence in America upon the cessation of Spain's 
 sovereignty. Those states had no other history than 
 that of the colonial period ; but during that period they 
 had formed themselves into communities, with their 
 own customs, traditions and social and administrative 
 institutions that differentiated each from the others. 
 It was but natural, therefore, that they should con- 
 tinue to live as they had lived — in the same territories 
 and undergoing no other change than that involved in 
 the acquisition of sovereignty, or such changes as they 
 might wish to establish in the exercise of such sov- 
 ereignty.
 
 166 
 
 All the territory' of the Indies had been divided by 
 the Sovereigns of Spain into viceroyalties, audiencias 
 and governments of various classes, within the re- 
 spective demarcations of which, those communities 
 were formed, each \vith vast areas to be settled. The 
 provinces emancipated themselves as best they could; 
 those of one great circumscription united or passed 
 voluntarily from one circumscription to another, or 
 separated among themselves, and constituted them- 
 selves into independent republics. When the common 
 sovereign power was withdrawn, it became indispen- 
 sably necessary to agree on a general principle of 
 demarcation, since there was a universal desire to 
 avoid the resort to force, and the principle adopted 
 was the colonial uti possidetis; that is, the principle 
 involving the preservation of the demarcations under 
 the colonial regime corresponding to each of the co- 
 lonial entities that was constituted as a state. Thus, 
 also, it prevented the seizure by foreign nations of 
 any of those vast unsettled territories. 
 
 The principle of uti possidetis was introduced recip- 
 rocally into the relations of the American republics of 
 Spanish origin by the Treaty of Bogota, of 1811, en- 
 tered into by the United Provinces of Venezuela and 
 the United Provinces of New Granada ; in that instru 
 ment they undertook to recognize and respect as the 
 boundaries between those that pertained to the Cap- 
 taincy-General and Viceroyalty bearing those names- - 
 a principle that was extended over the whole of Latin 
 America. 
 
 But if there was general accord in the acceptance of 
 that principle, difficulties arose in its application, 
 mainly concerning the character of the possessory 
 status and the date to be taken, each republic insisting
 
 167 
 
 upon what was most desirable for its own interests 
 according to the situation in which it found itself. 
 
 3. Application of the Principle. 
 
 Further exposition of this doctrine of the uti possi- 
 detis, which pertains to the international law of Latin 
 America, is unnecessary, since we address ourselves, 
 in this opinion, to the colonial Spanish law; still we 
 set forth the situation of Costa Rica in order to apply 
 that principle. 
 
 The fundamental law of the State of Costa Rica, of 
 January 21, 1825 (Doc. No. 255) expressed perfectly 
 the equation between its territory and that of the 
 Spanish province of that name; it fixed its limits in 
 the same way that they existed in fact and law, at the 
 moment when the sovereignty of Spain came to an end. 
 In its Art. 15 the law provided: 
 
 **The territory of the State is now extended 
 from West to East, from the River Salto, which 
 divides it from Nicaragua, to the River Chiriqni, 
 the end of the Republic of Colombia ; and North 
 South from one Sea to the other, its limits being 
 on the North at the mouth of the River San 
 Juan and the Escudo de Veragua, and on the 
 South at the outlet of the River Alvarado and 
 that of Chiriqui. 
 
 y> 
 
 The expression **now," used in connection with 
 Nicaragua, was adopted because the addition of 
 Nicoya was expected, that province having manifested 
 its desire to unite with Costa Rica ; and it was in fact 
 so united by decree of the Federal Congress of the 
 Republic of Central America of December 9 of the 
 same year (Doc. No. 258).
 
 168 
 
 That fundamental law of Costa Rica harmonizes 
 with the law of territorial division of the Republic of 
 Colombia, of June 25, 1824 (Doc. No. 251), which had 
 respected the limits of the foniier State. Colombia 
 divided her territory into twelve de])artments, subdi- 
 vided into provinces composed of cantons. The De- 
 partment of the Isthmus was made up of two prov- 
 inces: That of Panama and that of V^eragua. The 
 Province of Veragua was divided into four cantons — 
 Santiago de Veragua, Mesa, Alanje and Guaimi. All 
 these cantons were located to the east of Costa Rica, 
 including that of Guaymi which was another portion 
 of the valley of that name, and had for its capital, the 
 town of Remedies. 
 
 A few days after this law was published, the Gov- 
 ernment of Colombia issued the Decree of July 5, 1824 
 (Doc. No. 252), declaring illegal "every enterprise 
 which is undertaken to colonize any point of that por- 
 tion of the Coast of Mosquitos from Cape Gracias a 
 Dios, inclusive, toward the River Chagres, which be- 
 longs to the Republic of Colombia, in virtue of the 
 formal declaration made at San Lorenzo on November 
 30, 1803." It was sought by this action to give life to 
 the Royal order relating to the Government of the 
 Islands of San Andres, which had died still-bom and 
 to which no one had paid any attention during the co- 
 lonial period ; the nullity and ineflficacy of that Royal 
 order with respect to Costa Rica we have already dem- 
 onstrated. And it must be observed that it was not 
 taken into consideration in making the law of terri- 
 torial division which was prepared and sanctioned at 
 that time. 
 
 On March 15, 1825 (Doc. No. 257), was signed in 
 Bogota the treaty between the Republic of Colombia
 
 and the Federal Republic of Central America of which 
 the State of Costa Rica formed a part,, and by which 
 the latter republic bordered on the former. The par- 
 ties mutually guaranteed the integrity of their respect- 
 ive territories "as they existed naturally prior to the 
 present war of independence," and obligated them- 
 selves to respect their boundaries ''as they now exist;" 
 they also agreed to the reservation, "as soon as cir- 
 cumstances will permit, to settle in a friendly manner 
 the line of demarcation between the two states, or 
 w^henever one of the parties shall be disposed to enter 
 on this negotiation." 
 
 In the conferences held during the negotiation of 
 that Treaty of 1825 the Minister of Foreign Relations of 
 Colombia, Don Pedro Gual, proposed a change in the 
 existing boundaries based on the proposition to giv*:? 
 effect to the Royal order of 1803. The Minister Pleni- 
 potentiary of Central America, Don Pedro Molina, 
 replied that he was without instructions on this point. 
 "Well, then, responded Senor Gual, as to boundaries 
 it is necessary to hold to the uti possidetis of 1810, or 
 1820, as may be desired. Senor Molina having acqui- 
 esced, Senor Gual was charged with preparing the 
 articles arranged at the time of making this project." 
 It is thus set forth in the protocol of the conference be- 
 tween the two representatives of March 4, 1825 (Doc. 
 No. 256). 
 
 From the foregoing it appears tluit both parties 
 were agreed in recognizing, in 1824 and 1825 — three or 
 four years after the independence — as the boundaries 
 existing in fact between the Spanish Provinces of Costa 
 Rica and Veragua at the moment of independence, th3 
 same boundaries which they promised to respect and 
 mutually adhere to. The Colombian law of territorial
 
 170 
 
 division, of June 25, 1824, did not go beyond the bound- 
 aries of Veragua; the fundamental law of Costa Rica 
 of January 21, 1825, included from sea to sea, as far 
 as the Escudo de Veragua and the Ohiriqui (Viejo) 
 river; and the Treaty of Bogota of May 15, 1825, pre- 
 served the existing boundaries, without making th«^ 
 changes which the Minister of Colombia had claimed 
 on the authority of the Royal order of 1803. 
 
 The principle of uti possidetis, then, was accepted 
 by common consent in the sense of preserving the pos- 
 sessory status, Colombia declaring that whether the 
 year 1810 or 1820 be adopted in connection with that 
 status should be "as it might be desired to understand 
 it" This is easv enough to understand because the 
 change proposed by Colombia not having been adopted, 
 it was a matter of indifference which date should be 
 selected, that possessory status being the same in both 
 periods. 
 
 But Colombia's ambition to extend herself into 
 Central America, grew apace. Taking advantage, 
 therefore, of the discord that prevailed among the 
 States of the Federation, in 1836, she treated the ter- 
 ritory of Bocas del Toro and all its islands as her own, 
 and occupied them with force. To justif}^ such ambi- 
 tions and the acts that were committed in carrying 
 them out, Colombia, resorted to the Royal order of 
 San Lorenzo, of 1803, on the assumption that it con- 
 stituted the nti possidetis de jure of 1810, and that 
 under its sanction she was entitled to the dominion 
 (which had pertained to the Viceroyalty of Sante Fe) 
 over the Atlantic coast from Cape Gracias a Dios to- 
 wards the Chagres river, including the Matina Coast. 
 
 Colombia, therefore, interpreted the principle of 
 uti possidetis in the sense of the preservation of the
 
 Ill 
 
 right of ownership instead of that of possession; 
 whereas, the fact is that that priuciple, as its name 
 indicates, and in consonance with the interdict from 
 which it is derived requires as an indispensable condi- 
 tion "the fact of being in possession." The right to 
 property, unaccompanied by possession, may be ground 
 for recovery, but never for the interdict of retention 
 or the right to preserve possession that is lacking. 
 
 The Republic of Colombia, by combatting the inter- 
 pretation of the uti possidetis in the sense of preserva- 
 tion of the possessory condition de facto, and alleging 
 in favor of herself rights of ownership founded upon 
 laws and Royal orders, recognizes that the Viceroyalty 
 of Santa Fe had not been in possession of the territo 
 ries which she has claimed as its heir. 
 
 Colombia asks in the arbitration that the question 
 of boundaries with Costa Rica be decided by the prin- 
 ciple of uti possidetis de jure, asserting in her docu- 
 ments that according to the Recopilacion de Indias the 
 Government of Costa Rica must have belonged to that 
 of Tierra Firme, by having been embraced within the 
 Province of Veragua, which belonged to Tierra Firme, 
 and that under the Royal order of 1803, the Govern- 
 ment of the Mosquito Coast and that of the Atlantic 
 coast of Costa Rica must have belonged to the Vice- 
 royalty of Sante Fe. But she does not say that the 
 Government of Tierra Firme had jurisdiction over 
 Costa Rica subsequently to the creation of the Audi- 
 encia of the Confines, or of Guatemala, nor did the 
 Viceroyalty of Santa Fe exercise even partial control 
 therein ; and she could not state this, since it is entirely 
 contrary to the truth of history. 
 
 The territory and boundaries possessed by Costa 
 Rica at the moment of her emancipation, she held by
 
 172 
 
 virtue of Iei!:al titles, having been dofinitively oonsti- 
 tuted by her historic evolution as a province, and kav- 
 iug lived continuously under that legal status sanc- 
 tioned and continned by a long series of acts of juris- 
 diction and sovereignty. 
 
 That is why Costa Rica, although she understands 
 that the uti possidetis cannot be conceived without 
 possession, has accepted in this arbitration the so- 
 called uti possidetis de jure, because she has in her 
 favor the uti possidetis not only de jure, but de facto. 
 The description of its territory, which the State of 
 Costa Rica gave in Art. 15 of its fundamental law of 
 January 21, 1825, accords with the descriptions we 
 have given of the territory embraced therein in fact 
 and law, when it was a Spanish province, to wit, from 
 sea to sea, from Nicaragua to the Escudo de Veragua 
 on the north and the mouth of the Chiriqui {Viejo) on 
 the south. Such was it possessory .status when, on 
 the 15th of March of the same year, in Bogota the 
 treaty was signed by the Republic of Colombia and 
 the Federal Republic of Central America; in that 
 treaty the boundaries that ' ' then existed ' ' were recog- 
 nized, and the parties mutually guaranteed their re- 
 spective territories. 
 
 Colombia claims that the uti possidetis of all Spanish 
 America refers to the year 1810, because it was then 
 that the insurrectionary movement began which led to 
 the Treaty of 1811. In that treaty the provinces of 
 Venezuela and those of New Granada undertook to 
 recognize and to respect as boundaries between them- 
 selves those belonging to the captaincy-general and 
 viceroyalty. But the principle of uti possidetis hav- 
 ing been proclaimed to enable the new states to accept 
 as boundaries those which their respective provinces
 
 173 
 
 had possessed when they were emancipated and thus 
 establish the continuity of possession, it could not be 
 applied to all as of the same date, but as of the date of 
 the emancipation of each province or rej^ion wlii<;h 
 became a state, for until their emancipation they con- 
 tinued under the sovereignty of Spain who could freely 
 dispose of them. 
 
 The insurrectionary movement of 1810 was repressed 
 by Spain, and this same Republic of Colombia was not 
 born until December, 1819, nor was she definitively con- 
 stituted as a sovereign state until August, 1821. The 
 Province of Guatemala proclaimed itself independent 
 on September 15, 1821 ; those of Costa liica and Pan 
 ama, in October and November of the same year. 
 Therefore, if a common date be adopted for the xUi 
 possidetis of the provinces that figure in the question 
 of boundaries, it must be the year 1821. 
 
 Costa Rica very properly insists on the uti posside- 
 tis of 1821, although she would be under no disadvan- 
 tage were that of 1810 adopted, for lier possessory 
 status as to boundaries was in fact and law, the same 
 in one year as in the other. 
 
 RESUME AND CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 Summary. 
 
 1. Resume and General Conclusions of This Opinion. 
 
 2. Agreement Respecting the Legal Bases For the 
 
 Determination of the Case. 
 
 3. Question of Territoriality. 
 
 4. Question of Delimitation : 
 
 (a) Costa Rica's Evidence. 
 
 (b) Colombia's Evidence.
 
 174 
 
 (c) Special Consideration of the Boundaries of 
 the Dukedom of Veragua. 
 5. Final Deductions. 
 
 1. Resume and General Conclusions of This Opinion. 
 
 We believe that we have demonstrated the three fol- 
 lowing propositions, which constitute the three parts 
 into which we have divided this work: 
 
 1. The Province of Costa Rica and that of Veragua 
 were definitively established and marked out by the 
 Crown in the XVIth Century, in the year 1537. 
 
 2. The Recopilacion de Indias respected and con- 
 firmed the existence and demarcation of Costa Rica. 
 
 3. Costa Rica continued in the same legal status of 
 differentiation from Veragua, from the publication of 
 the Recopilacion down to the independence. 
 
 These propositions are the synthetic resume and the 
 general conclusions of our opinion. 
 
 The clearness with which we think we have presented 
 the facts and the law relating to each of these proposi- 
 tions, by means of the appropriate headings and sum- 
 maries, as also the categorical form used in the state 
 ment of our opinion upon each of the questions em- 
 braced in each proposition, renders unnecessary a 
 fuller resume or a more extensive statement of the 
 conclusions of this opinion; we respectfully refer to 
 the discussions of the points in the text. 
 
 We shall, however, state our conclusions as to the 
 results of the arguments made in the arbitral pro- 
 ceedings on the three questions following, which are 
 the very essence of the case — the legal basis for its 
 detennination, territoriality and the boundaries prop 
 erly so-called.
 
 175 
 
 2. Agfreement Respecting the Legal Bases For the 
 Determination of the Case. 
 
 We have just seen that both parties are agreed in 
 accepting, as the legal basis for the determination of 
 the case, the principle of the colonial uti possidetis, 
 as of the year 1810, although Costa Rica holds, as do 
 we, that it ought to apply to the year 1821. And we 
 have also seen that Costa Rica finds no difficulty in 
 admitting the application of this principle from the 
 point of view of law {de jure), but it must be jointly 
 with the fact of possession {de facto) ; for we consider 
 that without possession the uti possidetis is incon- 
 ceivable. Both parties are also agreed in recognizing 
 as a legal basis what was provided by the Recopilacion 
 de Indias and the Crown of Spain in the exercise of 
 the legislative power. ' The difference of opinions 
 consists in the fact that Colombia denies legal force 
 to the demarcatory provisions prior to the Recopila- 
 cion, conceding it to others which are subsequent, 
 whilst Costa Rica maintains the contrary, according 
 to the character of the acts under discussion. 
 
 In our opinion the Recopilacion de Indias is really 
 the axis of the jurisprudence with which we are con- 
 cerned. The history of Spanish colonial law is di- 
 vided into three periods : The law prior to the Recopi- 
 lacion, that established by the Recopilacion and that 
 subsequent thereto. And to these three periods of 
 that history we have made the three parts of our opin- 
 ion correspond. Of the law prior to the Recopilacion, 
 not only that which, as Colombia assumes, is expressly 
 re-enacted, is valid, but also that which is respected, 
 confirmed or admitted as supplementary. Of the laws 
 provided after the Recopilacion only those are valid
 
 176 
 
 which conform to the laws in that compilation, or their 
 amendments, under the conditions and procedure es- 
 tablished by it. 
 
 3. Question of Territoriality. 
 
 The legal criterion under which the case must be 
 decided liavinie: been established, it is important to 
 distinguish two questions which have been confused 
 under the common designation of "question of bounda- 
 ries:" That of territoriality and of delimitation; that 
 is to say, the question of ownership of a determined 
 territory (a geographical, political or administrative 
 unit), and that of the marking out of the divisional line 
 which separates it from another or several other ter- 
 ritories. 
 
 It clearly results from the argument in the arbitral 
 proceedings, that Colombia does not treat the question 
 of boundaries properly speaking, but that of territo- 
 riality. Colombia denies the territoriality of Costo. 
 Rica: first, entirely, on the authority of the Recopila- 
 cion de Indias; and afterwards, partially, invoking the 
 Royal order of 1803. In order to deny it entirely, she 
 makes use of a geographical equivoque based upon the 
 name of Verayua by taking for the "Province of Ver 
 agua" the primitive Veragua. In order to deny that 
 territoriality partially, she gives to the Mosquito Coast 
 an extent it did not have. 
 
 We cannot reconcile this method of attack to a pro- 
 ceeding international in character, except on the theory 
 that it is resorted to in pursuance of the time-worn 
 maneuver of asking for everything in order to obtain 
 something ; for, were Colombia to succeed in producing 
 the conviction that all the territory of the State of
 
 177 
 
 Costa Rica ought to be adjudicated to her by virtue 
 of old colonial rights, the Arbitrator could not, in de- 
 termining a conflict of boundaries annul or almost 
 annul the existence of a State which had been formed 
 by the sovereignty of an emancipated people, which 
 has been recognized in the integrity of its territory 
 by the other State, and which voluntarily, in its own 
 personality, has agreed with that other State upon an 
 arbitration which is to the tracing of a divisionary 
 line between their respective territories. 
 
 It was fully proved in the arbitral proceeding that 
 from the primitive Veragua were formed three dis 
 tinct provinces : the Province of Veragua (the only one 
 that retained that name), constituted as such in 1560, 
 with its governor and captain-general and having for 
 its domain the territory of the Dukedom of Veragua; 
 the Province of Costa Rica which began by embracing 
 the whole of Royal Veragua, formed by virtue of the 
 commission granted by Philip II to Cavallon, in 1561, 
 and instituted as such province with its governor, 
 captain-general, in 1565, and definitively organized by 
 means of the Government of Artieda, in 1573-1574, 
 upon the segregation of the territory situated to the 
 north of the Desaguadero or San Juan river, and the 
 Province of Teguzgalpa which was created, in 1576, 
 out of the segregated territory that was called later 
 the Mosquito Coast. 
 
 It has been also demonstrated that the Province of 
 Costa Rica and that of Veragua existed as distinct 
 provinces, with their respective territories and with 
 different governors, from the time of their definitive 
 constitution until the termination of the colonial pe- 
 riod; and, furthermore, that each depended upon a 
 different superior government — the Province of Costa
 
 178 
 
 Rica upon the Viceroyalty of Mexico and Captaincy - 
 General and Audiencia of Guatemala and the Province 
 of Veragua upon the Viceroyalties of Peru and New 
 Granada and Audiencias of Panama and Santa Fe. 
 
 The Recopilacion de Indias, far from suppressing 
 the Province of Costa Bica, as Colombia pretends, con- 
 firmed its existence and mentioned it expressly as a 
 distinct province from that of Veragua. The Province 
 of Veragua, which the Recopilacion declares is em- 
 braced in the Government of Tierra Firme, was the 
 one that sprang from the dukedom; whereas, that of 
 Costa Rica continued dependent upon the Audiencia of 
 Guatemala, as it is also expressly provided in that 
 code. 
 
 Colombia contradicts her own argument of the legal 
 non-existence of the Province of Costa Rica, when she 
 alleges that the Royal order of San Lorenzo, of No- 
 vember 20, 1803, segregated from the Superior Gov- 
 ernment of Guatemala the Atlantic part of Costa Rica 
 as embraced in the Mosquito Coast, in order to add it 
 to the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe; for this is equivalent 
 to recognizing that Costa Rica legally existed without 
 belonging to the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe, and that only 
 that portion passed into dependency upon it, the rest 
 remaining under the jurisdiction of Guatemala. 
 
 It has been proved that the Royal order of 1803 did 
 not refer to Costa Rica, since the latter did not form 
 a part of the Mosquito Coast; that the order had only 
 a military and transitory character; that it could not 
 change the laws of territorial division, and that it 
 was inefficacious, contradicted and abrogated. 
 
 The Spanish Province of Costa Rica, emancipated 
 in 1821, brought to the Federal Republic of Central 
 America (which it formed with the other provinces of
 
 179 
 
 the Old Kingdom of Guatemala) the very same terri- 
 tory that it had, in fact and in law, as such Spanish 
 province, and with that same territory belonging to tha 
 State of Costa Rica, the Republic of Central America 
 was recognized by the Colombian Government in the 
 Treaty of 1825. 
 
 4. Question of Delimitation. 
 
 {a) Costa Rica's Evidence. 
 
 The Republic of Costa Rica, as appears in Art. 2 
 of the Convention of January 20, 1886, has claimed in 
 the arbitration as the line dividing her territory from 
 that of Colombia: on the Atlantic side, the line indi- 
 cated by the Island of Escudo de Veragua and the 
 Chiriqui (Calobebora) river, inclusive; and on the 
 Pacific side, the Chiriqui Viejo river, inclusive, to 
 the east of Punta Burica. That line is the 
 one fixed bv the fundamental law of the State of Costa 
 Rica of January 21, 1825, and with which the Republic 
 of Central America was recognized by Colombia in 
 the Treaty of May 15 of the same year. And that 
 same line is the one which separated the Province of 
 Costa Rica from that of Veragua under the colonial 
 regime, being also the divisionary line of the viceroyal- 
 ties and the bordering audiencias. 
 
 The legality of this delimitation is based upon Law 
 1, title 1, book V, of the Recopila^ion de Indias (Doc. 
 No. 131) ; in that law, enacted by Carlos II when that 
 code was published, it was ordered that the viceroys, 
 audiencias, governors and alcaldes may ores should 
 keep and respect the boundaries of their jurisdictions 
 '*as they may be fixed by the Laws of this book, the 
 Titles of their offices, the Provi.sions of the Superior
 
 180 
 
 Government of the Province, or by use and custom 
 leg-itiinately introduced." 
 
 The Republic of Costa Rica has fully proved in the 
 litigation that from the demarcation of the province 
 of that name, made in Artieda's capitulacion of 1573, 
 and his title of governor, granted in 1574, the boun- 
 daries of that province were the line of the Island of 
 the Escudo de Veragua and that of the Chiriqui 
 (Calobebora) river, on the Atlantic side, and the 
 Chiriqui Viejo river (or rather, the Valleys of the 
 Chiriqui, inclusive), on the Pacific side, and therefore 
 existed at the time of the publication of the Recopila- 
 cion de Indias, as shown by the acts of sovereignty 
 exercised by the monarchs, the titles of the offices of 
 the governors, the provisions of the superior govern- 
 ment of the provinces, and the rights based on custom. 
 
 The laws of the Recopilacion did not establish any 
 different boundaries; and in respecting all the Royal 
 cedulas which were not in contradiction therewith, the 
 Royal cedulas demarcatory of boundaries remained in 
 force without denying efficacy to the eapitulaciones, 
 the validity of which was recognized in so far as they 
 were not in contradiction with the laws of the Recopi- 
 lacion, those capitulaciones being considered, takon to- 
 gether, as a system governing discovery, settlement, 
 pacification and government of the territories of the 
 Indies. 
 
 As a result of the creation of the Viceroyalty of New 
 Granada, and the incorporation of the Audiencia of 
 Panama in the Audiencia of Santa Fe, the proof of 
 the boundaries of the Province of Costa Rica is 
 strengthened with the descriptions of the boundaries 
 of that viceroyalty and of the audiencia that reached
 
 181 
 
 as far as that province, hannonizing with all the ante- 
 cedents from the demarcation assigned to Artieda. 
 
 This is shown from the "Description of the King- 
 dom of Tierra P^irme," by the Comandante general of 
 Panama, Don Antonio Guill, in 1760; from the "De- 
 scription of the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe," by its Vice- 
 roy, the Marquis de la Vega de Armijo, in 1772 ; from 
 the "Report" by the Governor of Veragna, Don Felix 
 Francisco Bejarano, in 1775; from the "Descriptions 
 of tlie Viceroyalty of Santa Fe, of Tierra Firme and 
 of Veragua," in the most interesting work relating 
 to southern America, by the missionary, Sobreviela, 
 in 1796, and by the "Official Communication" of the 
 Governor of the Islands of San Andres, Don Tomas 
 O'Neille, inl802. 
 
 The boundaries of the Province of Costa Rica con- 
 tinued unchanged in the last years of the Spanish sov- 
 ereignty, for it has been shown by official documents 
 that that province continued to embrace the territory 
 from sea to sea, including the Matina Coast and the 
 region of Talamanca, and that the Royal order of 1803 
 produced no change whatever in the traditional de- 
 marcation. 
 
 Colombia recognized Costa Rica to be in possession 
 of boundaries, the extreme points of which were the 
 Island of the Escudo de Veragua and the mouth of 
 the Chiriqui Viejo river, by the uti possidetis of the 
 Treaty of 1825, and by the fact that, at the moment of 
 the emancipation, she immediately set up against this 
 uti possidetis de facto the uti possidetis de jure, as 
 though Costa Rica possessed SMch limits without au- 
 thority of law. It has been demonstrated that Costa 
 Rica has in her favor, not only the uti possidetis de
 
 182 
 
 facto, but the uti possidetis de jure, based upon the 
 Recopilacion de Indias and the provisions which the 
 latter respected or confinned, or which were issued in 
 accordance therewith. 
 
 (6) Colombia's Evidence. 
 
 The abundant proof submitted by the Republic of 
 Costa Rica as to her boundaries presents a strong con- 
 trast to the almost complete lack of evidence on the 
 part of Colombia; because, as we have said, she does 
 not occupy herself with the question properly of boun- 
 daries, but with the territoriality. 
 
 As appears in Art. 2 of the Convention of 1886, the 
 Republic of Colombia has claimed in the arbitration, 
 as her territorial limit : on the Atlantic side, as far as 
 Cape Gracias a Dios, inclusive ; and on the Pacific side, 
 to the mouth of the Golfito river in Dulce Gulf. 
 
 To claim from Dulce Gulf in the Pacific to Cape 
 Gracias a Dios in the Atlantic, is not only equivalent 
 to asking for all the territory includt^d between the said 
 Gulf, the Chiriqui Viejo river, the Escudo de Veragua 
 and the Culebras river, but also for the whole Atlantic 
 coast of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and Colombia ex- 
 posed herself, besides, when attempting to unite the 
 two extreme points of her claim, to invade Costa Rican 
 territories not included in the boundary dispute, as she 
 effectively did in the demand presented to the PVench 
 Arbitrator. It is true that Colombia has left out the 
 rights of third parties, and therefore of Nicaragua, 
 stopping at the Desaguadero, or San Juan river, the 
 boundary between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. But in 
 her eagerness to justify her right as far as Cape Gra- 
 cias a Dios or the Desaguadero, she has failed to prove
 
 183 
 
 her boundaries with Costa Rica, by creating herself 
 mistress of the whole of primitive Veragua. 
 
 When Colombia invokes the Royal order of San 
 Lorenzo of 1803, to maintain her point that the At- 
 lantic portion of Costa Rica had been incorporated 
 to the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe — whereby she recog- 
 nized that the portion on the Pacific side continued 
 separated from that viceroyalty — it wonld seem that 
 she was under obligation to fix the divisionary line 
 between one portion and the other, but she never has 
 done so, forgetting doubtless, that this Royal order did 
 not establish such divisionary line, because not demar 
 catory of boundaries. 
 
 So that Colombia has been left in this arbitral pro 
 ceeding in the same situation as would be the owner of 
 a piece of property who, in litigating with an adjoin- 
 ing owner, refused to prove the divisionary line be- 
 tween two properties, on the ground that both belonged 
 to him; and the Arbitrator will be found in the situa- 
 tion in which the judge would be left, who, holding the 
 ownerships to be distinct, and unable to recast them 
 into a single one, had to mark out the properties 
 in face of the fact that one of the holders had proved 
 his divisionary line, whilst the other had not. 
 
 A judge placed in such a position might perhaps be 
 perplexed to decide a question of boundaries, properly 
 speaking, through fear of being unduly inclined on the 
 side of the one who presented the proof. But that fear 
 cannot exist in the present case, for two reasons: (1) 
 because Colombia has discussed the evidence of Costa 
 Rica under conditions even more advantageous, since 
 she presented a third brief and a summary of conclu- 
 sions in the arbitral proceedings, of which brief and 
 summary Costa Rica had no notice except by the Award
 
 184 
 
 and ^'as therefore unable to refute thera; and (2) 
 because Colombia, althou£:h she may not have made 
 direct proof of her divisionary line, offered indirectly 
 a most valuable proof in the very title which she al- 
 leges as the basis of lier rights and which may be used 
 to take bearings from in order to decide with more 
 assurance: we refer to the proof of the limits of the 
 Dukedom of Veragua. 
 
 (c) Special Consideration of the Boundaries of the 
 Dukedom of Veragua. 
 
 Those boundaries are established by the Royal 
 cedula of Carlos V of March 2, 1537, which is cited 
 by Law 9, title 1, book V, of the Recopilacion de Indias 
 as a precedent for its text, in order to indicate, in our 
 opinion, the origin of the Province of Veragua. 
 
 Colombia maintains that when that law declared 
 that the whole Province of Veragua should belong to 
 the Gov-ernnient of Tierra Firme, it referred to the 
 primitive Veragua, in which Costa Pica was embraced. 
 Costa Rica affinns that the law referred to trio Prov- 
 ince of Veragua as it was constituted at the time of 
 the publication of the Recopilacion de Indias, in 1680, 
 and maintains that that province is the Dukedom of 
 Veragua. And having proved that Panama cannot 
 claim any other province of Veragua than the one 
 arising out of the dukedom, she must resign herself to 
 defending, as boundaries of this province, those which 
 Colombia has recognized as limits of the dukedom by 
 invoking the Royal cedula of 1537. 
 
 According to that Royal cedula, the divisionary line 
 between Panama and Costa Rica would be the straight 
 line from the west side of the square of 25 leagues.
 
 185 
 
 opposed to that which might be traced upon the mer 
 idian of the Belen river (inclusive), embraced be- 
 tween the parallels of the extremes and at a distance 
 of 25 leagues. 
 
 The meridian corresponding to the mouth of the 
 Belen river, being that of 80° 51' west of Greenwich, 
 and the mouth being on the parallel of 8° 54', that 
 divisionary line, at the distance of 25 leagues, would be 
 indicated by the meridian of 82° 6', starting from the 
 same parallel in the southern direction, and counting 
 by 20 leagues to the degree. If the league is counted 
 at the rate of 261/2 to the degree, that divisionary line 
 would recede toward Panama, the leagues being 
 smaller. If the league is counted at the rate of 171/2 
 to the degree, the divisionary line would advance upon 
 Costa Rica, the leagues being longer, in which case 
 (and the most favorable one for Panama) the dukedom 
 would not extend beyond the meridian of 82° 15' 42" 
 west of Greenwich, starting from the same parallel of 
 8'54".»- 
 
 Costa Rica, in designating the position of the mouth 
 of the Belen river has made use of the most recent and 
 exact maps of the English Admiralty Office, officially 
 adopted by the Government of Panama, as may be seen 
 even in the ''Map of the Republic of Panama, pre- 
 pared by Don Ramon M. Valdes and Don Andres Vil- 
 larreal for the text of the Geography adopted by the 
 Government of Panama," and published after the 
 
 'This point is resolved by an unquestionable document furnished by 
 Panama itself. We refer to the "Mapa de la Republica de Panama" 
 published in 1910 by Don Ramon M. Valdes. On this map are very 
 clearly traced the limits of the ancient Dukedom of Veragua and the 
 divisional line with Costa Rica is indicated by the meridian 81° 58' 03" 
 west of Greenwich.
 
 186 
 
 Award of M. Loubct, and in which that point is fixed at 
 80=^ 50' 40" from Greenwich. 
 
 Against the rational geographic proof of Costa Rica 
 on this point, Colombia alleged that this should not be 
 the position of the Belen river because a settlement of 
 that name appears much further to the west in a map 
 drawn by Diego Ribero in 1.529; but even this argu- 
 ment becomes futile if the map of Diego Ribero, cited 
 by Colombia is examined without prejudice and as it 
 was found in the library of the Grand Duke of Weimar. 
 Ribera did not trace the Belen river, and in his map 
 this name is applied to a place or vast area of water, 
 which may well be estimated at 25 leagues to the east 
 of Zorobaro, if there is taken into account the de- 
 fective and diminutive scale of the Carta Universal 
 (Universal Chart). ^ 
 
 And even though no map were in existence, that 
 distance of 25 leagues from the Bay of Zorobaro,. 
 which results from the account of the voyage of Co- 
 lumbus, and which the Council of the Indies must 
 have taken into account in laying out the dukedom, 
 would always be a very important factor. 
 
 It is not our purpose to enter into a technical dis- 
 cussion as to whether the Spanish leagues of the XVIth 
 century were of 26y2 to the degree, as Jorge Juan 
 believed, or liy^, as was maintained by the illustrious 
 General of the Armada, Don Pelayo Alcala Galiano, in 
 his "Considerations Concerning Santa Cruz de Mar 
 Pequeua," of 1879, based among other data, on the 
 fact that the league of Burgos was the one adopted in 
 the Conferences of Badajoz concerning the demarca- 
 
 'The learned commentary of J. G. Kohl upon the Carta Universal 
 of Diego Ribero shows the error of Colombia. Vide : "The Two Old- 
 est Maps of America, etc.," by J. G. Kohl, Weimar, 1860.
 
 187 
 
 tion of the Spanish and Portue^uese dominions in 1524, 
 as pointed out by Humboldt. It is enough for us to 
 repeat that even accepting the league of 17 Y^ ^o the 
 degree, the divisionary line of the dukedom would not 
 penetrate into Costa Rica further than 82° 15' 42". 
 
 Comparing now the divisionary line asked for by 
 Costa Rica in the arbitration with that of the dukedom, 
 the result is : that on the north side it goes beyond that 
 of the dukedom, and reaches that of the Escudo de 
 Veragua and of the Chiriqui or Calobebora river 
 (meridian 81° 34' of longitude west of Greenwich); 
 whilst on the south side, it does not reach the line of 
 the dukedom, but remains at the mouth of the Chiriqui 
 Viejo (meridian 82° 44'). The difference between the 
 advance and the backward movement is divided equally 
 by the meridian of 82° 9', which only differs by three 
 minutes to the west from that corresponding to the 
 line of the dukedom, counting the leagues at the rate 
 of 20 to the degree. That is to say, that the advance 
 is compensated by the retrogression. 
 
 Whatever may be the divisionary meridian of the 
 dukedom, Costa Rica enters into the Bay of Almirante 
 or Lagoon of Chiriqui: on its western side, if the 
 leagues are counted at the rate of 17i/. to the degree ; 
 at its centre, if at the rate of 20; and on its eastern 
 side, if at the rate of 261/0. In any event, there would 
 always belong to Costa Rica all of that bay, with its 
 coast and the Valiente Peninsula, under the mathe- 
 matical demarcation of the dukedom, by being on the 
 north of the square which encloses the parallel of 
 8° 54' common to all the meridians determined by 
 different lengths of leagues. 
 
 Colombia, by presenting as a justifying title for her 
 rights the Royal cedula of Carlos V of 1537, which
 
 188 
 
 establishes the demarcation of the dukedom, proves her 
 conformity with the boundaries of the latter, which 
 are mathematical and refer concretely to geographical 
 points and distances, and therefore offer the assurance 
 of not going astray in the cognizance of the localities 
 and the estimation of the facts that are connected 
 therewith. 
 
 Costa Rica has demonstrated that this Dukedom of 
 Veragua was converted into the Province of Veragua, 
 and even when for this reason it would seem that she 
 ought to have claimed as the divisionary line that of 
 the dukedom, she did not do so, but confined herself 
 strictly to the legal and historical reality that, from 
 the time of Artieda (1573) to the independence (1821), 
 was the line she has asked for, that reality having 
 been the one recognized by the Recopilacion de Indias 
 and the principle of the colonial uti possidetis. 
 
 By accepting the straight line of the dukedom, Costa 
 Kica would lose, on the north, the territory in which 
 
 Artieda founded the city bearing his name and almost 
 the whole of the Valleys of Guaymi, of which he took 
 possession, as governor of the province, with perfect 
 right recognized by the King. In exchange, Costa Rica 
 would gain, on the south, the territory embraced be- 
 tween the Chiriqui Viejo river and the line of the 
 dukedom, enlarging herself by the Valleys of Chiriqui, 
 to which she also had a right by virtue of the Royal 
 oedula of 1573. 
 
 Costa Rica could aspire to gain without losing, by 
 claiming all the Valleys of Chiriqui under that Royal 
 cedula, but she has not gone beyond the Chiriqui Viejo 
 river, to follow the historic reality, for she con- 
 siders that the Governors of Costa Rica abandoned the
 
 18"> 
 
 valleys on the other side of that river to the intrusions 
 of the Province of Veragua. 
 
 5. Final Deductions. 
 
 The following deductions are drawn from ail that 
 has been stated, concerning the general questions in 
 which the case is synthetized : 
 
 1. That both of the Parties litigant are agreed in 
 accepting as legal bases for the determination of this 
 case the Recopilacion de Indias and the principle of the 
 colonial uti possidetis. 
 
 2. That Colombia has swallowed up the question 
 of boundaries in that of territoriality, denying even 
 the legal existence of the Province of Costa Rica, which 
 was definitively constituted in 1573 and with the same 
 territory that it kept when it was recognized by the 
 Recopilacion (1680) and when it was emancipated from 
 Spain (1821). 
 
 3. That Costa Rica has fully proved that the bounda- 
 ries which separated her from the old Province of 
 Veragua, when it was emancipated, were the same 
 which she possessed when her domain was marked out 
 by the Royal cedula of 1573 and which were confirmed 
 by the Recopilacion. 
 
 4. That Colombia, by claiming an enormous part of 
 the territory of Costa Rica, has not undertaken to 
 prove the boundaries of the Province of Veragua with 
 that of Costa Rica, but by invoking as the title of her 
 right the Royal cedula of March 2, 1537, which estab- 
 lished the boundaries of the Dukedom of Veragua, she 
 recognizes the boundaries of that dukedom, which is 
 the Province of Veragua.
 
 190 
 
 5. That the whole ease between Colombia, or Pan- 
 ama, and Costa Rica, reduces itself to the question 
 whether there is to be fixed as the divisionary line that 
 of the dukedom, as the said Royal cedula mathemati- 
 cally determines it, or the line claimed by Costa 
 Rica, which is the one that she has held in fact and law 
 from her administrative constitution as a Spanish 
 province until her political organization as a sovereign 
 State. 
 
 The imdersigned counsel have the honor to submit 
 the foregoing opinion in response to the questions 
 proposed to them by the Government of the Republic 
 of Costa Rica. 
 
 Segismundo Moret y Pbendebgast. 
 Vicente Santamabia de Pabedes. 
 
 Madrid, August 31, 1911.
 
 UC SOUTHFRN RFGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA U0Ub39 49J b