^.cf4^wrV^; j»^ ,^1^- v.1> >^ 37^ ^^j ■s^ fw^ ^'- ":::"*' 7 7 ■, J .. O u i>/9 ' ? LATEST CORRESPONDENCE le E; T ■VsTIE E InT MEXICO AND GUATEMALA, WITH THE FINAL ARRANGEMENT. TRANSLATED FRO/M THE SPANISH. OFFICIAL EDITION. 1895. MEXICO. 1895. JX LATEST CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. BUREAU OF AMERICA, ASIA AND OCEANICA. ^ No. 166. CONTENTIONS WITH GUATEMALA. Mexico, November 30^*^' 1894. Up to the })resent date, I have received no advice of any answer that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Guatemahi may have given to the note you addressed him on the 28th. of August last, respecting the depredations committed by some agents of Guatemala, in the log- ging-camp of Egi})to, during the months of May and July of 1892. Nevertheless, he offered to do so in his rei)ly received at the end of September, and it is to be noted that your said Despatch contains the principal arguments which, under instructions from this Depart- ment, were brought forward by yourself to prove that the lands on which that logging-camp is situated, actually do, and have always, belonged to Mexico, and that all the others which have been invaded or destroyed by order oftliat Government are also Mexican territory, inasmuch as thev are all situated on the left bank of the river Usuniacinta, or of the Lacantum. We can thereforesay, that (Juatemalahasnot, up to the present date, given any answer to our arguments that the land occupied by force was situated within our territory, because even the few rea- sons alleged to prove its right to those lands, are merely supposed acknowledgements of its authority ])y some inhabitants of Mexico, and were duly answered by yourself, no reply having been received from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala. 674590 • We are, therefore, in a position to insist on our arguments, as well as •on our demands for satisfaction and reparation, and to complete these latter in view of subsequent events. Nevertheless, before coming back to the specific question which we have been discussing for so long a time, it would be well to recall, even if only in brief and general terras, the questions which we have discussed with Guatemala for some time back, and the conduct we have observed with that neighboring nation, which, according to the sentiments that we have desired to cul- tivate, we also consider our sister Republic. Without going back to the time of its independence, which was ob- tained through Mexico, nor to the long years of subsequent disputes with respect to limits, I will take, as a starting point, the treaty of 1882 which permanently determined those boundaries, depriving cer- tain politicians of Guatemala of any pretext respecting our supposed usurpation of Chiapas (including Soconusco,) that could be em- ployed in the nursing of hostile sentiments towards our Republic, amongst the people of Guatemala. From the moment that this treaty was solemnly put in force by both governments, through the exchange of ratificj|tions, sometimes in one way and sometimes in another, Guatemala has always procured de- lays in its execution; and the survey of the boundary line, that accord- ing to the provisions of that treaty, ought to have lasted two years, has now been twelve years in prosecution, with long interruptions, and according to the present state of affairs, it is impossible to say when it will be concluded. We have especially remarked the opposition to the determination of the parallel which runs from the «Vertice de Santia- go)) in the direction of the River Chixoy, the Chief Engineer of the Guatemala Commission always claiming that before such parallel be determined, an agreement should be arrived at between the engineers of both countries, that the Chixoy should be the terminus of this pa- rallel, as if an agreement among those engineers could modify the con- vention concluded between the Minister of Guatemala and the under- signed. You will remember, that as proposed by myself, this convention was signed «ad referendum)) on the 24th. of December, 1890, with the double purpose of showing an equitable deference to Guatemala, and of avoiding any new delays in the future. In the same agreement it was declared, that Mexico would abandon the interpretation which it had given to the treaty, (founded on the best of reasons, especially geographical,) and that consequently, the parallel should run beyond the Chixoy and up to the Rio de la Pasion; a concession which we would make under the exp?'ess condition, that no new difiiculties should be placed in the way of the surveys of the boundary line, until the work was entirely completed. It was therefore impossible to arrive at any final agreement with respect to tlie length of the })arallel, and it was necessary to fix it temporarily as far as the Chixoy, with the understanding that it sliould he prolonged or not, in an Easterly di- rection, when all the work oP the Commissions should have been concluded. The result is, that years have been lost in these discussions, as they were also lost in ascertaining whether, or not, Guatemala would accept the above mentioned arrangement As you know, that Govern- ment, only a few months ago, specifically stated that it would accept that arrangement, after having proposed another in the place of the one already mentioned, and oljtained its acceptance by our Government. We subsequently left Guatemala full liberty to go back to the first convention, as she finally did, after a long period of indecision and efforts to avoid a resolution of any kind. So much deference on our part, which was intended to settle the matter by amicable ways, appears to have been erroneously interpreted as weakness or foolishness, which might be made use of to nullify the treaty and evade the ol)ligations therein stipulated. We are fully aware it is claimed that the Boundary Treaty resulted in the loss of a large portion of territory belonging to Gua- temala; an assertion which can only be proved by bringing forward the supposed rights to Chiapas and Soconusco, because with res- pect to anything else, if Guatemala loses territory which it already has occupied, on the other hand, it acquires new lands and receives com- pensation. But even suj)posing, that such treaty, which was freely concluded, which was esi)ecially recommended to the Legislative Assembly by the President, D. J. Rufino Barrios, and for which this gentleman received a vote of thanks: supposing that such inter- national compact should have ])een injurious to Guatemala, that nation would have no legal or decent way to evade her obligations, no other course open to her than that of breaking its stipulations by a triumphant war against Mexico, which would not justify, l)ut at least might secure the results she may desire. • Amongst the causes which have delayed the surveys of the boun- daries between the two nations, is the following: one of the many ex- tensions ofthe time jjrovided in the treaty forthese labors, expired on the 31st. of October, 1892, and notwithstanding that, withdue anticipation, we obtained the signing of another extension, we could not obtain the continuation of the survey operations, because the Assembly of Guatemala did not give its approbation to the new convention, within the two years therein stipulated. The consequence is, that we have recently been obliged to sign another of the same nature, for only one year, which is now waiting the approbation of the Legislative Power of that Re})ublic. As I pointed out at first, the government of (Tuateniala ordered the destruction of the logging-camp of Egipto, belonging to the Mexican, Miguel Torruco, in the year 1882, depriving him of some propert}' which he possessed there, besides sendine him a prisoner to Peten for the supposed offence of smuggling. Our Government immediately complained of the outrage, and Guatemala, in its reply, used the ar- gument that the logging-camp was within its own territorial jurisdiction. The question remained pending for some time; that is to say, the territory alluded to had to be considered as in dispute between the two Republics, however weak might be the claims of one, or the other, side. This was the situation of affairs in Januar}'- 1893, when the Govern- ment of Guatemala entered into a contract for five years with Mr. Ma- nuel Jamet, of Tabasco, for the cutting of lumber in the forests situa- ted, as it says, «on and towards the banks of the River Pasion, Salinas and Lacantum, and the streams adjacent thereto, from their sources))- As the territory extending from the left bank of the River Pasion up to the Chixoy or Salinas, is in dispute between the two coun- tries, its adjudication to Guatemala depending on the condition stipulated in the arrangement wdiich I executed with Mr. Dieguez; as the River Salinas or Chixoy undoubtedly belongs to Mexico under the treaty; and as the Lacantum, with the adjacent streams towards the west, also belongs to it, even in view of the boundaries recog- nized 'by tradition, the attention of General Alatorre, our Minister in Guatemala, was called to the 1st. article of that contract, by a telegram dated the twelfth of April, 1892, and by a note in which was included copy of a letter written to me on the subject by the Secretary of Fomento. The proper protest having been transmitted to the Govern- ment of Guatemala, that Government limited itself to replying, that «the contract mentioned would in no case form an obstacle to the prompt settlement of our boundary question.)) In spite of this answer, we were able to understand that Guatemala desired to prepare new delays to the fulfillment of the treaty of 1882, seeing that it gave on lease for five years lands unreasonably claimed as its property, even in view of the boundaries recognized before the treaty, but which, in accordance with the same treaty, were evidently Mexican territory, a point on which the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of that country has ex[)ressly agreed with us, as I will show further on. This means tosaj'^, that for at least five years, the Government of CJuatemala proposed to delay the execution of the treat}^, although it could be carried out in a few months, since it was estimated that a year was the time necessary for its full performance. In August of the same year (1893,) the above mentioned Govern- ment proposed to that of Mexico the following conditions, in order to terminate the difficulties respecting the surveys of the boundary line. 1st. That Mexico should at once waive the rights it considered B" itself to have on the territory, which had formed the subject of the arrangement called Dieguez-Mariscal, 2nd. That the two Governments should execute a convention under which they would adopt, as a final l)oundary line, the mean of the differences of calculation between the lines laid down by the respective Chiefs of the boundary commissions; and 3rd, that the resistance of the Engineer Pastrana, Chief of the Mex- ican Commission, to fix, in accordance with an additional Protocol to the treaty, geograi)hical points on the boundary rivers, should be or- dered to cease. The first proposition could not be admitted and had no object, for under the above mentioned agreement, it would be enough for the Government of Guatemala not to present any fresh diff'iculties in the rest of the boundary line; and nothing further would be required to secure the cession that it desired. But, before the termination of the surveys of the line, it would be impossil)le to know if that condition had been fulfilled. Neither could the second proposition be accepted, because if it only treated of simple and real errors in calculation, these would be remedied by the Engineers, in accordance with the technical rules estal)lished for such cases; and if (as was to be feared) the proposition implied another idea, its acceptance would be dangerous and foolish; l)ecause, under such an agreement, it would only be necessary for the Guatemala Engineer to draw an arl)itrary line, how- ever absurd it might be (similar to that which he drew of the ancient boundaries, and that I will explain further on) in order to obtain a mean line suitable to the purposes of that Government. We therefore were under the necessity of refusing the two first })roposiiio\is, for we perceived the second intention which they imi)lied; and with respect to the third, we showed that the resistance of the Engineer Pastrana to the fixing of geographical points on the river Chixoy, was caused by the determination of Rock to have that river at once accepted as the final boundary. Finall}', we reach the most remarkal)le point in the conduct ol)- served by the Government of Guatemala respecting these boundary questions. Whilst, as we have seen, the discussion was pending on the nationality of tlie logging-camp where Torruco was ap|)rehended by the authorities of Guatemala, and generally, the nationality of the lands which had been illegally leased by Guatemala to Jamet, (since they were adjacent to the left bank of the Lacantura) the following events took place in the months of May, June and July of that year: — The Engineer Miles Rock (Chief of the Guatemala Commission,) ofiicially claiming to l)e a special Commissioner of his Government, and at the head of a party of armed men, committed a new invasion of Mexican territory, an invasion aggravated by acts of the most un- justifiable character. He burnt the following logging-Ocimps: IjaCons- tancia, belonging to the Spanish subjects, Romano and Co. Sues., that of San Nicolas, belonging to the Mexican Valenzuela, and that of Agua Azul, which had been recently established b}'^ Torruco. He destroyed everything he found there, the residents and laborers of the logging- camps only escaping from his fury by flight. He seized as booty, and placed at the disposal of his Government, a great many tons of wood, which, without the slightest formality, were about to be sold off by auction in the City of Guatemala. Even more, he left in Agua Azul, as a token of occupation by Guatemala, a group of armed men, who remained there until the 9th. of the present month. All of these logging-camps are situated within Mexican territory, in the same territory that we have been claiming as ours since, in 1892, the political chief of Peten invaded the logging-camp of Egipto, in the same that Guatemala had leased to Jamet by a contract against which we protested, as soon as we were informed of its conditions. Thus Guatemala has appealed to force in order to take possession of a territory which we claimed by means of arguments, and in that way she has dispossessed, by violent entry, the owners of the logging-camps who recognize the jurisdiction of Mexico. At the same time that these unjustifiable acts were being committed in its name and under its authority, the Government of Guatemala was demanding satisfaction from Mexico for the supposed invasion of their territory by the polit- ical chief of Tenosique who, accompanied by a few men, had proceed- ed fo make a reconnaissance on the lands adjacent to the left banks of the Usumacinta and Lacantun, rivers which Guatemala persists in considering its own on both banks. While the Mexican Government has repeatedly protested, through you, against these violations of the national territory, and demanded due satisftiction, it has demonstrated to the Government of Guatema- la their absolute want of reason in complaining of a so-called invasion of their territory, when referring to the reconnaissance carried out by the above mentioned Political Chief. The arguments that Guatemala brings forward to defend her con- duct, up to the present are: 1st. Maintaining that the ancient bounda- ry ill that territory traditionally recognized between both countries, is determined by an arbitrary line which the Engineer Pvock laid down on a sketch ma}) forwarded to your Legation by Mr. Salazar, the Se- cretary of Foreign Affairs; it appearing, that the sole object of that line, which up to that time had never been thought of, was to place the lands in question and others in the neighborhood, within the ju- risdiction of Guatemala. 2nd. That in accordance with art. 6th of the boundary treaty, the territory included between that arbitrary line and the River Usumacinta, does not yet belong to Mexico, although it is recognized that it will be Mexican property whenever the bound- ary line has been finally made out, for it is said: «As long as this point is not reached, and the respective Commissions do not, under a mutual and complete agreement, terminate their operations, both countries are under the obligation of respecting the ((slnla qao.» Acconling to this, the whole straggle on the part of Guatemala has been to defend this very temporary statu quo, whicli, in accordance with her own showing, will only last during the time employed in the survey of the boundary line, and with respect to which, the last convention signed by both parties grants a maximum of one year. And for the sake of these twelve months of control over the lands in dispute, Gua- temala not only sustains their lease for five years, but also occupies them by force of arms, and, by means of real depredations in territory which was for the moment in dispute, she provokes Mexico to abandon friendly and pacific relations in order to repel such acts of insult- ing violence and, if necessary, to seek bv means of force a just repar- ation and satisfaction. The prudence with which this Government is inspired, even now induces it to find excuses for i^mlmmli, CJuatemala, in the hope that its conduct may be characterized as the result of illusions, produced by the malice and impertinent zeal of its subaltern agents, rather than be considered an intentional and premeditated offence. Be it as it may, it is very certain that, if we once place the dis- pute on the ground that I have indicated aliove, the controversy as to whether the old boundaries (destined to disappear very soon) besides the treaty itself, are in favor of the claims of Mexico, this controversy, I repeat, assumes a very small and secondary interest. Mexico has a right to claim reparation, because Guatemala has ap- pealed to violence and eviction ostentatiously to claim her transitory rights (allowing that they exist) to certain lands whose temporary possession was in dispute. This is the real question, if we may so call the unavoidable consequence of i)roved facts. And in reality. Secretary Salazar, in the answer which he sent you dated the 3rd. of August last, explicitly declares that the depredations committed by Miles Rock and of which this Government has complained, were executed by that Engineer under a commission from the Government of Ciuate- mala, and that he has received from that Government the full ap- probation of h's conduct. Being now certain, that this is sufficient reason on wliich to found our claims, let us nevertheless see, in further support of the same, what the value is of the rights which that Government can bring forward to sustain a sovereignty (only teniporar}^ according to its own confes- sion) over the territory where it has been so violently exercised. I will not examine the arguments and allegations with respect to the pre- tended acknowledgement of that sovereignty, made by Mexican in- dividuals or l)_y some very subaltern authority, such as a Justice of the Peace, or admitted in a negative manner by the Mexican Go- vernment, in not protesting against acts of which it had no knowledge. These assertions are based on uncertain data, and are in themselves excessively weak, besides which, you have already answered them in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with the instructions you have received. I will now speak of the more serious argument that has been brought forward by the Government of Guatemala, referring to the sketch map made by the Engineer Miles Rock, and in which the boundary line marked as the ancient and traditional one, is undoubt- edly everything that could be asked for to encourage the aspirations of that Government, seeing that it is made with that view, and by its own servant. The line I refer to, has al>solutely no liistorical or other • foundation, and far from being of a traditional character, not a single known and trustworthy map contains it. On the contrary, they all show either the one tliat we have sustained as existing before the treaty, or the one designated by that treaty; the first being indicated on the map which bears an ofilcial character in Guatemala, and was j)ublished in 1875 with the following title: "Map of the Republic of GuMtemala, made and published ))y order of the Supreme Government by Herman Au, P^ngineer.)) This official map of Guatemala shows the line recognized before the treaty for the territory now in dispute. It commences on the South, along a parallel which starts from the summit of Santiago, and (as we read on the map,) was surveyed in 1811, running in au Easterl}^ direction until it touches the River Lacantum. It then follow.s this same river along its course, until it joins the Usumacinta, after which it follows the Usuraucinta until it arrives opposite its confluence with the Yax- chilan, which flows into it by the right bank, The fanciful boundary drawn by Miles Rock, which is now set up to be the old and traditional one, passes through the confluence of the Yaxchilan, and runs South East in a straight line, until it reaches the neighborhood of the summit of Santiago, completelv suppressing the line laid down in 1811; that is to say, attem[)ting to snatch from Mexico an area, which from West to East is not less than 84 kilometres in any case to be decided accord- ing to the ancient boundaries. But if such a line was to exercise any influence in the laying down of the boundaries designated by the treaty, the injury would be mucli greater, seeing that, in accordance with that convention, the ])arallel is continued a much greater distance in an easterly direction. It is difficult to understand the rashness of the Engineer Rock, in laying down his line in such a capricious manner, as he runs the risk of the discredit that such a proceeding must bring on him in an international controversy. It is still more difficult to believe that the only interest in the case has been merely the usufruct of the lands during the statu quo, unless it was contemplated to pro- long it for an indefinite period, or unless that line could be made to serve (though I do not see how) for the final laying down of the line by P]ngineers from Guatemala; and that, having laid it at a great dis- tance from the one claimed by the Mexican engineers, the enormous area between the two should be allowed as a difference of calculation, and the medium between the two adopted, in this manner fullilling one of the proposals presented by Guatemala. But I will not venture on suppositions of a more or less uncertain character, in an attempt to explain the conduct of the Engineer who drew up the sketch map, and I will simply say that it is inexplicable. Up to this point, we have been considering what appears to be the principal argument of tbat Government; namely, the sketch nia|) of the Engineer in its employ; but it is to be borne in mind, that the map and the boundary line it shows, would be of no use without the other argument brought forward, which is to the effect that, in ac- coniance with article 6 of the boundary treaty in force, the lands in dispute will pertain to Mexico wiienever the final boundary is traced, through a complete accord between the engineers of both parties, l)ut that meanwhile they belong to Guatemala, whilst Mexico is bound to respect the statu quo. It is attempted to base this argument f)n the provisions of article 6 of the treaty of 1882; although it has no such foundation, l)ecause that article refers to quite another subject. Let us see what the text really says. «It being the ol)ject of both governments, in the arrangement of this treaty, not only to put an end to the difficulties existing between them, but also to terminate and prevent those which arise or might arise between neighboring towns of one or other country, through the un- certainty of the present boundary line, it is hereby stipulated that, within 6 months after their meeting, the scientific connnissions refer- red to in art. IV., will by mutual agreement forward to their respective governments a list of those towns, farms and hamlets, which un- doubtedly nmst remain on a specific side of the boundary line, as agreed upon in art. 3rd. This report having been received, each one of the two governments will thereby 'be empowered to issue the proper orders, to the effect that its authority should be establislnxl in those points which are to be included within the territory of the respective nation.)) As will be perceived, the o1)ject of the article is to hasten any change of sovereignty contemplated in the treaty, provided that this change ought to take place in the opinion of Ix^th connnissions, thus avoiding 10 as soon as possible and within the short term of six months, the evils which might result from the uncertainty of the old line, even before the new one is laid down, and it is very far from postponing any change until that line is finally surveyed, as is unreasonably sustained. That the engineers should have complied with the provisions of this article or not, as to forwarding the report of the movable hamlets or logging-camps in question, has no bearing on the dispute, because that has not been laid down as necessary to determine the sovereignty of either party, but is only a means of hastening its exercise by the one which undoubtedly would have it under the treaty. It is sufficient to read carefully the text above quoted, to acquire the conviction that this is its real spirit and interpretation,^ and not that attributed to it by Guatemala Oil the other hand, the article speaks of terminating and prevent- ing the evils occasioned by the uncertainty of the old line, and while it is true that this uncertainty existed in other parts of the line, it has not existed in that part which defines the territory of the logging-camps, because the boundaries have there been clearl}'^ defined, as can be seen on the above named official map of Guatemala, by the Rivers Lacantum and Usumacinta, well known under those names, the second at least from the point of its confluence to the Chixoy, be- yond those boundaries. If the Guatemala Government had alleged that, wherever the ter- ritory was of doubtful ownership, it would be necessary to have the line settled by experts and meanwhile respect the statu quo, it would have alleged, not a provision of the treaty of 1882, which does not touch this point, but a reason founded on common sense. But how could it prove that an absolute necessity existed in that district, of drawing up the line, in order to ascertain the boundary established by the treaty? So evident is it that this region pertains to Mexico, accord- ing to the provisions of that convention, that even the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Salazar, has confessed that by virtue of such agreement, that territory will belong to our country. Hence, there is no possible doubt as to this point, nor is there any necessity to appeal to the science of the engineers, or to the good faith under which they would agree, in order to recognize that those lands are actually Mexi- can, by virtue of the treaty of 1882, as they were before it came into force. The disputed territory which remained pending under a condition of the Dieguez-Mariscal arrang(!ment, is situated to the East of the River Chixoy, and very far from those logging-camps. The utmost that Guateniala disputed in that district, b}^ her interpretation of the treaty, is the territory included between the Chixoy and the River Pasion, whilst the logging-camps are very much nearer in this direc- 11 tion. Consequently; there is not the shghtest doubt, but that this na- tural boundar}^ which is well known (and to which the Engineers cannot assign in their plans an}' l)ut its true position, at a great distance beyond the logging-camps) shows on the ground, even on the suppo- sition most favorable to Guatemala, the boundary line between the two countries. This is at once visible by merely consulting any map, including that which was published by Guatemala in 1875. It is there- fore ))lain, that only the firm intention of not fulfilling the treaty, of considering it non existent, of creating difficulties by any means what- ever, or what we still believe, a confusion produced by the malice of employes who are more zealous than prudent, can have suggested arguments such as those I am under the necessity of answering in the present note. The Government of Guatemala ought long ago to have understood, that whilst defending its own interest, Mexico has always employ- ed frank and lo3'al methods, directed to the removal of obstacles against the cordial relations between the two countries. For example^ sincerely protesting that it had no other object, it insisted on the establishment of a mixed Commission which should settle all claims between the two Governments; and although the Commission sat in this City, apparently under the official influence of Mexico, which in this case was so much feared by Guatemala, that Govern- ment has found that the financial results have been favorable to it, owing to the fact that we did not look for any unfair profit, but onlj' for the elimination of these sources of disagreement, by means of equitable decisions. It has not been our fault, if other and more se- rious disagreements now arise. An im{)ortant fact is evident from what is written above; that Gua- temala has invaded the territory whose ownershij) was under discus- sion between the two Governments, employing in that invasion a force to display its pretended sovereignty. It is equally demonstrated, that it has absolutely no right to this territory, neither in virtue of the treaty of 1882, as confessed by its own Government, nor according to the old boundaries which are laid down in its official map of 1875. . It is also proved that there is no obligation to respect the traditional boundaries, as is claimed, until the new line is finally laid down by the engineers, because that is not sti|»ulated in the treaty, nor is there any necessity fordoing so, inasmuch as, not only the [)riinitive bound- aries, but also those which the treaty specifics, are, in that district and for that which is contended, natural boundaries of a well defined and indisputal)le character. In view of this absolute certainty and of the long time we have been discussing the sovereignty over those lands, a sovereignty that even accepting its arguments, would be of the most temporary character 12 for Guatemala, according to the treaty, and above all, in view of the fact that this discussion has been interrupted, on the side of Guatema- la, l)y acts of violence, we will no longer discuss this question, but only that of the character of the satisfaction and the amount of the indemnitv due to us. Our demands are as follows : 1. Guatemala will make a demonstration which shall be satisfacto- ry to Mexico, for the insult offered in appealing to invasion and armed force in the logging-camps in question. 2. It will pay an indemnity through this Government for the in- juries which have been caused, to Messrs. Policarpo Valenzuela, Ro- mano and Co. Sues., INliguol Torruco and Frederick Shindler, or other persons who may have suffered damage in the above mentioned log- ging-camps, in accordance with the claims, accounts and satisfactory vouchers which they may present. 3. It will also indemnify the Mexican Government for its expenses in the movement of troops, and other preparations of the War Depart- ment, which it has been obliged to undertake on account of the in- vasion and prolonged occupation of the logging-cam})s by armed par- ties in the service of the Government of Guatemala. These preparations have been rendered necessary on the part of Mexico, as it was impos- sible to imagine that the invading Government should venture to oc- cupy the indicated territory with a handful of men, if it was not determined to defend it with all its military resources. 4. The Government of Guatemala will dismiss Mr. Miles Rock from its scientific Boundary Commission, as he has been the instrument and perhaps even the cause of the principal delays and the recent outrages of which we comi»lain. 5. As soon as the honorable Legislative Assembly of Guatemala approves, in its next session, the new Convention which has lately been signed for the demarkation of the boundaries, this operation will be executed without any loss of time, and in accordance with the terms stipulated in the agreement subscribed to by Mr. Dieguez under date of the 24th. of December, 1890. You will deliver a copy of the present note to the Minister of For- eign Affairs, accompanying it with your communication, which shall exclusively be dedicated to that object. I reiterate to you my sentiments of esteem. Mariscnl. To the Charge d'Affaires of Mexico in Guatemala. 13 DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA. Guatemala, 5th of January, 1895. Honorable Sir: I had the honor to receive your note of the 27th. oflast month, with which, under special instructions from your Government, you for- warded a copy of the dispatch addressed to yourself by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, under date of the 30th. of November last. In this last note, Mr. Minister Mariscal undertakes to answer the reasons which Guatemala has brought forward, to consider herself the legitimate possessor of the territory stretching along the left bank of the River Chixoy; he confirms the contents of the note received from your Legation on the 25th. of August last, and presents an argument which is entirely new in the discussion, and which is based on his interpretation of article 6, of the treaty of the 27th. of September, 1882. I now propose to answer all the arguments presented in favor of Mexico, both in the note of Mr. Secretary Mariscal, as well as in that of your Legation, though I cannot for a moment believe that the text of the first, where it says: «\Ve will no longer discuss this question," signify that your Government, whose correct methods have never been denied, is determined to close its ears to all reason, and a priori set aside all justice and right. Mr. Secretary Mariscal commences by stating that, up to the date of his note, he had not received any notice of any answer from this De- partment to the above mentioned letter from your Legation, under date of the 25th. of August, 1894; but he forgets that since the 22nd. of Octo- ber last this Government arranged to establish a Legation in Mexico, with the very object of negotiating and arranging all the differences which have arisen between the two countries, in an amicable manner, a measure which was adopted in the l)elief that we would thus give a new proof of deference to that Repu])lic, and in expectation of facilita- ting the desired amicable arrangement. Neither the Mexican Government, nor its Representative in Guate- mala, can ignore this fact which was in due time notified to Your 14 Honor; and consequent]}^, it is in no way possible to suppose that this Government could have intended to keep silence, or suspend tlie dii)lomatic discussions which are now pending. On the other hand, it is necessary to bear in mind that we are treating of complicated questions that stretch back many years; and that thechange which has recently taken phicein this Calnnet has placed the new personnel in the difficult position of instantly undertaking long and difficult researches. I beg Your Honor to remember, that, in order to reply to the argu- ments brought forward on the part of this Government, in its note of the 9th. of May, 1893, as was done in your above mentioned note of the 25th. of August, 1894, your Legation required more than fifteen months. At the same time, seeing that Mr. Secretary Mariscal directly insists on the arguments which are l)rought forward on behalf of Mexico, I now proceed to answer them, without prejudice to the action, which as I have before said, has been confided to our Legation. I must commence by declaring that I have no knowledge of any politician in Guatemala who has ever tried to foment amongst this people, sentiments of antipathy against that of Mexico, which has always been considered as a friend and a brother; and in my opinion, an evident proof to the contrary is found in the moderate and concil- iatory conduct which the people of Guatemala have observed in the present circumstances, in spite of the irritating tone of the Mexican Press, and the grave insults which have been offered to itself Starting myself also, from the treaty of 1882, 1 have to say that from the date of its conclusion,' Guatemala has complied with it as far as it concerns her and it is not from her that the delays proceed, which have impeded the complete execution of its provisions. If Mexico is interested in the prompt settlement of our boundary disputes, this Republic is still more so, and therefore it is impossible to suspect it of an intention to prolong such settlement for an indefinite period, as that would be an advantage to nobody. The question which arose as to the terminal point of the parallel starting from the summit of the Santiago, was brought up by the Mexican Boundary Commission, and not by that of Guatemala; but, as was natural, this latter could not accept and did not accept, an interpretation of the treaty whose tendency was to deprive Guatemala of a large territory that unquestionably pertain to it and with respect to which there can be no disi)ute, against the tenor of that treaty and without any motive or reason whatever; this having been very clearly proved ])y arguments and cordence whicli have not been contested, and a summary of which was published in the private pamphlet of the 31st. of March, 1889, under the title "The Zone included between 15 the Rivers Chixoy and Santa Isabel l)elong9 to Guatemala and not to Mexico.)) Neither can it he charged to Guateinaha, tliat the Assembly of last year, overloaded with urgent occupations, should not have had the ne- cessary time to study the convention to extend the term which expi- red on the 31st. of October, 1892, seeing that when it became a ques- tion of signing the new extension of time, which was to be submitted to the next Assembly, this Government was found, as alwa^'s, disposed to sign it without jiresenting the slighest difficulty. So far from its having been tlio intention of this Republic to raise obstacles against the prompt settlement of this question, that on the contrary, it proposeil the best means of putting an end to them all, and giving a final character to the conditional convention which was executed by Messrs. Dieguez and Mariscal, on the 24th. of December, 1890. Nevertheless, Mexico did not consider it convenient to accept this method, and the reasons by which it supported its denial, are not such as to carry conviction to anybody. In the memorandum that I refer to, Mexico engaged to desist from its idea of prolonging the parallel between Santiago and Chixoy, on condition that no other difficulty should arise in the demarkation of the rest of the boundary line. Guatemala then tried to render any further difficulty impossible, and thus terminate the question at once, proposing for that j)urpo3e, that we should adopt the mean line bet- ween those laid down by the two boundary Commissions, from the intersection of the second parallel with the River Usumacinta, until the end of the frontier. These lines are well known, they are perfectly well laid down and it is known that the difference between one and the other is so small, that in El Ceibo, the point where the greatest difference exists, it does not reach as much as 180 metres. The proposition, therefore, dealt with works which were well known, and for that reason, allowed no room for the .susj)icion of any hidden designs. In any case, by merely determining in an exact manner what those lines were, every doubt would disappear. The difierences were well within the limits of toleration which are admitted by science and therefore, it was useless to undertake fresh operations. It would there- fore have been natural, logical and equitable, to have taken the mean of these two lines, and thus fix in an invariable manner, the line from the Usumacinta until its tei'mination, as well as eliminate all fear of encountering new difficulties and .leaving the question of the Chixoy definitely settled, and with that, the disputes as to boundaries. Guatemala has always acted with entire good faith and loyalty, and neither in that incident nor in any other, can any just reason be found for a contrary opinion. 16 Besides! this, Gaateiiiuhi now is, and, always has been, within the treat}' of 1882, and has always been disposed to coin[)ly with its stip- ulations without any trouble whatever, as it [terfectly understands and respects its ohligations and is extremely zealous in their fulfillment and in watching over its decorum, so as not to give rise to any suspi- cion that it seeks pretexts with the object of eluding the obligations contracted. Nothnig to the contrary is implied by the private opinions which may have been pronounced by the independent press, which as your Honor well knows, enjoys absolute liberty in this country; and you must also be well aware, that it is precisely the opposition Press, that has principally occupied itself with the debates on this question. Those opinions are not those of the Government, nor can it be res- ponsible for the thoughts and arguments of the newspaper men. The contract which has been executed for five years witli Messrs. Jamet and Sastre for the cutting of lumber, by no means argues, as is pretended, a desire to prolong the question for that period, as it is very evident that that contract could never present an obstacle to that object, and could only be the object of an arrangement between the two Governments, or with the contracting firm. This was stated to your Legation in the answer to your note of the 27th. of May, 1893. and the reasons were added on which this Government acted and on which it based its belief that it was acting within its legitimate rights in the execution of such contract. As your Legation did not ansver it is to be presumed that it accepted that reply. The note of this Department, dated 9th. of May, 1893, sets forth the reasons on which Guatemala founded the rights which itjustly brought forward; and although your Excellency proposed to refute them in your above mentioned dispatch of the 25th. of August of last year^ it could be easily demonstrated that they subsist in full force. The contracts which Guatemala has been arranging with the above mentioned Messrs. Jamet and Sastre for the last fourteen years, jjrove its continued possession of the territory in dispute. These contracts have been executed and carried out in a public manner, they have been approved by executive acts which have been published in our Official Press, and therefore, cannot have been ignor- ed by the Government of Mexico. Nevertheless, this Government has kept silence until it })resented the note above referred to of the 27th. of May 1893, a note which that Legation certainly did not ad- dress to us, with the exact object of disputing the possession on the part of this IJepublic, but rather of expressing the fear that the last contract, to which it makes reference, might result in the prolongation of the question for another five years; but, as I have before said, we answered with a guarantee that no such danger existed, and refuting 17 the erroneous allusion wiiich appeared in an annexed document by Mr. Pastrana, with reference to our old boundary line; and as this incident terminated at that point, it is clear that the o])jection raised by Your Honor with respect to the note of the 27th. of May, jiroves to be against yourself The explicit acts by which our sovereignty has been acknowledged by Miguel Torruco, by Mr. Canobas, the Forest Guard of Tabasco, by Messrs. Pastrana and Ugalde, and by the Judge of the Peace of Te- nosique, do not appear to your Honor decisive, because these per.«ons are not called on to determine t})e boundaries between the two na- tions. In fact, they are not so called on, the same as the witnesses in a law suit are not called on to declare the rights of the })arties in the suit; but they are, like these latter, called on to estat)lish the facts the proof of which is invariable followed l;y the acknowledgement of the right. With respect to the sketch map by the Chief of the Guatemala Boundary Commission, which this Department enclosed to the above mentioned note of the 9th. of May, it is the result of a comi)leteand conscientious survey carried out on the ground itself, and the first work which has been so made. In order to contradict it, it is not enough to say that it is arbitrary; it would be necessary to present other work executed under the same conditions, and showing contra- ry results. The argmients that Your Honor brings forward cannot be admitted against that map, and on this subject I j)ropose to speak at length, as it treats of the point which has always been made much of and to which great importance has been given by Mr. Secretary Mariscal in his last comnmnications, and like himself I specially refer, to the one which the Engineer Herman Au published in 1875. In the first place, that map docs not bear an official character. To bear that character, it would not be enough that its author should state that he had made and published it by order of the Government. There is no official ruling to give it such a character; and if, as I be- lieve, even the Executive itself had no authority to determine or alter the boundaries of the national territory, still less could it be left to the will of an Engineer, who doubtless Was only interested in giving credit to his work. P>ut even if we granted that the maj* published by Au, bore an official character, it has been got up in the same way as those by Bianconi, Paschke, etc., I will not say without any study, but even without the slighest knowledge of the frontier and of the adjacent ter- ritory; and this being so, it is clear that it cannot be exhil>ited in op- position to the result of practical surveys, and of exact observations which have been carried out on the ground in question. 18 These maps, which are nothing more than copies one of the other, are full of unconscious errors of the greatest im{)ortance. As to the map published by Au, I take the liberty of showing a few of these errors in the comparative tables which form part of the annexed document; and from these Your Honor will see, that the errors contained in that »nap are so many and of such importance, that they entirely deprive it of all merit. Mr. Au has fallen into such errors, that if we were to adopt his maj* as a starting {)oint, we would find that once the real position of the different places was rectified, the old boundary line would enclose a soil which is unquestionably Mexican, and with a larger area than that of the territory which gave rise to the dispute, and passing much beyond the town of Tenosique. In treating, therefore, of maps which contain perfectly well })roved errors, which are easily visible and which can neither benefit or prejudice anybody, it is impossible to use them as a basis on which to found any solid and legitimate argument. The geographical position of a town, the situation of a mountain, or the direction of a river, can- not l)e declared altered because an Engineer has committed an error, which is against the very nature of things. ' The old line which was laid down by Mr. Rock, as the boundary of the territory stretching to the left of the La Cantum, perfectly agrees with the most ancient position of Guatemala, and unites two points which have always been recognized and respected; one of them being Tierra Blanca or the summit of Santiago, and the other, the line, or pass, of Yaxchimilan on the Usumacinta. The acknowledgement of these points, as part of our old frontier is set forth in several rej)orts from which I do not make extracts in order not to lengthen this note; but which I at once place at the disposal of Your Honor in case you should desire to consult them. With respect to this question, it is enough for me to lay down the following irrefutable data. Tierra Blanca, or the summit of Santiago, has been acknowledged and fixed by both boundary Commissions as forming part of the ancient frontier line at the time of determining the boundary which is now marked with monuments, by mutual agreement; this line commencing on the Rio Suchiate, in the Pacific and terminating in the point I have cited. This line was laid down on the old frontier, in accordance with the stipulations of article 5 of the preliminary conditions which were subscribed in New York on the 12th. of August, 1882. The other end of the line, or the Pass over the stream of Yaxhilan, was definitely accepted by the Government of Mexico, as is proved by the note of the 10th. of September, 1884, and signed by Mr. Jose Fer- nandez, who was at that time in charge of the Department of Foreign 19 Affairs in that Ilcipublic, this acceptance hein;f founded on tlie official report of Mr. Manuel Mentre, the Governor of Tabasco, a note which is written in such clear and explicit terms, that it does not allow oj an}' commentaries whatever. This is enouraced by the old frontier, and this is an evident proof that Mexico understands the question, that is to say, that it interprets the basis and the treaty, in the same manner as this Government understands and interprets them, seeing that otherwise, it would have opened negotiations with an ol)ject to obtain legal possession of that territory, should it have considered it- self with the right to do so under the treaty, in the same manner that was done by agreement between the Boundary Commissioners, with respect to the territory situated between the Suchiate and the sunnnit of Santiago. 22 And if any proof were wanting, that Mexico understands the stipu- lation I refer to, in the same manner as Guatemala, it would be enough to read the letter which the Secretary of Fomento addressed to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of that Republic, of the 10th of A})ri], 1893, with respect to the last contract celebrated here with Messrs. Jaraet and Sastre, in which letter, amongst other statements with which I do not agree, I find the following: «The contract treats of land which will unavoidably pass ovev to Mexico, whenever the pending question of the River Chixoy or Salinas is decided." It is therefore evident, that Mexico has never thought that that terri- tory ought to be considered as belonging to itself, before that question was decided, that is to say, before the line provided by the treaty was finally laid down by mutual agreement. On the contrary, I repeat that it has continued in the possession of Guatemala, whose rights can in no way be considered as affected by the merely accidental cir- cumstance that the final laying down of the new line, could be car- ried out within a shorter or longer term. Haviiig proved in an unquestionable manner, that this Republic is and has been the awner and legitmate possessor of the zone that stretches to the West of the La Cantum up to the line which has been previously described, the acts of sovereignty which have been exerci- sed in that territory can in no way constitute an invasion of foreign territory. And even if that ownership and possession should not have been proved to such an extent, and with such excess, the mere fact of the doubtful or questionable character, to say the least, Mexico recognizes in that territory, ought to be enough to show that no violation can have taken place, seeing that there could be no intention of occupying foreign territory, a condition which is indispensable before we can assume a real violation. And besides, if it i.^ possible for invasions to have taken place in the territory that I refer to, this character belongs to that which was done by the Political Chief of Tenosique, who during May 189J: pene- trated that territory with public armed forces; because if in the opinion of the government of Mexico, that territory was in dispute as regards Guatemala, it will also ]>e so for that other nation. What does constitute a true and patent violation of foreign territory, is what lately occured in Ayutla, with armed forces proceeding from Mexico, which entered that town in order to carry away by force the titular image and take it over to Mexican territory, where it still rem- ains. With respect to this very grave outrage, I have already had the honor of energetically protesting through your Legation, and which protest I to-day renew. There is no doubt, or room for doubt, as to this fact, for it refers to '2'^ a part of the frontier which lias already heen recognized by both nations and is marked with monuments. To conclude, I have to inform Your Honor, that it is clear from the al)ove, that no well founded reasons can he brought forward for con- sidering that the pending discussion has been suspended by Guate- mala through acts of violence, as in that case, it ought rather to be asserted that Mexico had done so in the first place; but far from this, the diplomatic discussion has continued without any interruption whatever, after what Mr. .Secretary Mariscal classifies as acts of violence. With respect to the fear that the differences originated by the bounchiy question, should go so far as to interrupt the good relation.s existing Ix^tween Guatemala and Mexico, this Government does not entertain it, because even in the unexpected case that there should be no possibility of the two sides coming to an agreement, they are still free to appeal to arbitration, as advised l)y the civilizing princij)les of modern international law, and as provided for in several of the con- ventions executed between the two Republics, and even indicated by Mr. Secretary Mariscal in the note that Your Honor transcribed to me on the 26th. of October last. In view of the arguments I have brought forward, and of the unde- niable proofs which I annex, my Government liopes that Your Honor's Government, guided by the sentiments of justice, can not do less than recognize the legitimate rights of this Republic; and in concluding this note I beg Your "Honor to be kind enough to inform your Go- vernment of the above, and to receive the protestations of my most distinguished consideration. — Jorge MiiTioz. — To the Hon. Lie. Jose F. Godoy, Charge d'Affaires of Mexico. — City. DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Mexico, 7th. of February, 1895. M. le Ministre: Under date of the 30th. of November last, I addressed a note to the Charge d'Aff.dres of Mezico in Guatemala, respecting the differences that exist between our two Governments, with instructions to forward a copy of the same to Your Excellency's Government, which was done by Mr. Godoy. I acted in this manner, notwithstanding my knowledge that Your Excellency was on the road, amongst other reasons, because we had received no notification from your Government of its desire to transfer the discussion of the subject to this city, and because, not having as yet obtained any answer to our principal arguments, the promise to give them a careful reply which had been made by Mr- INIunoz, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, was still unfulfilled. I, never- theless, took care' to deliver to Your Excellency, at our first interview, a copy of my said note, to which your Government has now sent an answer, the contents of which we both know. As I now consider it indispensable to give a written reply to that communication, and in view of the information that Your Excellency gave me, in one of our conversations, that you are fully instructed to continue the discussion here, I have the honor to address to you the present note, with the object of continuing in this city the debate commenced in Guatemala. The answer given by Mr. Munoz under date of the 5th. ulto., although it reveals his ability in presenting some of the arguments on which he relies, at the same time demonstrates how weak is the position adopted by his Government, in not admitting, as it appears, any of our just de- mands. To begin with, Mr. Mufioz neglects to answer and leaves pend- ing, our principal reason for asking redress and compensation: that is to say, that justly or unjustly (it is immaterial to the argument which,) the two Governments were discussing the right to the possession of the lands invaded by Guatemala, which were de facto in the pos- session of Mexico, seeing that the individuals forcibly driven off by that inv^asion or raid, their goods being destroyed or taken from them, were it^concessionnaires or recognized its jurisdiction. Such an appeal to violence during the discussion (I have said in my note) is of itself enough to justify our demands, and to this reason, 25 which he does not directly examine, Mr. Munozonly opposes the plea that the kinds in question liad heen in the j)Ossession of Guatemala in former times, especially in those previous to the treaty of 1882, withc^ut reflecting that this in no way proves that the right of possession was not under discussion, and still less, that the de facto possession did not pertain to the concessionnaires or to the holders of some title from this Government, who were the victims of outrages hy Guatemala. The principal reason that of itself justifies our demands, is therefore still in full force. To the second of our arguments, which went to showing that these lands are assigned to Mexico, in an unquestionable manner, hy the treaty now in force between the two nations, as is admitted by Guate- mala, and the right that this country holds over the same, is not de- pendent on the survey of the line by the Engineers, or on any other requirement; to this argument Mr. Munoz answers, not by anything based on the treat3^ as his predecessor did, but by taking advantage of a quotation, which I will examine later on, from the preliminaries signed in New York on the twelfth of August, 1882. The rest of his note is filled up with incidental observations and refers to a matter which I treated in mine as unimportant, with the object of ])resenting a summar}^ of the arguments on the question; that is to say, that he enters largely in the question of traditional boundaries, those which were to be observed before the treaty. I might leave all this unanswered and -might even grant tliat the Government of Guatemala is right in its historical disquisitions (where it cites Juarros and refers to reports on acts which were ]irevious to or opposed to the boundary treaty), but, notwitlistanding such a libe- ral concession, we should not advance at all in the discussion as to whether Guatemala' had a right to use force to decide the point in question, or if it could employ such force to dispossess Mexico of the territory that is conceded to her under the treaty of 1882, and which has belonged to her at any rate since that convention came into force. Considering, as I do, that the discussion of this class of arguments is useless, although there are plenty of reasons with which to refute them, I will not continue it even with the object of presenting that superabundance of reasons, as I did before, and will simply on this score confine myself to two passing observations. One is, that even if the Go- vernment of Guatemala does not concede an ollicial character to the map of the Engineer Au, published in 1875, it is evident that the whole world will give it that character, seeing the title with which it has circulated for 20 years without the Governmentof Your Excellency having made any protest whatever, a i)rotest which is only now [ve- sented when a remark against Guatemala is based on such map. In my second observation, I desire to draw attention to the fact, 26 that Mr. Munoz says nothing with respect to the surprise naturally caused on seeing his Government gnvnt the lease for five years on lands which it does not claim, except for the time during which the surveys of the Boundary Line will last, and which, according to the latest convention signed hy the two Governments, ought onlj'^ to last one 3'eai'; and on seeing that his Government, in order to acquire such a [trecarious possession, of so short a duration, goes so far as to employ force, to the risk of l)reaking its peaceful relations with Mexico. It appears ini|)ossibie to reconcile such conduct with the protesta- tions of Mr. Munoz, that his Government has alvva3's desired and still desires the fultilment of the treaty. Because, to say that this lease could at any time be cancelled by compensating the lessee, is, to say the least, to confess that interests and difficulties which would conflict with such fulfilment, were deliberately being created: and if, on the other hand, it is answered that Guatemala employed force because she was certain of her right, even when the interest might be transitory or of slight importance, we would have to suppose that a Government recognized as serious and discreet, voluntarily exposes itself to the gravest consequences, with the object of defending a very small interest. Reverting to the answer which Mr. Munoz gives to one of our arguments (the only one which he attempts to answer), to the one serving to prove that there is no obligation to respect the statu quo, nor necessit}'^ in accordance with the treaty, of noticing the old boun- daries, I observe that he calls this a new argument, indicating that it is employed in my note for the first time. It is not exact that it has any such novelty, as we have always maintained in this discussion, that the territory of the logging camps which has been invaded, belongs to us under the treaty of 1882, as can be seen, for example, in the note addressed by tlie Mexican Legation to the Government of Guatemala under date of the 25th of August last. It is true that, by way of giving more force to our arguments, we have added that such lands are also ours in view of the traditional boundaries, and we have specially pressed this latter argument, because the other was perfectly self-evi- dent. What might possibly be called new, is the analj^sis of article 6th. of the treaty, with the object of proving that it does not authorize the statu quo, as is argued by Guatemala. However this may be, it is very clear that, even should the arj;ument be entirely new, it does not therefore lose its force in proving the right on our side. If this novelty were brought forward to excuse the Government of Your Excellency, on the supposition that, not having any knowledge of such argument, it believed, in good faith, that the lands belonged to Guatemala during the statu quo, and that it therefore punished the title-holders of Mexico as trespassers, it would be easy to answer that before appealing to force, that Government was in duty bound to make 27 a careful study of the treaty of 1882, in order to see if it had a vlear rij>ht to exercise jurisdiction, oven going as far as to use violence mi the logging-camps in dispute, and forcstal all the arguments that might be made use of in future to condemn its conduct. In this case, there is no ground for alleging either ignorance or forgetful n ess, or even that the two parties were laboring under an error, because in the considera- tion which ought to ])reced(! the exerciseof the last recourse, that error would of necessity have been discovered. So that, even though the letter addressed to me by my colleague, the Secretary of Fomento, with respect to the contract of Jamet and Sastre, should have contai- ned some error on tliis {)oint (which a careful examination shows not to exist, as the verl) loill, pertain used therein refers to disputed lands in the neighlborhood of the Chixoy), this does not excuse the Govern- ment of Guatemala for its belief that those loggiug-camps were not as yet ours, in accordance with the treaty, and still less is it an excuse for the attempt to employ armed force.on those lands while they fornjed the subject to a discussion with this Government and were occupied by its title-holders. But in order to show that the boundaries existing before the treaty are to be respected, Mr. IMunoz now cites Article 5th. of the prelimina- ry agreement signed in New York on the r2th. of August, 1882. Above all things, he ought to have reHected that this agreement was signed ad referendum, by our Re[)resentative in the United States, inasmuch as he had no authority to conclude any agreement with Gua- temala, and he ought also to have rememberea that its articles were not confirmed, except in that part and in the terms in which they were reproduced in the treaty of the 27th. of September, 1882. Conse- quently, they have no value whatsoever of themselves, and a quotation from that document is worth notiiing if it does not agree with the text of the treat}^ itself. In the second place, Art. 5 of that agreement, runs as follows: «In the demarcation of the boundary line; actual possession will as a rule serve as a basis; but this shall not j)revent its being set aside by both parties and by mutual agreement, for the ])urp()3e of following natural lines, or for any other reason, and in such case the system of mutual compensation will be adopted. Until Uie boundaury line is mar- ked, each of the contracting parties will respect the present possessions of the other." Now, it is a rule for the ))r()per interpretation of such documents, that the same phrase, the same or equivalent words, should be taken in the same sense in the same document, especially if they are employed very soon after each other, and no one will doubt from the context, that the phrase demarcation of the boundary line, which is used at the commencement of the article, means the determination and description 28 of that line in the treaty and not its actual marking on the ground. This being so, this other phrase, which follows, ought to be understood in the same way, «unlil tlie boundary line is marked.)) To avoid its being so understood, it would have been neces.'^ary to say: «until the boundary line is marked on the ground, or b}^ the Engineers,)) or to specify in some other manner the different interpretation which was intended to be given to the expression: «to mark tlie boundary line.)) We can therefore conclude that even the text of the preliminary agreement now brought forward (granting it the binding force which it has not,) merely says that actual possession, tiie statu quo, sliall he res- pected, until the boundary line is set down in the treaty. This having been done since 1882, there is not even the shadow of an argument for invoking former possession, or possession previous to that year, with a view to legalizing acts of violence or of subsequent jurisdiction. With respect to Article 6 of the treaty, to which Guatemala refers as a basis of the pretended statu quo, Mr. Mufioz now says as follows: «The mere reading of this article is enough to show that it has no application whatsoever to the case in question.)) Mr. Munoz is right in this, and it is the same thing that I have proved in my note in which I copied the article, on the occasion when Mr. Salazar, in the name of the (iovernment of Guatemala, in a very clear manner referred to this article 6. In a note he addressed to tlie Mexican Legation on the 3rd. of August last, after stating that in his opinion it is an error to believe that the territory which will belong to Mexico whenever the boundary line shall be marked out, is already its proper!}', he adds these words: «But until this event is reached, and the respective commissions, by mutucd and coviplete agreement,teYm\naie their operations, both parties are strictly bound to respect the statu quo and the old boundaries between the two countries, on pain of violating^ the treaty of the 27th. of September, 1882n.)) The allusion he makes to the labours of the Commissions, these underscored words which he employs bymKtual and complete agreement, all prove that he refers to ar- ticle 6, since the treaty does not contain any other article which even at first sight could be held as alluding to the point in question. It is therefore not strange that I should have undertaken to prove its irrelevancy, and make some observations with respect to its spirit, which, in my o})inion, is contrary to the claims set forth by Mr. Sala- zar, but which I will not here rei)eat or insist on supporting, as it appears to me utterly unnecessary. The important point is that Mr. Muhoz himself has agreed that this article, to which his predeces- sor referred, does not apply to the question of the supposed statu quo; and it is also important to find that the new authority on which the Government of Guatemala now bases its argument, viz: the preliminary 21) agreement, or convention of New York, should be equally inapplica- ble to the case. There would now only remain to examine the appeal which on this occasion Mr. Muhoz makes to the "Principles of International Law,)* without entering into details of any kind; but it is easy to un- derstand that a plea of this general and vague character, neither lends itselfto investigation nor requires it. It will be enough to ask this question: How could the fulfilment of the stipulations of a treaty be opposed to International Law, in a matter in which no period has been specified, and with respect to which there is no room for doubt? Mr. jMufioz, desiring to excuse his Government for the outrages committed in its name and with its approljation, sa3's that if these facts constitute invasions, the same can be said of others per- petrated on the i)art of Mexico, and he refers to two events which I now proceed to examine. The first is the visit carried out within Mexican jurisdiction ])y the Political Chief of Tenosique, State of Tabasco, an event of which I spoke in the above mentioned note. Besides the fact of this visit having been carried out witiiin the territory that is undoubtedl}^ conceded to us by the treaty, it did not even go beyond the ancient or traditional l)Oundaries, as it went no further than the lands adjacent to the left banks of the River Usumacinta and the Lacantun, boundaries that in that region have always been recog- nized and sustained by Mexico. And further: this visit which had no hostile character, which did not attac^k any individual whatso- ever nor destroy or take away the interests of anybody, and whi- ch therefore Avould have no imi)ortance even if made in foreign territory, was carried out in consecpunice of the invasion and outrages of the agents of Guatemala, and with the special object of investigating the same and reporting to the Mexican Government. It was therefore undertaken when it would have been perfectly permissible to repel force by force, i)}^ moving to those parts, liad there been any in the neighborhood, sullicient troops to [)unisli or drive off the invaders. The second fact which Mr. Munoz wishes to set ofi against the Gua- temala depredations of which we complain, is even less pertinent to the question and still less capable of supporting his arguments. It refers to the disaj)pearance of a religious image recently removed from a church in the village of Ayutla, (now within territor}' of Gua- temala by virtue of the treaty, which has been fulfilled in this part), the removal being attributetl to some Mexi(!ans from this side of the frontier. As far as I know, nobody has attributed any such act to the Government of Mexico, making such a ridiculous charge against it, neither could it l)e said that this Government afterwards approved it. On the contrary, as soon as the fact was known, orders were given for the image, which was within Mexican jurisdiction and in the pos- 30 session of private parties, to be deposited with the local authorities, until its legitimate ownership was determined, Information having also been received, that a Mexican called Mota was imprisoned on the Guatemalan side, on an accusation of having made away with the image, and that he implored the protection of his Government, the latter confined itself to asking, through its Legation in Guatemala, that the prisoner should be tried in accordance with the law. Whe- rein does this unauthorized and insignificant act of a few Mexi- cans, as claimed, resemble the invasion, incendiary acts, robbery and destruction af Miles Rock, a special agent of his Government, which at once confessed to having given him the commission, and to having fully approved his (ionduct? To conclude this note, which I do not wish to make of unneces- sary length, I have to answer the charge, which in a veiled and del- icate way is made against me by Mr. Munoz, of wishing to close the door to discussion. This is not correct; wiiat the Mexican Government does not wish is to continue indefinitely discussing points with respect to which discussion is exhausted, or others, in which nothing would be gained with respect to the present question, such as those referring to ancient or traditional boundarifs, when those of the treaty are well defined and must be respected without an^' loss of time. The proof of our readiness to discuss anything new that is presented and bearing on the question of the day, is that I have entered into an examination of the new argument or new authority on which the Government of Gua- temala desires to found the statu quo which it claims, and which it perhaps brings forward as an excuse for the violence committed. After all that has been said and done with respect to this lamenta- ble dispute, it is reasonable to expect that the Government of Your Excellency, in view of the justice of the five demands formulated in my note of the 30lh. of Noveml»er, some of which, at least, cannot possibly be refused by Guatemala, should take these demands, which up to the present have received no attention, into its serious consider- ation, and, guided by the desire which animates ourselves of reaching anequitableand practical solution, should presentits proposals directly, in order that they should be discussed in Mexico with Your Excellency, emplo3ang therein the frankness and loyalty that have until now, I am pleased to acknowledge, characterized our conferences. Your Excellency will be pleased to accept the reiterated assurances of m}' most distinguished consideration. L/nacio Mariscal. — To His Ex- cellency, Lie. D. Em'dio de Lean, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Guatemala. 31 DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA. Guatemala, 23rd. January, 1895. Hon. Sir: — Of the 5th inst. I liad the lionor to address to your IjCgation a note an.swering yours of the '27th. of December last, in \vliiarties will respect the actual possession of the other." I believe I have now said enough to show that the i)Os- session of the above named territory pertains to Guatetnala. and that there is no need for me to insist further on this point. With respect to the map which was published by the Engineer Au, in the year 1875, it cannot be asserted that CJuatemala now denies it the official character which everybody has attributed to it, because an objection has been founded on that map, but because it really con- tains such im{)ortant errors, that the}' prejudice both (Uiatcmala and Mexico in the present discussion, errors that have only been discover- 44 ed through the recent preparation of new m.ips, founded on practical surveys which have been carried out on the ground itself, and which exactly establish the true geographical and topographical position of the territory, as well as the true direction of the rivers. The Engineer Au did nothing more than reproduce the errors which had been pub- lished by others, and, as has been well said by Mr. Secretary Munoz, without any observation being made to it by your Excellency, if that map were to be taken as a starting point in order to rectify the posi- tions of places, the ancient boundary line would deprive Mexico of a larger area of territory than that which has given rise to our discus- sion, and would throw it a great deal further to the west than the town ofTenosique. In spite of the official character attributed to it by every- body, it cannot be legally sustained because there is no ruling which gave it such a character, issued by the Executive of Guatemala the only authority who could grant that character, and which even then would require the approval of the Legislature. With respect to the lease executed with Don Manuel Jamet, I cer- tainl}' do not find any reason for so much astonishment, and answers have been given on two different occasions: first by Dr. Salazar and afterwards by the present Secretary, Mr. Munoz, in which both show that the most natural and proper course in this case, would be to ob- tain a direct agreement with the Government of Mexico, whenever the latter should enter into possession of the territory, or what is sim- pler still, and often done in contracts of a similar character, rescind the contract and give the lessee an equitable indemnity, in spite of the legal presumption that he must have acted with a fore-knowledge of the circumstances. To bring forward this act, in itself so unimpor- tant, as an argument for presuming the intention of my Government to create obstructions to the fulfillment of the treaty, shows that there is no desire to recognize the good and loyal intentions of my Gov- ernment, which have already been proved by undeniable facts. The contract of lease was executed on the 25th. of January, 1893, and on the loth, of April of the same year, the Government of Guatemala, animated by the desire for the prompt termination of the treaty, in perfect good faith proposed to your Excellency's Government, that we should adopt the mean of the insignificant differences in the geo- detic lines surveyed by the two Commissions, and in view of the fact that those surveys have been terminated: that the parallel of Santiago- Chixoy, should be considered as final until its intersection with the River Chixoy, and that the geographical position of the River Chixoy, should be determined as far as its confluence with the River Pasion, from which point it forms the Usumacinta, and your Excellency will remember that it was the Mexican Government which would not then accept. Can it be reasonably believed that the Government of Guate- 4.') mala tried to create difliculties, wlien, on the contrary, it showed a few months after, as always when the opportunity lias l)een found, its desire that the treaty should l)e coMii)lied with and executed? I beheve that I have amphfied as tar as necessary, tlie arguments that h^ve already been presented by the Secretary of Foreign Aflaira of my country. I consider as pertinent to the question, the protest made by my Government and that I now formally renew, touching the invasion committed in territory of Guatemala by a group of Mexicans who en- tered to commit all classes of depredations and who appropriated the titular image in the village of Ayutla, afterwards taking refuge in ter- ritory of the United States of Mexico. In this case, there was undoubt- edly a flagrant violation of foreign territory, because in this part of the boundary, the line is laid down in a definite manner, the monu- ments have been erected and each Government has a perfect know- ledge of the territory over which its authority and sovereignt}^ reaches. Treating of the five demands with which your Excellency con- cludes ^aiur note of tiie 30th of November last, and in accordance with the contents of that of tiie 19tli inst. I will now conclude with the following; observations: 1. That sui)erabundant i)roofs having been presented as to the le- gality of the rights that Guatemala possesses over the territory in which the incidents of the logging-camps took place, she does not consider herself under ;iny obligation to give the satisfaction that Mexico de- mands, nor does she. deem that just, because this can only be exacted when there has been a violation of ibreign territory, whilst in this case, Guatemala has only exercised her perfect rights over her own territory. 2. If the law of nations provides that each one shall exercise acts of dominion and jurisdiction in the territory that belongs to it, there is no reason whatever for the demand of an indemnity by those who have wrongfully established logging-camps in territory which unques- tionably belongs to Guatemala, and especially if we bear in mind, that the occupiers were frequently notified and warned that they would have to vacate those camps, and that they disobeyed the orders of the Guatemala Government. 3. Neither is there any good reason for the inference reached by the Government of Mexico, that, because Guatemala in the use of its un- doubted rights obliged those who occu|)ied its territory in a wrongful manner to respect its authority, it should be ready to sustain its ac- tion by force of arms. Guatemala has not mobilized forces, and it can- not be shown to have made military preparations of any class what- ever. The mobilization of troops and war preparations on the-part of Mexico, have therefore been entirely unnecessary and uncalled for. The government of Guatemala has in no way provoked that of Mexi- ,46 CO, and us no such provocation exists in fact, the menacing attitude which is assumed by Mexico in the dispatcli of troops to the frontier, can still less be justified. My Government feels such confidence in the justice of its cause, that it has not thou^^ht for a moment of having recourse to the violent methods which are condemned by th^i highly 'civilizing and beneficent doctrine of international law, in order to sus- tain its rights. Guatemala has never refused to discuss any question or to arrange it by diplomatic means in a way that would justify the mobilization of forces by the Mexican Government, and still less to demand indemnity for such a proceeding. 4. It cannot be said that Air. Miles Rock is to blame for the delays that have occured in the fulfillment and execution of the treaty. The same assertion might be made by my Government with respect to Mr. Manuel E. Pastrana, Chief of the Mexican Commission. Your Ex- cellency will remember, that as long as the Engineer, Mr. Salazar Ilarregui, presided over the Boundary Commission of this Government, he had not the slightest difficulty with Mr. Rock: they worked in per- fect harmony and agreement from the beginning of the line on the River Suchiate, as far as the summit of Santiago, and we would doubtless have our line concluded if we had not suffered the misfor- tune of his separation, as tliat gentleman took his stand on the legal and fair interpretation of paragraph 4 of Art. 3 of the treaty, recog- nizing that the parallel which starts from the summit of Santiago, in an Easterly direction, must terminate in the point of its intersection with the River Chixoy, as it really ought to be. As soon as Mr. Pas- trana came to preside over the Commission, he presented the claim that the parallel ougnt to be prolonged further East than the River Chixoy, and this is the origin of the suspension of the treaty, for which Guatemala is in no way to blame. To dismiss Mr. Rock, who has a contract executed with my Government, which cannot be put on one side, would neither be just nor prudent. Any other person who might take his place, would do so without the knowledge that he has of the question; would require to commence by making new surveys, a thing that would certainly cause delays and difficulties that my Government does not desire, especially treating of the convention of 1882, which it is so anxious to see promptly executed. Apart from all this, the labons and surveys of both commissions are concluded, and the final demarcation along the rest of the line, only depends on the two Governments, as I now proceed to explain. 5. This is the chapter, that undoubtedly demands the fullest treat- ment. In the note dated 5th. of January last, which Mr. Secretary Munoz addressed to your Excellency, he says: "Besides this, Guate- mala now is and always has been, within the treaty of 1882, and has always been frankly disposed to comply with its stipulation, as it 47 perfectly understands and respects its undertakings and is extremely zealous in fulfillinjf them and in \vatchinys of the Engineering Commis- sions, were still wanting, and for that reason it was agreed that the suspension of the parallel should be temporary on the condition that no difficulty should arise in the rest of the line, until its termination. That provision has now lapsed because the labors have been conclu- ded and no difficulty can now present itself. The fulfillment and exe- 48 cution of the treaty, exclusively depend on your Excellency's Govern- ment giving instructions to the Mexican Chief of the Boundary Com- mission; 1st., to definitely suspend the prolongation of the Saiitingo- Chixoy parallel at the point of its intersection with the river Chixoy: 2iid., to make a geographical survey of that same River Chixoy, to the point of its confluence along its deepest channel, with the River Pasion: 3rd., to make a geographical survey of the River Usumacinta along its deepest channel, from its confluence with the River Chixoy and the River Pasion, which together form it, until it intersects the second })arallel; and 4th., to accept the mean of the two surveys alrea- dy made by the respective Connnissions. I feel entirely hopeful that the Government of your Excellency, presided over by citizens of illustrious, upright and just character, convinced of the reason and right wliich are on the side of my Gov- ernment, will give a rew proof of the uprightness and justice which govern their acts, desisting from the demand presented to Guatemala and ordering, that with a view to the prompt and exact execution of the treaty, which is demanded by the most important interests of both countries, instructions be given to the Chief of the Mexican Boundary Commission, at set forth in the previous paragraph. I do not for a moment doubt that your Excellency's Government, whose honorable and upright character is perfectly well known, will know hovv to appreciate the justice of the preceding observations, and will be satisfied with them, but if on the contrary, and to our great regret, you should insist on your demands as set forth in your Ex- cellency's note on the 7th. of November, in which you say: that the Government of Mexico does not care to conliime discussing points as to which the discussion is exhausted, and others which would not in any way advance the pending question; that it is not to be supposed that either of the two countries will claim to constitute itself a Judge of its own cause and right: that on the other hand, it is so set forth in No. 4 of the conditions which were signed in New York on the 12th. of August, 1882, in the Lera-Salazar memorandum; and that your Excellency himself insinuates it in your note which the Hon. Mr. Go- doy communicated to my Government on the 26tli. of October, 1894, under special instructions from the (iovernment which I have the honor to re[)resent, I formally propose to that of your Excellency, the pacific, civilized and humane method of arbitration, which is taken advantage of by all cultured nations to decide their disputes whatever may be their importance and magnitude, and with the object that one nation friendly to both countries, should decide as to the possession of the territory in dispute, that is to say, that part of the territory which stretches on the West bank of the River La Candon, and with the understanding that, if it should be declared that Guatemala had 49 no legal right to possess that territory, she will have no hesitation whatever in recognizing her error and in expressing her sorrow to the Mexican Government. The lo3-alty and good faith with which hoth countries maintain their rights, as well as the justice and reason that each one heHeves to be on its own side, constitute the best guarantee on which each of them ought to rest and cheerfully await an imp:;rtial and final reso- lution. I avail myself the present oc(!asion to renew to your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration and appreciation. — Emi- lia de Leon. — To his Excellency Lie. Don Ff/nacio Mariscal, Secretary of Foreign Affairs. DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Mexico, lltli. of March, 1895. M, le Ministre: — I have the honor to reply to the note under date of the 22nd. of Feb- ruary last, in which Your Excellency, as you state siiortly before concluding, amplifies the arguments alread}' brought forward by your Government, adding some further considerations. Willi regard to these latter, 1 will onl}^ make sucii corrections as appear indispensable; and will refrain from using arguments which have already l)eeh emplo}'- ed by this Government in reply to statements which it has put aside as not affecting the basis of its demands. Your Excellency commences by lamenting that the Mexican Press should have, as you say, exaggerated the gravity of the differen- ces between the two Governments, embittering the sentiments that they arouse. I do not quite understand the object with which Your Excellency presents these comj.laints, in the note which I have the honor of answering. If 3'ou do so under the belief that this Govern- ment allows itself to be infiuenced by the passions aroused by the Press in the generality of its readers, I must inform you that you are under an error, because neither the President nor his Ministers allow themselves to be affected by any other sentiments tlian those which are produced by known facts or considerations of justice. But if Your Excellency's object is to indicate that the responsibility for certain 50 opinions expressed in our newspapers, falls on the Government, I must protest that this is entirely unfounded, and that in order to avoid any such charge, even though it be groundless, with respect to this matter, I published, as Your Excellency knows, a warning in the Diario Oficial, reminding the public that that periodical is the only organ of the Government, and that no other publication receives any inspiration from an}' of the Government Departments with regard to our question with Guatemala. -When, on the other hand, one of many newspapers oflended Your Excellency in such a manner that its insulting language appeared at once to be punishable in accordance with our laws, the Government of its own accord had the article de- nounced and its author prosecuted pursuance of with the law. Nothing more can be expected in a country which has a free Press; and indeed it was not to be expected that Your Excellency should complain of the Mexican Press, when we do not complain of the extraordinary abuse of the Press of Guatemala against this country, abuse of which the Mexican Government takes not the slightest notice. Returnig to the subject with the discussion of which we are oc- cupied, and putting aside everything that does not l^ear a very impor- tant or novel character, m}' attention is attracted by an argument barely indicated by Mr. Muiioz and now developed by Your Excel- lency. It consists in asserting, that the discussion of our rights to the territor}' situated on the left bank of the Usumacinta and the La- candon, a discussion which arose when this Government complained of the occupation by Guatemala of the logging-camp of Egipto (in 1892), was finally terminated because we could answer nothing (so Your Excellency says) to the argumentsof Guatemala, and that there- fore the latter, without provoking Mexico, had a right, in 1894, to expel by force of arms the Mexican concessionnaires of the logging- camps situated Westward of the River Lacandon,. «An appeal is made (Your Excellency adds) to an extreme measure, in order to reopen the' discussion with respect to the former business of the same charac- ter loMc/i tvas terminated, so as to prepare the ways for the discussion of a second question under equal or similar conditions. This is the ex- planation of the fact that fifteen months afterwards, that is to say, from May 1893 to August 1894, an attempt is made to revive a su])ject that was considered to be finally terminated.)) The last dates quoted b}'' your Excellency are, doubtless, respect- ivel}'^ those of the last note from Mr. Salazar and its answer by the Department under my charge, with resj)ect to the invasion of the log- ging-camp of Egipto. In order to explain the interval of fifteen months between these two notes, and to show that we did not thereby aban- don our claims for the invasion and outrages of Guatemala and 51 still less our rights to the territory in which they took place, it would be necessary to enter on a long history, in which it would appear that new events and claims on the part of Your Excellency's Governinent obliged us to delay the discussion of this incident, with the view of acting })ru(lently and not confounding different questions. But nothing of this is really necessary to show that we h:ul not abandoned that question, nor couM Guatemala believe in July 18!)4, when in warlike fashion it invaded the disputed territory, that such dis|>ute had been finally concluded. Nobody could imagine such a thing, and the contrary is proved by one patent fact amongst others, a fact that is ignored l)y Your Excellency, although I have repeatedly men- tioned it in m}"^ note. This fact is, that the fifteen months al)()ve men- tioned were interru|)ted by our protest against the first article of the Jamet contract, and in that ])rotest we renewed our just claims to the territory on the left bank of the Usumaeinta and the Lacandon. Even supposing thata simple interval of fifteen months without the insistance on an international question, which of itself is more or less slow, should ijnply the abandonment and forfeiture of the rights brought forward, how can Your P^xcellenc}'' contend that there lias been any want of insistance in this case on the part of Mexico, in view of the fact which I have taken the liberty of reminding you, to sa}^ noth- thing of the different concessions on those lands wliich have been authorized by the Mexican Government, and of which Your Excellency is not unaware? How can you maintain that, in 1894, your Gov- ernment sent its troops to the logging-camps of «San Nicolas," «Agua Azub) and «La Constancia,)) under the belief that Mexico no longer claimed that territory? How (iould Your Excellency's Gov- ernment imagine that by destroying those logging-camps it did not offend the Mexican Government nor oblige it to protect its conces- sion nai res? Another of Your E.xcellency's arguments which 1 propose to answer, does not refer to the first and principal argument with which we de- fend our demands, but it refers to the second, of wdiich lately we have also made use. Your P]xcellency says that there is nothingsurpris- ing in the fact that Mr. Salazar should have founded his claim to the statu quo (which is sustained by Guatemala) on art. 6th. of the boun- dary treaty and that Mr. Mufioz, who has succeevled him in the De- partment of Foreign Affairs, should have founded it on art. oth. of the preliminaries to that treaty, liecause there is no contradiction l)etween the two articles. It is certain that there is no such contradiction, since they treat of very different subjects, as I have before shown in my examinations of the two. I have not said that I felt any surprise, but on the contrar}^ it appears to me very natural, that Mr. Mufioz, find- ing that the article cited by his predecessor was not applica))le to the 52 case, should have recognized that it could not be brought forward in the discussion. I am not even surprised that Your Excellency (with an excess of zeal), should contradict this last opinion of your Govern- ment, in order to maintain, as you do, that the two articles, the one declared inapplicable and the other from the preliminary sti])ula- tions which is now brought forward, are equally available as a basis for the arguments of Guatemala. Accepting, nevertheless, INIr. Munoz's declaration that the article of the treaty will not serve as a foundation on which to claim the statu quo, I will now briefly refer to art. r)th. of the preliminary con- vention that was signed in New York. As they have received no ans- wer, I will not repeat the arguments on which I founded my asser- tion that this article does not establish the obligation of respecting the ancient limits until the boundary line is laid off on the ground, but until it should be specified or designated in the treaty, a designa- tion for which the rules were laid down in that preliminary conven- tion. What I will do, is to demonstrate afresh that this convention, having once fulfilled its object, which was the execution of the treaty, has of itself no value or force. Your Excellency affirms, that these preliminary articles or condi- tions having been signed by Senor Don Matias Romero, who was au- thorized to negotiate with the Representatives of Guatemala, they are binding on Mexico, even after the treaty has been concluded and put in force. There are statements in this that require clearing up and correcting. It is true that in the preamble of that temporary agreement, Mr. Romero stated that he was authorized to negotiate, but that does not imply that he was authorized to close the agreement, and this is the reason why I said in my previous note, that Mr. Ro- mero not being authorized to finally close an arrangement with Gua- temala, it was understood that he signed ad refcrendam. These pre- liminary articles required the approbation of the Mexican Govern- ment, which was given to that part of the convention included in the treaty itself, and not to the part not so included. Besides this, an international agreement cannot be taken as perma- nently binding unless it is so distinctly understood, (after the compliance with the requisites which for that purpose are provided in the Cons- titution of each country), and far from this, the preliminary convention itself stipulated that it should not be subject to the revision of the corresponding legislative bodies in each country, because, as it says in so many words, «it only settles the bases for the final boundary treaty;): which clearly proves that none of its provisions would be binding after the conclusion of the treaty, and that if any one of them could be so considered, it would be invalidated unless included in the treaty itself Tlie above reasoning leads to the inference that the claims of Your P]xcellency to the effect that the preliminary articles are a com- ■plement of the treaty, and that their text carries as much force in the resolution of our present question, as that of the treaty now in force, can not be sustained. With rei:rard to the remark of Your lilxcellency, that Guatemala mi but only an historical value, Your Excellency's good judgment will lead you to understand that your Government, for the sake of its own good name, could not go to such an extreme. Unlike Mr. Munoz, who has seen fit to take nO notice of the de- mands of this Government, as contained in my note of the 30th. of November, Your Excellency now takes them into consideration one by one (as we desired), even if only to throw them all on one side, or rather, to absolutely reject four of them and with respect to the fifth, which is favorable to Guatemala, to give it a still more favoral)le turn by means of a radical change; namely, that the limits of the Chixoy shall not be temporarily determined, as provided in the agreement which I signed with Mr. Dieguez, but that they should be at once permanently fixed, without waiting the fulfilment of the condition stipulated, because, according to Your Excellency, that agreement has now no raisoii (Vetre, notwithstanding that it was openly accepted a few months ago by Guatemala, after years of hesitation, as 1 have related in another of my notes. 'I'lie reason which is given by Your Excellency is that the fresh labors of the P^ngineers show the uselessness of the agreement. Nevertheless, tli(^ discussion which terminated in that arrangement, could in no way l)e decided merely by those labors, and no fresh ones have been undertaken, that we know of, since CJuatemala finally accepted the arrangement; that is to say, since the 10th. of March, 1894. On reading Your Excellency's note, i was surprised to find that you refused as luijud (ind inconvenient, according to your own words, even the demand to which vour Government had already acceded in an express manner, although not in the form of an answer to the Mexican Government. My surprise arose from the fact that I could not conceive how Your Excellenc}^ well informed as 3'ou are of what has taken place in Washington, as can be inferred from the ])roj)csition with which yon close your note, should ignore this incident, or tiiat you siiould undertake to disapprove the conduct of your Government and show yourself less disposed than itself to a conciliatory si)irit, such as ought to regulate this controversy, instead of a determination to cede absolutely nothing in the new and old claims, in the new and old arguments. I refer to our demand for the dismissal of tlie Engineer Miles Rock from the service of Guatemala, 54 he liaving been tlie official agent in the outrages of whicli we com j)l;iin. As far back as the 25th. of January last, our Minister in the United States advised nie that the Hon. Secretary of State in Washington had connnissioned him to give me the information that, according to the report of the Minister of Guatemala in that city, Mr. Miles Rock had been dismissed from the service of CJuatemala, in consequence of a recommendation from the Government of the United States. At a later date, (the 6th. ult.) tlie American Legation in this capital communicated the same fact to me, by instructions from its Govern" ment. As Your Excellency, on your part, refused to accept even this request which we considered already granted, I telegraphed on the 26th. of February last to our Minister in Washington advising him of what IkhI passed, with the intention of ascertaining if any attempt was being made to retract what had been arranged. While awaiting the answer to my message, I received the visit with which Your Excellency honored me on the 6th. inst., in order to inform me that, according to a private letter which you had just received from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, the Engineer Rock had been dismissed from the service of that Government. I therefore suppose that this point is now terminated. For its own part, in the midst of its just indignation for the violent and highly offensive acts of Guatemala,, the Mexican Government has had the extraordinary moderation, in jtresenting its demands, (at the risk of that moderation not being appreciated, which it has not been) of {)roposing that the provisional boundary should be fixed by the River Chixoy, leaving pending the final decision as to whether this river or the River Pasion or Usumacinta should mark the boundary line, notwithstanding that it could alread}^ consider the condition stipulated for the former, in the Dieguez-Mariscal conven- tion, as unfulfilled; namely, that no new difficulties should be put in the way of the marking of the line. This Government could have argued that the outrages perpetrated by your Excellency's Government, through its Engineer and special agent, certainly constituted difficul- ties, and of a grave character, in the way of such demarcation, thus proving in a very clear manner, that the condition could notl)e finally fulfilled. Yet my Government has not desired to })roceed in this man- ner; but on the contrary, it has been willing to leave this question until later when the international surveys shall have been concluded. It has done this in a spirit of conciliation and with the object of not accumulating disj^utes, as well as that of showing all the deference possible. Your Excellency terminates your note exi)ressing the conviction thab in view of the reasons which you have set forth, (and which I have 55 shown to be almost the same as those brought forward l>y your Governinent) the Mexican Government will withdraw all its demands, and submit to the arbitration of a friendly power the question of the ownership of the lands situated on the western l)ank of the River Lacandon; won the understanding (adds Your P]xcellency), that if it should be declared that Guatemala liad no lawful right to possess that territory, she will not hesitate to acknowledge her error and toex|)ress her regret to the Mexican Government.)) It is at once noticeable that the above proposition, which Your Excel- lency informs me is presented under s])ecial instructions from your Govermnent, does not imply the submission to arbitration, of the principal point in dis{)Ute, buta very different question, whose solution would not settle the pending dilliculty. Nevertheless, an attempt is made to confound this with the principal point, in order that Mexico may rest satisfied with the hope of eventual redress without any indemnity for damages. The question, (if we can call question that which admits of no dou])t) is not whether the territory invaded by Guatemala pertains to Mexico or not; the princii>al question. I sliall never be weary of repeating, is as follows: (((iranting two well known and unquestioned f;icts: first, that the right to possess the lands re- ferred to was under discussion l)etween the two (Jovernments; and second, that Guatemala, during such discussion, employed force to ex{)el the Mexican concessionnaires from those lands, seizing or des* troying their property, ought (Juatemala, or not, to give satisfaction and redress to the Mexican Government?)) These acts of violence during an international debate, these acts that, openly confessed and recognized by Your Excellency's Govermnent, constitute an insulting challenge to the Mexican nation, an outrage eflected with deliberate intention or with a blindness that admits of no excuse, give us the clearest right to demand an honorable satisfac- tion and an indemnity lor the damage causecl. 'J'hat Guatemala had, or had not, reasons for believing that those lands belong to her, is a circumstance which ni;iy perhaps extenuate, or aggravate, her culjta- bility, but that can in no way relieve her from responsibility for hav- ing employed force against the claims of a friendly Government which was i)acifically discussing them, against this same Government as re- presented by its concessionaires or title-holders. I have already shown how evident it was that these claims were under discussion, and that we had re-asserted them l)y protesting against the iirst article of the Jamet contract. Nothing of this admits of the slightest doubt, and therefore no doubt can be entertained as to our right to an honorable satisfaction, and to the redress that we are now den)anding in gen- eral terms. This is the ])oint to which Guatemala must first agree and which Mexico can not submit to arbitration, because it is 56 of an insult to the Government or rather to the country, nud no pri- vate person or nation that guards its honor submits such things to the decision of a third part3^ The ])oints which can be so sub- mitted are tlie terms of tlie indenniity to be {)aid. This was our answer, ex[)ressed in tlie clearest manner, when the Government of the United States (with the best intentions, although misinformed by Guatemala) recommended an appeal to arbitra- tion in this controvers}', as also when Guatemala, through* that esteemed Government, presented the same propositi(»n which is now formulated by Your Excellency. As far back as the 21st. of Jan- uary last, the Charge d'Affaires of the United States read me a tele- gram dated at Washington, in which the Hon. Secretary of State informed him that the President of that nation did not believe that Mexico would act in a precipitate manner in its dispute with Guate- mala: that the United States, by her example, had contributed to the establishment of the ])rinciple of arbitrationj and that Mexico could not forget its moral obligation to extend the beneficent in- fluence of that principle, especially in the American continent. My answer, after consultation with the President of the Republic, was substantially as follows: «To-day, when this 'nation (Mexico) has been insulted by the repeat- ed employment of force diu'ing the discussion as to the right to certain lands vvhich,by Guatemala's own admission, the treaty assigns to Mexico, this Government considers it a point of national lionor not to submit to arbitration the question as to whether satisfiiction is due for these insults; but it is disposed to accept a friendly arbitration to settle the indemnity due from Guatemala.)) Your Excellency's Government must undoubtedly have been infor- med of these telegrams, as your Minister must have reported them ful- ly from Washington. Neither can your Government be ignorant of the answer which I gave to another telegram received here on the 6th of February, in which the al)Ove mentioned Secretary of State trans- mitted a proposal, similar in substance to that of Your P]xcellency, and said that it was already presented to the Mexican Government. The substance of my answer was as follows: ((It is not correct that the Government of Guatemala (as reported by its Minister at Washington) has sul)niitted to Mexico the projiosition in question, or any other, in answer to our demands. The.proposition which now comes from Washington in theform above indicated, issubs- tantially identical with another that, without instructions to that effect, was made by Mr. Romero through 3Ir. Gresham, and which was not approved of by this Government, as, in another Ibrm, it amounts to a proposal of arbitration on a question which we consider as 57 touching the national lionor, tor which reason a solution of tliis kind cannot be considered adeiiuato) In view of the al)Ove antecedents. Your Excellency will understand that it is not })ossible to admit the proposition which you now' repeat in the name of your Government, and at no time could have been admitted, for the reasons stated. If we found ourselves obliged to refuse that proposition when we might consider it as recommended by a. friendly Government, from the fa('t of its having been made through the latter, we do not see any reason why we should now . accejjt it, to the detriment of the honor and dignity of the Re- pul)lic. Our present action is consistent with our conduct at other times, for it follows the precedents which we have established, as welh as the general princii)les which we have always sustained in matters of arbitration. In 1882, we declined, as courteously as possil)le the arbitration of the United States, offered by that Government through its Minister in Mexico, on the ground that tlie sup- posed question whether Chiapas and Soconiisco belonged to us affected the honor and dignity of this country; and in 1890, when a discussion was started in the Pan-American Conference, with regard to a convention on arbitration, we declined to agree to it^^ general ado[)tion, unless exception was made of those cases wiiich affected the national honor and dignit}'; a limitation that we have always considered indispensable. In confirmation of the above, I beg to enclose with this note acopy of a despatch, dated the 18tli of February of that 3^ear, containing instructions on this subject to Mr. Romero, our Minister in Washington. It is useless for Your Excellency to quote the Lera-Salazar agree- ment, which was ap[)roved by this Govermnent, and under wiiich Mexico consented to arbitration in order to decide the (piestion as to whether the boundary line should be laid down, according to the treaty, along the River Chixoy or along the River Pasion. It is also useless to quote one of my own notes relating to that matter, in whi( h 1 authorized the same arbitration. It only goes to juove that the Mexican Government does not systematically oppose so excellent a method of deciding a great nund)er of international (picstions. Far from this, we recognize and proclaim that it is higiily connnendable in a great nund)er of cases; but at the same time we maintain that it is not aj)plicable to some, in which the honor and dignity of a coun- try are clearly involved. This imdoubtedly hap})ened in 1882, when the ovvnershi]) of a territory was disi)Uted the greater part of which we undoul)tedly })ossessed ever since Mexico was known to tlu( world as an independent nation, and the rest of wiiich we had possessed for many years past and in accordance with the wisli of its inhal)itanta. 58 And this happens now, when it is a case of an evident offense, an insult offered to a friendly Ciovernment, by the use of force within a territory the right to which it was defending by means of argu- ments and peaceful j)rotests. In conclusion, there is no other way open to terminate the present controversy, except b}'' Guatemala recognizing the moral obligation under Mhich she lies, for her own honor's sake, of giving sa- tisfaction to this Government for the violent acts of her agents, as well as redress for the damages they have caused ; an obligation un- der which she would lie, with respect to the injured persons, even had she been in legitimate i:»ossession of the logging-camps in dispute, as it certainly is not a legal method of exercising jurisdiction, to burn houses and crops, to destroy fields, and to carry off ])rivate i)ro- perty (such for instance, as 2000 tons of cut wood) and dispose of the same as if it belonged to the State. The obstinate defense of such conduct will certainly not enhance the reputation of any civilized Government, which, far from losing, would gain in renown by nobly acknowledging its error in sanctioning these raids, criminal in themselves and much more censurable when they constitute a pro- vocation and insult to a foreign government which, having grant- ed concessions in said territory, finds itself in honor bound to ])ro- tect its concessionaires. To continue this discussion when the arguments are exhausted (your Excellency acknowledges this by declaring that you amplify the pleas of your Government), would be entirely useless. I therefore conclude this note, and inform Your Excellency, by direction of the President of the Republic, that you mny consider the demands con- tained in my despatch of the 30th of November as repeated in this, excepting as far as relates to the Engineer Miles Rock, on the understanding that his dismissal is irrevocable, and in future I shall continue no discussion except as to the terms of the honorable satisfaction and the indemnity which Mexico expects to receive from Guatemala. I have the honor to renew to Your Excellency the assurance of my most distinguished consideration. — Ignacio Mariscal. — To His ll^xcellency Lie. D. Emilio de Leon, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Guatemala. .".<) DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. BUREAU OF AMERICA AND ASIA, No. 208. Mexico 18th. of February, 1899. I acknowledge receipt of your note No. 189 of the 9th. inst., in which, whilst you inform me that you received the note of this De- partment No. 103 of the 28th. of January, respecting the propositions for arbitration presented in the Congress of the American Nations by the delegates from Brazil and the Argentine Republic, you enter on Rome considerations relating to the matter. In answer, and referring to my subsequent note No. 149 of the 7th. inst., I have to inform you, that it certainly would be best that you should be guided (as you were told at first) by art. 21st of the treaty of Guadalupe; but if the limitation therein contained should ap- pear to be very vague, you could adopt, as less vague, the wording froposed to you l)y this Department, and which is much more defi- nite than that of the Argentine draft, as it is not easy to understand in that document, which are the questions that interest or do not interest the sovereignty of the nation. Should that wording not be found convenient, you might omit the cxj)lanation that I reccommen- ded j'ou to make in the discussion, that some. questions of limits shoidd be brought forward as examples. We do not attem])t to exclude all questions as to boundaries, (as these do not all afllect the dignity and decorum of the nation), l)ut only those in which the clear and well established possession for a long time and with regard to which no dispute can be raised, as well as the undisi)uted will of the inhabitants, make it even ridiculous to raise the question of original ownership, as was the case with the absurd claim which Guatemala nuule to the State of Ghiapas. To tliese and not to any other questions of boundaries, did I refer in the instructions given you as to the explanation you might make, and I did not intend to refer only to the mere question of boun- daries, but to all those which really deal witli the dignity and decorum of a nation, a wording which is nmch more definite in this case, than the term sovereignty. I renew my expressions of friendly consideration. — Mariscal. — To the Minister of Mexico. — Washington. 60 CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE UNITED STATES. Legation of the United States of America. ■'to Mexico, 22nd of Januar}', 1895. Sir: Referring to our interview at noon of to-day, I have the honor to enclose the copy that your Excellency a.sked for, of the telegram that I received last night from the Hon. Mr. Gresham, with respect to the differences existing between Mexico and Guatemala; and I have the honor to reiterate the assurances of my high esteem. — E. C. Butler. — To His Excellency Ignacio Mariscal, Secretary of Foreign Afiairs. TELEGRAM. Washington, 21st January, 1895. Gray, Minister. — Mexico. The terms of the demands of Mexico against Guatemala have been obtained from the Ministers of both countries here. The circumstance that the present controversy refers to the boundary treaty of 1882 between Mexico and Guatemala, if it is not a consequence of it, and that the conclusion of this was in great part due to the mediation of the United States, obliges the President to express his earnest hope that the two neighboring countries will not omit any means of reach- ing a direct settlement of their differences, and that, in case they do not, they will submit them to friendly arbitration. Tbe President will not believe tbat Mexico wishes to appeal to arms in a precipitate manner. The United States, by her example, has contributed to the establisbment of the principle of arbitration, and in the opinion of the President himself, Mexico can not assume the responsibility of failing in its moral obligation to cooperate in the extension of the beneficent influence of this principle, especiall}'^ in the American continent. You will at once communicate the substance of this instruction to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, leaving him a copy of the same, should he desire it. — Gresham. 61 DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Mexico, 2or(l of January, 189"). Mr. le Cliarge d'Affaires: Yesterday I was in receipted of 3'our note of that date with a copy of the telegram which j'^ou received from your (liovernment, and which 3'ou liad read to me on tlie same day, rehiting to the question now pending hetween Mexico and Guatemala. I Lave to-day the honor of enclosing you a memorandum of the verhal answer tiiat I gave j^ou in the name of the Mexican Govern- ment. I take the opportunity of reiterating to you, the assurances of my most distinguished consideration. — Ic/nacio Mariscal. — To Mr. Edward C. Butler, Charge d'Afi'aires ad interim of the United States of America. MEMORANDUM. The Mexican Government has considered, with due attention, the tele- gram which was 3^esterda3' sent from ^\'ashington to the Charge d'Af- faires of the United States of America resident in this city, and relat- ting to the question now pending between Mexico and (Uiatemala. The Mexican Government recognizes the friendly si)irit shown towards the two countries, and the prudent character of the observations therein contained. The question that we are to-day discussing, arises from the fact that Guatemala is attempting to evade the fullillment of the treaty of 1882, which we were able to conclude owing to the impar- tial and judicious conduct of the Government of the United States of America, which ultimately refused to intervene in the case, and thus decided Presidente Barrios to enter into negotiations for a boundary treatv. To-dav, when this nation has been insulted l>v the repeated em{)loyment of force during the discussion as to the rights over certain lands that, by Guatemala's own admissions, were assigned by the treaty to Mexico, this Government considers it a point of national honor not to submit to arbitration the question as to whether satisfac- tion is due for these insults; but it is willing to accept a friendly arbitration in order to determine the indemnity due from Gua- temala. Mexico 22nd of January, 1895. 62 MEXICAN LEGATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. No. 705. — Mediation of tlie United States in the question of Gua- temala. Washington 21st of January, 1895. At one o'clock to-day, and after having exchanged a few words at noon with the Secretar}' of State, without any reference having been made to the matter, I received a note from him, in which he privately furnished me a copy of a telegram which he forwarded to-day in cypher, to the Minister of the United States in Mexico, and contains instruc- tructions relating to our question with Guatemala, and advising me at the same time, that he had sent another copy of this telegram to the Minister of Guatemala in Washington. In the course of the conversation and by way of proving to me that his telegram to Mr. Gray did not imply any interference whatever on the part of this Government, and still less, any intention of imposing conditions on the Government of Mexico, Mr. Gresham informed me that telegram would in no way ]>revent Mexico from acting as it thought convenient in its question with Guatemala. I reiterate to you my most, distinguished considerations. — M. Ro- mero. — To the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mexico. MEXICAN LEGATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. . No. 718. — Question with Guatemala. Washington 20th of January'-, 1895. This afternoon 1 ngain saw Mr. Gresham, on a jirivate matter, when he spoke to me w'ith respect to this subject, telling me that he had just received a call from Mr. Lazo Arriaga, who had informed him 63 that, in view of the o])inion expressed by Mr. Gresham, that the per- manence of Mr. jNIiles Rock as Chief of the Guatemala Boundary Com- mission, constituted a difficulty for this Government from the circums- tance of his being a citizen of the United States, and that he was partly blamed for the pending diflficulties, the Government of Guatemala had resolved to dismiss him from that employment. I reiterate to you my most distinguished consideration. — M.Romero. — To the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mexico. >•« TELEGRAM, Washington, 28th of Januar}^ 1895, To the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mexico. The Secretary of State told me to-day that he has not expressed any opinion indicating that he had proposed to the Government of Mexico, that it shoukl withdraw any of its demands against Guatemala, or ad- vised the Government of Guatemala not to accept any. — M. Romero. TELEGRAM. Mexico, 29th of January, 1895. Mexican Minister, Washington, D. C. I note that the Secretary of State has not expressed any opinion in- dicating that he lias proposed that the Government of Mexico should withdraw any of its demands against Guatemala, or advised the Gov- ernment of Guatemala not to accept any. Inform the Secretary of State that the Government of Mexico fully appreciates the just and prudent abstention of that Government. — Mariscal. 64 TELEGRAM, Mexico, 8th. of February, 1895. Mexican Minister: Washington, D. C, Mr. Butler has read to me a telegram from the Secretary of State. I asked him for a copy and he solicited permission. Telegram says that Guatemala has submitted to the Government of Mexico, a propo- sition for arrangement, which is recommended, according to you, by the Secretary of State, and transcribes it, hoping a peaceful arrange- will be adopted. The project does not substanially differ from yours, the justice of which we do not understand, as wired to you on the 25th of January. Guatemala has made no such proposal. None will be considered unless it is directly made here. — Markcal. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Mexico, 10th of February, 1895. Mr. Secretary : Acceding to the desire which Your Excellency verbally expressed in tbe audience that you kindly granted to me on the 7th inst , I have the honor to enclose copy of the telegram that this Legation received from the De])artment of State in Washington, D. C, on the night of the 6th inst., relative to the question pending between Mexico and Guatemala. I take this occasion to reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my most distinguished esteem and respect. — E. C. Butler. — To His Excellency, Ignacio Mariscal, Minister of Foreign Affairs. 65 TELEGRAM. Washington, 6th of February, 1895. Gray, Minister, Mexico. The Minister of Guatemala here, informed me that his Govern- ment has presented the following proposition to the Government of Mexico . tcAlthough it is true that, according to the boundary line as laid down by the treaty of 1882, the disputed territory is undoubtedly in Mexico, Guatemala trusts that the exact line is the old boundary line recognized as now existing, and until the whole line is surveved in accordance with the treaty, tlie disputed territory belongs to Guate- mala, who therefore had a right to send a military force to the same and expel the persons who were there cutting wood by virtue of a concession from a foreign Government. Nevertheless, Guatemala agrees that, should the controversy be decided by arbitration or by any other peaceable arrangement, and should the result be that the disputed territory pertains to Mexico, she will express to Mexico her sorrow for having invaded it under a niisunderstanding.» Guatemala has dismissed Rock from her service and you will in- form Mr. Mariscal, that the President earnestly hopes that Mexico will no longer refuse a peaceable settlemet of its other tlemands. — Gretsham. • m* DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Mexico, 11th of February 1895. M. le Charg6 d' Affaires: With your esteemed note of the 10th inst., I have received the copy of the telegram addressed to you by the Hon. Mr. Gre.sham, re- specting the difficulties of this country with Guatemala, and which you had read to me three days previously. I can at once inform you, as I have already told you verbally, that it is not a fact that the 66 Government of Guatemala (as reported by its Minister in Washing- ton) has submitted the proposition in question to that of Mexico, or any other, as an answer to our demands. Tlie proposition that in the form indicated now comes from Wasliington, is substantially identi- cal with another which, witliout instructions to that efltect, Avas pre- sented by Mr. Romero through Mr. Gresham, and Avhich was not approved- by this Government, because, under another form, it pro- poses arbitration on a question that we consider as touching the national honor, and whicli for this reason does not lend itself to a solution of that character. This does not imply any refusal to dis- cuss any proposition whatever that Guatemala might present here, with the object of reaching a peaceful solution. On the contrary, the Mexican Government earnestly desires to reach such a result, and would rejoice to see the realization of the hope expressed by the United States. We already knew, although not by information fi'om the Govern- ment of Guatemala, that Rock had been dismissed from its service. I take the opportunity of repeating to you the assurances of my most distinguished consideration. — Ignacio Mariscal. — To Mr. E. C. Butler, Charg6 d'Affaires ad interim of the United States of America. 67 FINAL ARRANGEMENT. Tlie iindersignef], beincj for that purpose duly authorized, after the correspondence whicli has been exchan<;ed between them and alter the conferences which they have held, with the object of arranging, in a manner peaceal)le and honorable for both Mexico and Guatemala, the difficulties arisen between the two countries from the execution of acts of sovereignty willrn the territory stretching to the A\'est of the River Lacantum, have agreed on the following clauses: Guatemala declares, as she has already done, that, under the belief that she was within her rights, she has executed acts of sovereignty witliin the territory extending Westward of the Rio Lacantum, and therefore, that she has never had an}' intention of ollending Mexico in the execution of such acts. II. Notwithstanding the above, and for the sake of preserving harmony, the Government of Guatemala now agrees, through a sentiment of equity, to compensate the ]jersons who may have been injured by its agents, for the value of the i)roperties which may have been taken or destroyed, as well as for the injuries which they may have directly suffered throdgh such appropriation or destruction. An arbitrator, who shall be appointed by mutual agreement, will determine the amount of these compensations. III. The Government of Mexico retires its claim relating to reimburse- ment of the expenses incurred in the mobilization of troops and other war preparations, which it has undertaken on account of the occupa- tion of the logging-camps situated \\'estward of the River Lacantum by agents of the Government of Ciuatemala; and it also retires tlie demand which is set forth under No. 4 in its note of the 30th. of No- vember of last year, as it now has no object. IV. Guatemala consents to the immediate occupation by Mexico, of the territory which extends Westward of the Rivers Chixoy and Usuma- cinta; and in her turn Mexico agrees, that the true construction of the Boundary Treaty of the twenty-seventh of September, one thousand eight liundred and eighty-two, in view of thel)est information, is that the final boundary line between tlie two countries, so far as regards the region comprehended between the River Chixoy and the River Pa- sion, shall be the parallel of latitude that, as provided in said treat}'-, 68 passes through a point «four kilometers beyonch) the mountain of Ixbul, and from that, following in an easterly direction, till it inter- sects the River Chixoy, where it shall terminate, as has been main- tained by Guatemala, thence following the centre of the deepest chan- nel in the latter river and of the Usumacinta afterwards, until it reaches the parallel situated twenty-five kilometers to the South of Tenosique in Tabasco, measured from the main square of said town. V. ^ Both parties accept the mean of the differences in the rest of the lines which have been already located by the respective Boundary Commissions; that is to say, from the point where the second of said parallels intersects the Usumacinta and onward, in accordance with the description of the boundary line contained in the treaty, always provided that such differences do not exceed two hundred metres. Should the contrary be the case, the located lines will be rectified by mutual agreement of the scientific commisnions appointed in accor- dance with art. 4th. of the same treaty. Should these commissions not come to an agreement, the difference will be submitted to an expert as arbitrator. VI. The geographical position of the Rivers Chixoy and Usumacinta, will be laid down as follows: that of the River Chixoy, from the point where it is intersected by the first parallel of those referred to in art. IV of the present convention, up to the point where it flows into the River Pasion, to form the Usuu'iacinta; and that of the latter river, from that point until it is intersected by the second of said parallels; besides which, the monuments that may still be wanting shall be built; all in accordance with the Protocol of the arrangement executed betwen Messrs. Jose Fernandez and INTanuel Herrera, on the fourteenth of September one thousand eight hundred ana eighty-three. VII. The present convention will be submitted to the revision of the Se- nate of the United States of Mexico, and of the National Legislative Assembly of Guatemala, without prejudice to its immediate publica- tion in the ofiicial organs of the two Governments. The exchange of the ratifications will take place in the City of Mexico, before the thirty first of May next. l\Iade and executed in duplicate, in the City of Mexico, this first day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five. (L. S.) Ignacio ^/lariscal. (L. S.) Emilio de Leon. THE LIBRARY UNIVE-SITY OF CALimnmA^ I 1:^ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. ^-Ii sAi: ^ liiHIILJA!*^^'^'**' r^ '^^mmi^ssmm AA 000 528 179 5 4 ^•V,A,i^, .. ■y^%. \i:: L'Akx i;*^