i EC 3 !i< ^ CO n4I s e !acs 1549 TtBlFXjir to the argument of the I ciiii Bhncght before the HON. E. P. ALEXANDER Engineer Arbitrator Filed on behalf of the Costa Rican Commission SAN JOSE.— C. R. Tip Nacional, 1897 y^AAIh 4 ?x I REPLT 7" TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE to the argument of the Brought before the HON. E. P. ALEXANDER Engineer Arbitrator Filed on behalf of the Costa Rican. Commission SAN JOSE.— C. R. Tip Nacional. 1897 -> ' t UNIVERSITY OF CALirORNU n /^ <^ SANTA BARBARA Honorable Edward Porter Alexander, Engineer Arbitrator The Costa Rican Boundary Commission has- duly considered and carefully pondered the allegation brought before you by the Nicaraguan Commission on 14th inst, and in accordance with what was agreed in act of the 5th of this month, hereby respectfully submits the answer to the statements and inferences of said allegation. For clearness' sake it is proper, first: to formulate at once, with all desirable exactness and accuracy, the conclusions arrived at by the Nicaraguan Commis- sion, and secondly the confutation of each and eve- ry one of their arguments. In the judgment of the Costa Rican Commission, all the essence of the Nicaraguan allegation may be worded in the following terms. a) The river "San Juan de Nicaragua" empties into the Caribbean Sea trough three different outlets, streams or branches which are named "Colorado", "Taura" and " the one branch running directly into the Bay of San Juan del Norte", all of the said three streams, (not one of them only) form the Rfo de San Juan. — 6 — b) The name of Rfo de San Juan has never " been denied either to the Colorado or to the Taura streams. The said three streams have had, and ac" tually have, the name of the mother stream (San Juan) from which they proceed, with the particular distinction affixed to each one of them (Colorado, Taura). c) The Treaty of Limits dated 15th april 1858, does not exclusively attach the name of Rio San Juan to any of the three branches which proceed from the river of the same name; it mentionned the river San Juan in a general sense, as the frontier line and did not mention particulary any of the streams, nor did said Treaty exclude any of them; consequently Costa Rica has no right to claim for the location of the boundary line, the branch of the river that pours its waters into the bay of San Juan del Norte. ch) In the last arbitration Costa Rica maintai- ned that the frontier line ought to follow, according to the Treaty of 1858, the right bank of the stream emptying directly into the Bay of San Juan del Nor- te, and Nicaragua on their behalf objected that the frontier was deemed to be the right border of the Co- lorado river. The Minister of Nicaragua in Washing- ton mentioned as merely tolerable the line of Harbour Head. The Arbitrator President Cleveland decided the dispute, without adhering to either opinion; the- reby it is to be reasonably inferred that he preferred the branch of the river named "Taura". d) The Taura reaches the sea in the territory of Punta de Castilla, and being, as it is, the same ri- I ver "San Juan", it is evident that its right bank marks the frontier line. e) The point where the right margin of Taura reaches the sea, is precisely the same that the Treaty of 1858 terms "extremity of Punta de Castilla". f ) In the Treaty of Limits it was declared what constitutes "Punta de Castilla"; it is necessary to stick to that declaration, notwithstanding any vulgar opinions, or however some persons or even some Geographers may designate with this name a different point. g) When the Legislator or the contracting parties define the terms or the things to which said terms are applied, there is no possibility of changing the names or of giving the words a different interpre- tation. //) The interpretation adopted by the Nicara- guan Commission does not in any way affect the rights of Costa Rica. / ) The Costa Rica Commission opposes to the adoption of Taura, without explaining the grounds nor offering any documents that may sustain their re- fusal. j ) The Costa Rican Commission pretends to draw an imaginary line starting from a point also imaginary; this is a capricious line: it is based on dis qualified calculations, and refers to places by nature changeable and of no stabiHty. k) The "Punta de Castilla" as defined by the Treaty of boundaries is entirely different from the ^' Punta de Arenas", to which it has been lastly pre- tended to apply that name. Punta de Arenas is an imperceptible place. I) The stipulation in the Treaty of Limits con- cerning the exemption of custom duties in Punta de Castilla, in favour of Nicaragua, would be absurd, if it would refer to Puntarenas or to some other place inside the Bay of San Juan del Norte. II) It could not be adopted as starting point of the dividing line, the place designed by Costa Rica, without violating, by the same fact, the Treaty of Limits. 7n) Should the place designed by Costa Rica be adopted as starting point, it would cause a break of continuity on the dividing line. n) Nicaragua has the eminent domain and supreme control over the waters of the River San Juan de Nicaragua and the Bay of San Juan del Norte, Once shown the light in which the Nicaraguan Commission views the question, it comes the turn to Costa-Rica for confuting one by one all the former propositions, to wit: {a) That the River San Juan de Nicaragua empties into the sea trough three branches, arms or passages, named Colorado, Taura and the "one following direc- tly to the Bay of San Juan del Norte," is an uncon- trovertible fact, and whether the last branch, in reaching the Bay, divides in two streams, as it was- — 9 — stated in the allegation of Costa-Rica, or if really it is three the streams that form said branch, as the commission of Nicaragua maintains, this point is of very little bearing. Whether there are three branches of the river,or ra- ther five, the fact remains the same; that each one of them has now and always had separate existence, and carryand have always carried a separate name,that dis- tinguishes each one from the others, without giving room for confusion of any kind. From the outlet of the Lake into the river the stream is and has always been known by the name of San Juan, before named Desaguadero; it is only in the lower part of its course that starts the branch named Colorado; but the main stream, not for this, loses its name, and it has not occurred to any body the idea of namnig San Juan what is only a derivation of the same; the river advances a few miles more towards the sea, and a new derivation appears under the name Taura; nevertheless the main stream keeps its name of San Juan and this second arm of the river is dis- tinguished by the proper name that it has had from old times, without it having occurred to any, until now, the idea of attributing to the unimportant branch Taura, the name of the main stream, San Juan. To start from a different basis, the unavoidable result would be a perfect and complete confusion of ideas, because if Colorado and Taura should be called Rio San Juan, there would be no way to distinguish the streams, the one from the other and from the original one,except by affixing to each one of them the distinct surname; in which case they would no more TO "constitute the one same thing known under identical denomination, but as it is the real fact, three inde- pendent and separate streams who respond to the same number of different names. It is true that the currents of Taura and Colo- rado proceed from River San Juan; but not that the two named currents constitute the river San Juan; to accept that, it would be to fall back into the refuted confusion; for it would be the same as to say that the waters derived from one current are the current itself It happens with the rivers something similar to what happens in the animal kingdom; in spite of the intimate connection between the mother and the offspring each one, even during the time of pregnancy, :has and maintains his own individuality. So the Co- lorado is Colorado, and neither Taura nor San Juan; the Taura is Taura and neither San Juan nor Colo- rado; and the San Juan is San Juan and neither Colo- rado nor Taura. This assertion of direct evidence is fully and invariably confirmed by all the maps and authors that have described the river San Juan and its delta, before and after the date of the Treaty of Limits; every map and author names the three branches of the river San Juan, with the proper name that belongs to each one of them, there not existing any maps or .author calling the Colorado by the name of San Juan, 'Or this by the name of Colorado. The logical order demands one proper name for -every different thing; from this comes the difficulty into which the Nicaraguan Commission have placed themselves when they reierred to the river San Juan; 1 1 because they found themselves in the necessity to consider as anonymous the branch going directly to the bay and properly named San Juan. See lines 27 and the following on the page 5, and line 14 and the following on the page 10, of the argument, where in speaking of said branch, its proper name is omitted and it is distinguished from the other branches by the subtile periphrases the branch that empties into the bay called San Juan. This branch is precisely the one that all the maps and all the authors call Rio San Juan de Nicaraa^ua, which name is a substitute fc)r the name Desaguade- ro, exactly because it came to deposit its waters in the Bay always known by the name of San Juan, which Bay on its turn got its name from the vessel San Juan, one of those belonging to the renowned expedition of captains Calero and Machuca, who discovered the river in the year 1539 (i). The absurdity of giving to the three branches of the river without distinction, the name of the princi- pal river is more apparent, when the need comes to select one of them as basis of the frontier line between the two countries; because, taking for granted the identity, that is hereby denied, it would result that the frontier line could as well run along the one as the other branch; and said frontier line would con- sequently be wanting the first and essential condition that a boundary line needs; that is to say: firmness, stability and individuality. (i) See HISTORIA DE COSTA RICA FOR LE6N FER- NANDEZ pages 61 to 70. 12 b) Never has the name of San Juan been given to the branches pubHcly known as Colorado and Taura. These branches have always been known by their nomen proprio. Therefore in the memoirs written more than one hundred years ago by the Bishop of Nicaragua, Fray Pedro Agustin Morel de Santa Cruz, it appears perfectly distinguished the three branches of the river San Juan, with the before named sepa- rate names. In the literary work entitled: " Derrotero de las Islas Antillas, de las Costas de Tierra Firme y de las del Seno Mexicano, formado en la Direccion de tra- bajos Hidrograficos," reimpresa en Madrid, Imprenta Nacional, aiio 1820," one vill read what follows: " This port San Juan is formed by a low island which makes with the mainland one large harbour. . ... . . the mouth of river San Juan is exactly to the South ot Punta de Arenas a?id through it (the said mouth of the river) you can ascend to the Lake of Nic- aragua". In another work of no less authority, than the one just quoted, entitled " Remarks on the Coast of Nicaragua" by Sir. William S. Wiseman, Commander of the British Ship "Sophie," year 1820, one can read in page 177 what follows: " San Juan de Nicaragua. The harbour is formed by a low island which with the coast encloses an extensive bay. On the east part, the island is nearly joined to the mainland, and the entrance to the harbour is on the west. The west point is called — 13 — Arenas Point, which is situated in 11° north latitude." '• The 7nouth of the river San Juan is exactly on the meridian of, or true South from the Point Atetias, and by it there is a communication with the Lake of Nicaragua. From the harbour of San Juan de Ni- caragua the coast tends to the North a little westerly, a distance of 80 leagues to cape Gracias a Dios, and is what is properly called the Mosquito shore." Another work of identical merit " The west India Pilot" by Capitan E. Barnett of the British Navy, published by order of the Lords of the Admi- ralty, for the Hydrographical Bureau of the same, pages 227 to 270, read as follows: '■'■Greytoiv7i Ha^-bour at the Nort-western or prin- cipal entrance to the river Sar. Juan de Alcaragua, lies within a low sandy peninsula" "River San Juan de Nicaragua:" This so called river is the channel by which the waters of the Lake of Nicaragua are con- veyed to the Atlantic" "In the dry season, however, even in the descent, they have frequently to disburden at Canon island, below the Colorado" "about 3 ^2 miles from the mouth the Taura or Jama arm branches off to the sea. For about 9 miles the main strean runs nearly straight in a south- erly direction, when it forms a sharp turn and takes its general westerly course" "about 9 miles, above the bend another much larger, deeper and more rapid branch, called the Colorado, threads its way to the sea and with the Taura carries off so large a portion of the 7nain stream, that it has not sufficient power to convey to the sea the debris thrown into — 14 — the lower part, which is consequently becoming much shallower." Though it may seem excessive, two more quota- tions will be made, in support of the preceding ones. The "Gate of the Pacific" by Commander Bed- ford Pim of the British Navy, London 1863, pages 245 and the following read thus: The Colorado diverges from the San Jiian in latitude 10° 50' N., and after runing in a south westerly direction falls in to the sea in latitude 10° 46' N., forming a dangerous bar. This river abstracts from the viain stream a considerable quantity of water .... The 7nain current being thus suddenly weakened, the motion of the water through the San Juan becomes sluggish." Finally, in "Nicaragua, its people, scenery, mo- numents resources, condition and proposed Canal"by G. Squire, New York, i860, page 646 reads thus: Like the Atrato, the San Juan River has formed a delta at its mouth, through which it flows for eighteen miles, reaching the sea through several channels. The largest of these is the Colorado Chan- nel, wich opens directly into the ocean, the next in size is that wich bears the name of the river and flozvs into the harbour of San Juan. Between the two is a smaller one called Tauro" The Costa-Rican Commission is fully confident that in view of the above quotations the Nicaraguan Commission will no longer pretend that the branch Taura is the San Juan River contemplated by the Treaty of 1858, The transcription of the words of the Nicaraguan Minister in Washington, in the reply brought before — 15 — the Arbitrator President Cleveland, will more fully disclose the unreasonableness of the pretension of Nicaragua. The Minister wrote: "Long antecedent to the Treaty of 1858 the river San Juan had established itself in three streams through the delta to the sea, namely: the San Juan Proper ivhich enters the bay or harbour of Grey town; the Taura which branches off to the South six miles above Greytown and the Colorado' which also branches off to the South eighteen miles above Greytown and enters the sea about the same distance South of the port. The Taura is an unim- portant stream the mouth being invariably closed in the dry season. The Colorado ever since i860, has been the main stream. In that year the waters were diver- ted from the SAN JUAN PROPER into the Colo- rado, and now by for the greatest part of the year the water of the PARENT STREAM finds its outlet through that river. In the height of dry season at least twenty times as much water goes to he sea by way of the Colorado as by the SAN JUAN PROPER. c) The Nicaraguan Commission states that the Treaty of Limits does not give the name of San Juan to any of the three branches emanating from the river of the same name; this is an error of very easy dispelling. Article 2nd of the Treaty declares that the dividing line between the two Republics will start in the extremity of Punta de Castilla, on the mouth of — i6 — the river San Juan de Nicaragua, and will follow the right margin of said river. Article 4th states that the Bay of San Juan del Norte will belong to both Republics, and consequen- tly, both will jointly enjoy of its advantages and con- tribute to its defense. The same article 4th further states; Costa- Rica is also bound, as far as the portion of the banks of the San Juan River which correspond to it is concerned, to contribute to its custody with all the efficiency within her reach. Article 6th confers upon Costa Rica the perpe- tual rights of free navigation over the river San Juan, from its mouth up to three English miles before reaching the Castillo Viejo. Lastly, Article 9th rules that by no reason, even in the event that the Republics of Costa Rica and Nicaragua would unfortunately be in a state of war, will be allowed to any of them to exert any act of hostility towards or against the other neither in the bay of San Juan del Norte, neither in the river of this name, nor in the Lake of Nicaragua. After what has been stated and in view of these articles, it is no longer possible to doubt or remain in perplexity about which one of the branches of the river was intented to mention and did really mention the Treaty of Limits; it is set forth in glaring light that the Treaty did not refer but to the original branch, to the Saji Juan proper, as the Minister of Nicaragua in Washington wrote in his reply before mentioned; to the same San Juan, recently forced away from the power of the adventurer Walker by the valor of a column of the Costa Rican Army,whose fleet consisted in rafts coarsely tied together with wooden strings; to the same river that, on the date of the Treaty, was under the inminent threat of being mastered again by the hords of fiUbusters which de- clared it an absolute necessary base for the execution of their vast schemes of conquest and usurpation. The Treaty speaks evidently of that branch o^ the river that empties into the Bay of San Juan del Norte, Avhere it was recognized In Hivour of Costa Rica the common sovereignty; because such recog- nition would have lacked of meaning and common sense if the San Juan of the frontier, the one over which Costa Rica can navigate, -say the Taura-would be apart and disconnected from the Bay, and for the same reason defenseless and impossible to be defen- ded. Between the Bay of San Juan and the Costa Rica river line there cannot be any break of conti- nuity; the Bay serves as basis for defending the river, and this on its turn, serves to assist in the defense of the Bay, all by means of navigation in either waters, what would be impossible in the Taura, which branch, as very properly said by the Minister of Nicaragua in Washington, carries a current of no importance, and zohich invariably lacks of exit to the sea during the dry season. The stipulation in article g has made more tangible the error, that the commi.ssion of Nica- ragua supports, because said stipulation should be laughable, if it was to be referred to theTaura current, for instance, which never has been navigated and does not conduct to any port, but i)re.sent an inhospi- 2 — i8 — table coast, is part of the year converted into & stagnant swamp, without outlet and, finally, is of no- importance. In a communication directed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Nicaragua to the Government of Costa Rica under date of September 5th i860, the following expression is found: "Realized the invasion of Central America by William Walker, as the Government of your Exce- lency will be aware of, and not being remote that said bandit intend some action through the river San Juan del Norte, my Government has taken steps to protect that frontier, and has ordered the reinforce- ment of the military stations. But as, in accordance with the Treaty 15th Abril 1858, clause 4th, this and. your Republic must provide together to the defense of that line, my Government expects that yours, in view of the impending dangers, will take his share in such sacred and important duty moving a portion of your army, enough to protect the frontier and draw back the enemy, should the invasion be effected through that region," This document constitutes once more an irrefu- table proof, that the San Juan of the Treaty of 1858, is the same river that once was keeled by the stea- mers of the audacious filibuster. There is another indisputable proof for that the branch of the river San Juan that empties into the Bay of San Jilan del Norte is the Rio de San Juan to which the Treaty of Limits of 1858 and the award of 1888 refer. Said proof is found in the text of Article 2nd of the Treaty signed by the Plenipoten- — 19 — tiaries of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, Doctor don- Jose M" Castro and don Benjamin Guerra, m the city of Managua, on the 23rd December, 1890. It says iis follows: "The commissioners of the Govern- ments of Costa Rica and Nicaragua to establish the material demarcation of the dividing line between the two Republics, in accordance to the Agreement in the Treaty of 15th of April 1858, and to the pact of Arbitration signed in the city of Guatemala on the 24th of December 1886, will proceed to effect said demarcation on the Atlantic coast by drawing a straight line which starts from a point on the sea side coast, 200 meters distant east of the breakwater that the Canal Company is actually constructing, and terminates in the extremity and over the right margin of the current of river San Juan which is found to be the nearest." "From this point, it is to be followed over the same current until meeting the right margin of the stream "Animas" and the stream of Rio San Juan, the line continuing over this until reaching the point that is marked out in the Treaty of 1858." "The 200 meters, mentioned in part first of this article will be measured over the coast, as it may be on the date when the material demarcation of the Territories may begin, and in such a manner that the line which determines the said 200 meters, forms a right angle with the breakwater." "The Commissioners will fix the starting point on the sea side coast by means of coordinate lines." The declaration contained in the inserted text is of such a force as to make all commentation useless; . 20 it distinctly says that the starting point for the line ought to be looked for in the territory that incloses the Bay of San Juan del Norte, let it be called Punta de Arenas, Punta de Castilla or by any other name, and it further declares that the branch of the river that empties into the Bay is the very same San Juan of the Treaty of 1858. And said declaration is vested with still greater force, if attention is paid to the fact that the conven- tion Castro-Guerra was not realized under the isola- ted responsibility of the Diplomate who signed it; but said convention vas approved by the Executive Power and ratified in due form by the Legislative Power of Nicaragua. If said Treaty did not come to perfection it was only because the Government of Costa Rica, anxious not to take any substance from the award of Mr. Cleveland, denied her approval. ch) The Nicaraguan Commission affirms that in the last arbitration, Costa Rica maintained that the frontier line ought to follow, in conformity to the Treaty of 1858, the right margin of the current that empties di- rectly into the Bay of San Juan del Norte. This is positive, whith the addition that the starting point for the dividing line is the extremity of Puuta de Castilla. The Nicaraguan Commission further states that Nicaragua on her behalf asked to be declared that the frontier was constituted by the right margin of Rio 21 — Colorado. This is true and not true, because Nica- ragua proposed and defended two different lines: the one of Colorado, and tlie one of Harbour Head. She did not succeed in obtaining any of them. As to the Colorado line, Nicaragua asked: "In view of article 5 of the Treaty, must the branch of the San Juan called the Colorado river be held as the limit between Nicaragua and Costa Rica? To this question the arbitrator answered as fo- llows: "The branch of the river San Juan, known as the Colorado River must not be considered as the boundary between the Republics of Costa Rica and Nicaragua in any part of its course." In regard to the other line Nicaragua stated as follows: The boundary was to follow the river San Juan till it reached the sea; consequently at the time of the Treaty the line would follow the Southern shore of that part of the harbour known as Harbour Head to a jDoint A, and thence according to the pretensions of Costa Rica along this tongue of shifting sand, Punta de Castilla, to the extremity of the tongue". . . since the tongue or rnole of sand effected a junction with the main land at B the watters of the river have entered the sea at any and every place where they could most easily break through along the whole length of this Punta de Castilla, from the main land at A to the main land at B, and in the wet season there are frequently two or three places open at on- ce The coficlusio7i is that the starting point for the boimdary line on the Atlantic is the poitit of the main land marked A on the plan. By looking at the map it is evident that Nicara- 22 gua pretended before the Arbitrator, in case she lost the Colorado line, to have this other one to start from the sea, from the point where the main land joins the tongue of sand sometimes called Punta Are- nas and at other times Punta de Castilla, and the- reafter to continue the frontier hne along the shore of the Harbour Head. In pretending this line Nicaragua alleged that it was impossible to ascertain the exact situation of the extremity of Punta de Castilla, because the sand tongue known by this name was movable, that the river had changed and changes frequently and ca- priciously its course; Nicaragua finally brought as ma- ny arguments as she thought convenient, to carry the starting point for the dividing line to Harbour Head. The Arbitrator declared as follows: The boun- dary line between the Republics of Costa Rica and Nicaragua on the Atlantic side begins at the extre- mity of Punta de Castilla at the mouth of the San Juan de Nicaragua river, as they both existed on the 15th day of April 1858." Nothing can be clearer than the rejection by the Arbitrator of both pretensions of Nicaragua. He ru-. led the case in entire conformity with the allegation and claim of Costa Rica, who had maintained that the extremity of Punta de Castilla was a geographical point to be easily determined by the location of the longitude and latitude that it had on the 15th April 1858; that this geographical point was stationary and not movable as the waters; that the changes that ha- ve taken place in the Bay of San Juan and in the Ri- ver, could not produce a corresponding change in the location of the extremity of Punta de Castilla, and so forth. Pretending therefore, as the Commission of Ni- caragua does, that the Arbitrator in the same manner disapproved of the extreme pretensions of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, is to revolt against all the antece- dents in the case, which consist in unimpeachable do- cuments, that have the force of a judgment. To aggregate further, that the Arbitrator prefe- rred the line of the stream Taura to indicate the boundary between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, is a wonderful assertion, and to such a point destitute even of the shghtest appearance of truth, that it is really sorrowful to be in need of confuting it. If the Arbitrator did not select the line of Har- bour Head, with which Nicaragua would have been pleased, as it has been demonstrated with the be- fore quoted words of her Minister how can it be sup- posed, that the Arbitrator granted more, by carrying the dividing line as far as Taura, situated many mi- les southeast of Harbour Head, what constitutes the actual pretension of the Nicaraguan Commission. The Arbitrator was fully informed about the conditions of the delta of the San Juan, information having been obtained from different sources, but mo- re especially from the description of the place made in the allegation of the Minister of Nicaragua, and there is no reason whatever to infer, that the Arbitra- tor would have lacked the necessary words to express his thought in the award; had he wanted to refer to the Taura .branch in his judmeiit, as tlie said: "The — 24 — branch of the river San Juan known as the Colorado River must not be considered as the boundary, &,&". he could have writen if this was his intention "The branch of the river San Juan known as the Taura River must be considered as the boundary, &, &." From what has been said any body can see that the Nicaraguan interpretation of the award is absolutely groundless. d) That the branch of the San Juan, named Taura, reaches the sea in the territory of Castilla, or better said simply "Castilla," is a fact. By Castilla it is un- derstood the whole of the delta, from the mouth of the San Juan River to the mouth of Colorado; but the admitted circumstance that the Taura has its mouth in the territory of Castilla, cannot logically authorize the deduction, that the Taura is the San Juan of the Treaty of Limits. In view of offering a graphical demonstration, let C represent the eastern extremity of the coast line at the mouth of Colorado: let E be the western end of the same line, and let T be the mouth of Taura. E T C The following are :he requirements for the de- marcation of the starting point of the dividing line, to wit: I St. That this point be situated at the mouth that the river San Juan had on 1858. 2nd. That it be one of the extremities of Punta de Castilla, and — 25 — 3rd. That it be not the mouth of Colorado. The point T does not meet the first requirement, because it has been demonstrated that the mouth of the San Juan never was at T: said mouth was always situated in the Bay of San Juan del Norte, and the point T is outside of it. It does not meet either the second requi- rement, because the starting point of the dividing line must be one of the extremities of Punta de Cas- tilla, and the point T is decidedly at a great distance from both ends; and as per requirement 3rd. the ex- tremity of Colorado is not the starting point, this cannot be anywhere else but at E, which is the lo- cality indicated in the award as being the extremity of Punta de Castilla. In fewer words: if the extremity of Colorado is not the starting point of the dividing line, said point umst necessarily and unavoidably be the other extre- mity of Punta de Castilla. Otherwise, the middle of a straight line would be identical with the ends of the same. Such a striking absurdity is scarcely worth mentioning. Numerous historical documents demonstrate sa- tisfactorily where existed the famous Punta de Cas- tilla on 1858 and even before. A paragraph of a letter from Captain Mc. Cerran, dated 3rd. March, 1853, reads thus: "Punta Arenas, the place from whe- re I address you, is situated opposite to San Juan del Norte, or Greytown, and has been occupied by the accesory Transit Company of Nicaragua as a depot 26 — ■or general agCR-cy, since the commencement of the ■Company's. going into operation." (i) In a 'note addressed by Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State of the United States to Mr. IngersoU, Minister of the United States to Great Britain, dated 9th Ju- ne 1853, transcribed by Mr. IngersoU to Lord Claren- don, the following paragraph is to be read: "It is not probable that any attempt will be made to claim for the people of San Juan (Greytown) any authority over Puntarenas Piiidarenas, it will be recollec- ted, is on the southern bank of the river Sa7i Jican." (2) In a note of Lord Clarendon to Mr. Crampton Minister of Great Britain in Washington, dated 22nd July, 1853, there is a paragraph reading thus: "Now that Government (the Government of Nicaragua) clai- med a right to the istJnnus called Puntarenas over against Greytown on the other side of the river San Juan, to the effect that the Company desired the use of a portion of the land on the otter side of the Har- bour, near Puntarenas." (3) In another note addresed by Mr. Fabens, com- mercial Agent of the United States to Secretary Mr. Marcy, dated i6th May 1854, the following lines can be read: "The ground taken by the Company in this matter was, that the territory wich they occupied, known as Point Arenas, was held by them by virtue of their charter from Nicaragua, and was a portion of that state; that their steamships did not come (i) British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 42, page 213. (2) British and Foreign State Papers, Vol 42, page 230. ,(3) id. id. ad. id. id. Vol 42, id. 234. — 27 — within the jurisdiction of the Municipal authorities of San Juan del Norte, and were consequently not to be held liable for any port charges levied by the au- thorities of that town." The point of contention between the parties is, as will be seen, the right of jurisdiction on the part of the municipal authorities of San Juan del Norte over Point Arefias I have brought this matter to your notice because I believe that until affairs are arranged between the Nicaragua Transit Company and the town of San Juan del Norte, or until the question of sovereignty over this town and the terri- tory of Puntarenas is settled, there can be no perma- nent tranquillity or wellbeing on either side (i) In a communication addresed by Mr. Borland, Minister of the United States in Central America to the Secretary of State of the United States, under date 30th May, 1854, there is the following para- graph : " So of the place where his arrest was attemp- ted, Puntarenas, on the South bank of the San Juan River, and the opposite side of the bay from San Juan or Greytown .... and the place of this attempted arrest, Puntarenas, is territory in dispute bet^veen Ni- -caragua and Costa Rica.'" (2) Lord Napier wrote to Lord Malmesbury, under date 17th September 1858, the following paragraph: " He said that COsta Rica had no pretension to Greytown.... I answered that she had pretensions to Puntarenas, the opposite side of the river, and that (i) British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 46, pages 859 y 860. (2) 48, page 867. — 28 — as there has been so much dispute about the frontier of the two countries, it was thought desirable to draw in Costa Rica as a party to the settlement, and thus avoid future misunderstandings." (i) It seems unnecessary to quote any more docu- ments as proof of a palpable fact, which, until now, nobody had neither ignored nor disavowed. The demonstration of that Puntarenas is Punta de Castilla, will be found in another place of this reply. The Nicaraguan Commission has paid no atten- tion to the existing maps of the port and bay of San Juan del Norte and of the river San Juan de Nica- ragua. It only offers as a proof a Map of 1854, the original of which, it says, is kept in the English Admiralty. The Costa Rica Commission noticed that the site designed in the said Map to be the extremity of Pun- ta de Castilla was not in accordance with all the con- temporary plans and Maps of the same locality, and further noticed that the map exhibited by the Nica- raguan Commission is not to be considered as a re- gular map : it consists of an informal copy, made by hand and without any signature, that may confer upon it any authority. In view of this circumstance Costa Rica cabled on the subject and through her Legation in London has obtamed fron the British Admiralty, the information, that the author of the map in question is Mr. Richard Owen, commander of Her British Magesty's war-ship TJuindei^ and that the (i) British and foregin States Paper, vol. 46, page 703. — 29 — date of the said map is the year 1834. Meanwhile the Costa Rican Commission _^can exhibit the aut- henticated copy of that Map (which is ah'eady on the way), she denies any credit to the copy of Nica- ragua, because it is not signed by any authority, and because the date quoted is at variance with the ori- ginal map in the archives of the British Admiralty, /) The Nicaraguan Commission states that it is declared in the Treaty of Limits what constitutes Punta de Castilla, and that it is necessary to stick to that declaration. The Treaty of Limits speaks of Punta de Cas- tilla in two places. Article 2nd reads: " ...the dividing line .... starting from the North sea it will commence in the extremity of Punta de Castilla, it will be of use and ownership entirely in common, equal for Costa Rica and Nicaragua, designating, as long as this community lasts, as limit of it, all the course of the Colorado river. The pronoun it contained in the phrase as limit of it, evidently substitutes the nearer substantive co7n- fnunity. This remark made, it falls flat to the ground the interpretation of the Nicaraguan Commission, according to wich, Punta de Castilla reaches as far as Colorado. But even in the case that said remark would be omitted and the allowance made that the pronoun it substitutes the farther substantive Punta de Castilla, it is distinctly perceivable that what was agreed on in ?o Article 5th was merely of transitory merit, conven- tionally intended to exist only during the agreed com- munity; said agreement was neither of a permanent character nor was the expression of a real and lasting fact. The Colorado was Punta de Castilla ojily du- ring the short time in which the provisional regime of the agreed community was vital. It was only for certain purposes and for a short length of time that the territory called Punta de Castilla was conventio- nally extended to Colorado. It is not possible to draw from this exceptional case a general conse- quence. Colorado was Punta de Castilla for a cer- tain object and for a short period; but not for all purposes nor forever. It would be irrational to believe that the star- ting point of the dividing line could be the whole of the territory of Punta de Castilla; and whereas said starting point must be at the extremity of Punta de Castilla, in the mouth of the San Juan river it is of no bearing to assert that the same territory reaches the Colorado, even under the supposition that this was a plain truth: the starting point is to be the extremity of Punta de Castilla at the mouth of the San Juan, and no other place of said territory. Whether or not the territory of Punta de Castilla reaches to Colorado, it is positively certain and an irresistible fact, that the extremity of the territory tangent to the outlet of San Juan is the starting point for the divisory line : all the rest is of little or no im- portance. \ — 31 — g) When the legislator or the parties define the words or matters to which they refer, there ought not to be given another and different meaning to these words and matters. This is what the Nicaraguan Commission says, and in this they concur in the same opinion as the Costa Rican Commission. The point, in which they do not agree, is in the application of the rule for in- terpretation, which Nicaragua wants to apply. In the first place the Treaty did not define the Punta de Castilla but as a determined object or point, and it is. not permitted to extend this definition to other out- side objects; and in the second place the Treaty did define the exact conditions for the starting point of the divisory line in the following words " the extre- mity of Punta de Castilla in the outlet of the river San Juan de Nicaragua" It is therefore not permis- sive to cancel the clear meaning' of these words with the object to seek the starting point for said line, in the region or course of Colorado, or Taura or any other stream, that is not the stream San Juan in its outlet. The safest and most sure law of interpretation is found in the respect paid to the text of the stipula- tions when their sense, after being unequivocal, is and has been the matter of a solemn confirmatory proclamation. Such is the case with the article 2nd of the Treaty of 1858,, explained by the Award of 22nd March 1888. The Nicaraguan Commission maintains that her interpretation of the award does not affect the rights of Costa Rica. It is positive that said interpretation inflicts a severe wound to the rights of Costa Rica, as it will be clearly demonstrated. Let it be supposed that the river frontier of Costa Rica would be Taura in place of river San Juan; Costa Rica would receive in this case six kilometers of the margin of an useless stream, without passage to the sea during a great part of the year, and with access to an unhospitable coast during the balance of the time, being always unnavigable; that is what Costa Rica would receive in exchange for eleven kilometers on the right margin of the river San Juan, of which she would be deprived. In the before stated supposition Costa Rica would be furthermore deprived of twenty eight square kilometers of territory, including the coast of Harbour Head, of the whole of the Punta de Castilla. which will be the possible site for a future population, when the time comes for the excavation of the Cen- tral American Canal. Under the same supposition the ownership in common of the Bay of San Juan del Norte would be of no benefit for Costa Rica if said Bay was to be * considered as foreign territory. Finally under the objected supposittion the per- petual right to free navigation on the river San Juan, .recognized in favour of Costa Rica, would be annulled, because Costa Rica has the said right of navigation but only on the waters, on which she is a borde^ state. If Costa Rica is not a border state upon the San Juan, but upon the Taura, it must be illogical to grant her the right of navigating the first of these rivers, which for the purpose of fixing the boundaries is not San Juan, according to the Nicaraguan Com- mission. The refuted interpretation is in principle unsound and should it be admitted, its effects would be simply- unbearable. The Nicaraguan Commission States that Costa Rica refuses the Taura line without alleging any reasons nor showing any document in support of her refusal. A large part of what is stated is true, because really the Costa Rica Commission in the several conferences on the subject never uttered a word in refutation of the Taura line. Does the Arbitrator know why? Because neither in the said conferences nor in any other official or private oportunity, either by the Commission of Nicaragua or by any of its members, was ever mentioned the idea ot making the demarca- tion of the frontier by following the Taura branch. The Commission of Costa Rica sincerely believes, that the idea of the Taura was craddled by the Nica- raguan Commission and that it was borne some time after the date of the last conference, because other- wise the absolute silence of the Nicaraguan Com- mission regarding such an important matter could not be explainable. The Commission of Costa Rica was under the impression that the line advocated by Nicaragua was- the one of Harbour Head, because it was in due time- although without sucess, proposed by the Nicaraguan Minister before the Arbitrator Mr. Cleveland, and it is under this aprehension and under this basis, that' the Costa Rica Commission wrote its allegation. The new point of view adopted by the Nicara- guan Commission was quite a surprise to Costa Rica. That is the reason why there is a want of congruency between this and the former allegation. Said con- gruency would not be lacking had the point in debate been previously set in writing. Let the Costa Rica Commission be acquitted of the before mentioned incongruency which it has tried to correct as far as possible in this above state*- ment. J) The Nicaraguan Commission classifies as ima- ginary the frontier as Costa Rica pretends that it is to be marked out; it is further said, that the fron- tier is capricious, that it is based on disqualified' calculations and refers to places by nature changeable and of no stability. This is but a heap of unfounded assertions. The Costa- Rican Commission has mathematica- lly demonstrated which must be the point, where the- first landmark is to be constructed in fixing the divir- •> r JO ding line. This point corresponds exactly to the site, where was located on 15th April 1858 the extremity of Punta de Castilla on the mouth of the river San Juan de Nicaragua. The dividing line stops there, because over the bay of San Juan, common to both Repubhcs there is no need of making any demarcation. The second point of the frontier was marked by the Costa-Rica Commission in the place where the right margin of the river under the above cited treaty date, according to the most reliable documents at ■ disposal, was traceable, on account of the well defi- ned bed and borders of the river. This demarcation does not deserve the name of imaginary and capricious. The Commission of Nicaragua further states, that the line is based upon disqualified calculations. It is scarcely possible to venture such an opinion - about unknown calculations. The Nicaragua Commission, ought to disclose the errors affecting the calculations and demonstrate them, before going into an unmeditated criticism. That the places are by nature changeable and of no stabilHty, even in the case that this would be true it does not affect in any shape the exactness of the survey. This circumstance would only show the con- venience that both Governments through the corres- ponding negociations would agree upon the impro- vement of the line in search of more adequate places to serve as frontier on account of their firmness and stability. — 36 — k) It has been demonstrated before, that the Trea- ty of Limits did not define what was to be un- derstood by Punta de Castilla, but for one single purpose, — and for the time that the provisory regime of the agreed community would last. It has been equally seen that according to the Treaty, Punta de Castilla reaches the mouth of the San Juan river. It only remains to demonstrate that the names Punta •de Castilla and Punta Arenas are synonymous terms, names given to the same thing, to the sand tongue that separates the sea from the Bay of San Juan del Norte. The demonstration is easy. These are the proofs. The following paragraphs are extracted from the work entitled. "Walker en Centro America" written by Lorenzo Montufar, Guatemala 1887. "Page 782. — It was about 4 a. m. when Spen-, ser, Maximo Blanco and Francisco Alvarado with fourty five men arrived at Punta de Castilla "The barge crew returned on board and Scott started to arm the Agents of the Company and all the friends of it for the purpose of regaining the steamers." "Page 783. — At II a. m. two of the gun-boats of the English flotilla were detached, approached Pun- ta de Castilla and aimed at the steamers and the houses of the Company The inhabitants of San Juan del Norte, who for two months did not come to La Punta, hastened to welcome joyfully the Costa- Ricans, offering them food and refreshments In this manner the Costa-Rican flaa: was unfolded and hanged over Punta de Castilla, accompanied by the surprise and admiration of the people of San Juan del Norte, who at the begining could not account for the expeditionists' presence in that place." "Page 835. — An officer of the English squadron came immediately on board just in reaching Punta de Castilla the armed boats of the squadron of Her British Majesty surrounded me " In this manner we passed the Punta without calling at them and we proceeded to the beach of San Juan del Nor- te, where the steamer Claiton was at anchor. I boar- ded her at 2 p. m. and made the declaration of cap- ture under the Costa-Rican arms I anchored in front of San Juan." "Page 836. — Yesterday afternoon all the filibus- ters 350 more or less who were in Punta de Castilla, were transferred from the small steamer Claiton to the English war-ships Cossack and Tartar." "Page 837. — Mr. ]os6 N. Scott will permit that no portion of the property actually in Punta de Cas- tilla, will be used in preparing or getting ready any boats for unlawful purposes against the allied States of Central America under the penalty that all property will be delivered to the state of Costa-Rica." The inserted paragraphs refer to the steamers and the seizing of Pimta dc Castilla effected by the Costa-Rican forces diu-ing the campaign against the filibuster Walker. Mr. John Erskine Captain of Her British Magesty's ship Orion says in his relation that these operations took place in Punta Arenas or Arenas Point. - 38 - The following paragraph belongs to the same work: "Page 1007. -On the 24th of November, between 10 and II a. m. a steamer was sighted steering to San Juan del Norte: on approaching she changed her route and directed to the mouth of Colorado, one of the branches of the river San Juan who empties into the Atlantic. The Commander of the war-ship Saratoga who from the deck had thought to recog- ' nize the steamer Tennesee, inmediately sent notice to Lieutenant Colonel Jose Baldison, who commanded the Costa-Rican forces encamped at Punta de Cas- tilla, explaining to him that said ship was chartered by Walker in New Orleans; the Commander of Pun- ta Castilla gave notice of the event to the military chief in charge of Castillo Viejo and sent at the same time a detailed relation to the Government of Costa Rica." "Page 1008. — All the prisoners where afterwards transferred to the Morgan and sent to Punta Castilla, where they arrived on December the 8th. The stea- mer Fashion entered by Punta Castilla, anchored in front of the Company house by daybreak on the 25th of November." "Page 1009. — At the same time four canon launches anchored at Punta Castilla." The foregoing paragraphs refer to the second invasion of Walker and the capti:re by Comodore Pauling. In the report, that he made about this no- table encounter he gives Punta de Castilla the name of Punta Arenas (Arena Point). There exists an authority the Commission of — 39 — Nicaragua can not gainsay, Mr. E. G. Squier, ex- eharge d'affairs of the United States to the Central American Republics. This author in his above cited work espresses himself thus: "On the South the line of separation from Costa-Rica, as fixed by a conven- tion dated April 15th 1858, starts from Punta de Cas- tilla or Punta Arenas on the south shore of the har- bour of San Juan and thence follows the right bank of the river San Juan." Farther can be cited another literary work, whose authority not even the Nicaraguan Commission can disown, namely la Historia de Nicaragua desde los tiempos prehistoricos hasta i860 por J. Dolores Gamez, Nicaragua 1889. In the relation of the second invasion of Walker, he gives in Chapter XXVIII the site, where the principal events took place, and in mentioning the defense presented by como- dor Pauling for his capture of Walker thereby excee- ding his instrucions,the comodore Pauling wrote Pun- tarenas; there is a clause and the corresponding note saying: This name is also given to the Punta de Castilla ( N. del A.). From the cited documents results another true fact, and it is this, that the name of Punta Castilla, is not of recent origin as the Nicaragua Commission affirms and that it was already in common use before the Treaty of Limits. In the same manner as San Juan del Norte has had and has two names, namely the already cited and the name of Greytown, so Pun- tarenas and Punta de Castilla are different denomi- nations for the same place. The Nicaraguan Commission undervalues Punta — 40 — de Arenas or Punta de Castilla, calling it an imper- ceptible point. (Vide Statement of Nicaragua page 23-lines 14 and 15). The Minister of Nicaragua in Washigton, in the allegation brought before Mr. Cleveland under date 2nd December 1887, gave to that mole of sand the extent of 3 miles. Without attempting now a direct reply to that state- ment, it will by the way be remarked that the Tran- sit accessory Company for a long time had their wharves, storehouses offices and adjoining buildings in Punta Arenas or Punta de Castilla and that the same Company entertained the project of building there a town; it was in Punta Arenas or Punta de Castilla that Walker landed the soldiers and ammu- nitions of his second invasion, and Costa- Rica kept there for a long time the general Headquarters com- manding San Juan del Norte. For all these purjDO- ses it was required that Punta de Castilla would be, as it is, more than an imperceptible point. /; Once known the history of San Juan del Norte or Greytown on one hand, and the history of Punta de Arenas or Punta de Castilla on the other, it de- monstrates distinctly the motive of Article 5th of the Treat) , which grants Nicaragua exemption of port-duties in Punta de Castilla. From the ist of January 1848 date of the occu- pation of the Mosquito King to the 28th of January i860, date of the Treaty Zeledon-Wike, entered into — 41 — between Nicaragua and Great Britain, San Juan del Norte or Grey town was out of the rule of Nicara- gua. During that length of time the trade of Nica- ragua, via San Juan, was carried on through Punta de Castilla. When the Treaty of limits was signed, on the 15th of April 1858, Nicaragua had not yed reco- vered the possession of the harbour or port of San Juan; therefrom came the necessity of stipulating the exemption of port-duties in Punta de Castilla, of which exemption Nicaragua enjoyed, until she regai- ned the possession of San Juan del Norte, by virtue of the Zeledon-Wike Treaty. After what has been said the before mentioned exemption, does not show any absurdity, notwiths- tanding that Punta de Arenas or Punta de Castilla be inside the Bay of San Juan del Norte. //; It is moreover argued by the Commission of Nicaragua that the dividing line proposed by Costa- Rica cannot be accepted without violating, by the same proposal the Treaty of Limits, because this line would divide in two portions the waters of the Bay: one portion for Nicaragua and the other for Costa Rica. The argument would have some strength in case the contemplation was to draw the dividing line over the waters owned in common; but the reverse has ben clearly put forth. It has been maintained by Cos- ta Rica, that there is no need of drawing any limit 42 over the waters of the bay, b ecause said waters have been, are actually and shall continue to be owned in common by both Republics, to such extent that the ships of any one of them can navigate with her own flag and pavillion in any part of the Bay as inside the territorial waters of either state. Consequently the viol ation of the Treaty is merely fanciful. f?i ) The Nicaraguan Commission further remarks that if adopted the starting point designed by Costa Rica for the demarcation of the frontier, it would show a break of continuity. The fact is true, but the reason is to be found in, and comes out from, the stipulations of the Treaty of limits, which rules not to divide the waters of the Bay: it did not allot any definite portion either to Nicaragua or Costa Rica, but clearly adopted the regime of community of said waters. By the Treaty of Limits there was created into the exclusive territories of Costa Rica and Nica- ragua another territory or bulk of territorial waters? to be owned in common by both Republics. The Commission of Costa Rica consequently pays faithful and due respect to the stipulations of the Treaty of 15th April 1858, by admiting a break of continuity in the proposed dividing line. nj That Nicaragua has the eminent domain and supreme control over the waters of the river San Juar., this is an assertion not questioned by any. But it must be borne in mind that said eminent do- main and supreme control are not absolute, because they are conditioned by the real right or perpetual international service of free navigation agreed to in favour ot Costa Rica. There is no need of going any further into this subject, as it is not included in the present contention. It is not either a subject of the actual allegations the clause concerning the community of the waters of the Bay of San Juan; but as Nicaragua mentions her eminent domain and supreme control over both waters, the Costa Rica Commission deems advisable to state, by the way, the following rectification: When in a Treaty of boundary, entered into with the purpose of definitely settling all territorial claims between the confining countries, after having clearly stated what is proper and exclusive of either country, it is further agreed that such sections, before in dis- pute, will be owned in common and that to both countries belongs, as consequenceof this community, the enjoyment of its advantages and the defraying of the expenses of its keeping, there is nobody who does not understand that the community is not contempla- ted merely in regard to the use, but also to the ownership and sovereignty in terms of perfect equality for both of the contracting parties. If the intention of the Treaty was to state that the Bay of San Juan del Norte belonged to Nicara- gua in respect to ownership, and that Costa- Rica had only the right of using the said Bay, nothing could have hindered the clear and adequate wording of that intention, as it was clearly and unequivocally — 44 — worded the different extent of the rights of either RepubHc to the waters of the river San Juan. The Dictionary of the Spanish language in defi- ning the word common reads thus: what not being exclusively owned by anybody belongs or extends to several: wherefrom the party holding a portion of landed property in community with another, is called cojHUJiero, joint holder. Should the word imply occassional different rights, that is to say, of use in some cases and of ownership in others, the reason is not apparent why it ought to be ruled that the use pertains to Costa- Rica and the ownership to Nicaragua, when the re- verse could be just as well. It is not found neither in the Treaty nor in the award any motive to infer that in the community agreed between Costa-Rica and Nicaragua the majestic roll of the lion is to be played by the latter and the humble one of the lamb by the former. CONCLUSION The Costa Rica commi.ssion believes, that it has plainly refuted all the arguments contained in the ex- position of Nicaragua to which this reply is intented. The Nicaragua Commission has said, that the river Colorado, the river Taura and the river, that empties directly in the bay of San Juan del Norte, (not one of themparticulary), constitute the river San Juan in the Treaty of 1858, and it has by indisputa- ble documents been demonstrated, that by the river - 45 — San Juan is understood the nameless branch to which Nicaragua refers with the circumscription: "the one that deposits its water in the Bay of San Juan." The Nicaragua Commission has expressed the opinion that Taura empties into the sea at the ex- treme end of Pnnta Castilla, and it has been clearly demonstrated, that it is not true; because the central part of a line can never be converted into the extre- mity of the same line. The Nicaragua Commission has declared, that the arbitration sentence annulled the line defended by Costa Rica, and it has been proved, that in spite of all arguments made to obtain the removal of the boundary line to Colorado or to Harbour Head as an ultimatum, the award maintained firmly and inal- terably the original divisional line of the Treaty of 1858. The Nicaragua Commission contended, that Ni- caragua holds the eminent dominion and supreme command over the waters of the river San Juan and the Bay of the same name, and the distinction was made evident, which the Treaty of 1858 established between the rights of Nicaragua in the several wa- ters, of a limited dominion in the river and the sove- reignty in common in the Bay. The Nicaragua commission pretended that the Punta de Castilla of the Treaty of Limits is not the Punta de Arenas of the Bay of San Juan, and the error of such negation has been fully disclosed. It was said that if the demarcation was to be made according to the proposal of Costa Rica the consequence would be to invalidate the Treaty of - 46 - Limits and that there would be a break of continui- ty in the dividing hne; it is plainly evidenced that it is compulsory to act according to the text of said Treaty and that with the before mentioned line far from impairing the Treaty, its due and proper obser- vance is secured. Not one of the inferences of Nicaragua re- mains integer and upright: none of its arguments has victoriously undergone the test, while the deductions of the Commission of Costa Rica, in consequence of the debate, remain solid, and resting upon unmovable foundations. The Costa Rica commission confidently expects that this will be the opinion of the learned arbitrator whose impartial and just decision will forever close the actual regrettable dispute about the intelligence of points which for Costa Rica are set forth in a gla- ring dazzling light. San Jose, 30th June 1897. Ltiis Matamoros Leonidas Carranza AJl^lVi^ic.s-!Ty OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBAfiA THE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW. Jffl^^y^* ^ 20jn-8, '61 (0208484)476 3 1205 02531 4509 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 000 935 044 8