THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COSTA RICA-PANAMA ARBITRATION REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF COSTA RICA BY LUIS MATAMOROS CONSULTING ENGINEER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF COSTA RICA WASHINGTON, D. C. PRESS OP GIBSON BROTHERS, INC. INDEX OP THE CHAPTERS. I. THE REPORT OF THE GEOLOGIST 5 II. THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION 13 (1) THE LOWER SIXAOLA. (2) THE LOWER SIXAOLA (CONTINUATION). (3) TRACING OP THE LINE THAT CLOSES THE VALLEY OP THE SIXAOLA UPON THE NORTH. (4) THE UPPER TELIRI. III. SOME EXPLANATIONS AS TO THE TRACING OF THE LINE THAT CLOSES THE VALLEY OF THE SIXAOLA UPON THE NORTH 57 IV. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED BY COSTA RICA AND PANAMA TO THE COM= MISSION OF ENGINEERS IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THE COMMISSION SUBMITTED THEM FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE ASSISTANT-ENGINEERS IN THE FIELD 64 V. THE STARTING POINT, UPON THE MAPS OF THE COMMISSION, OF THE SUPPOSED DIVIDE, MARKED WITH TWO BLACK, CONTINUOUS AND PARALLEL LINES 84 VI. THE BASES OF SOME POINTS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER 99 VII. THE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION 120 VIII. NEW PROOFS 123 IX. THE DIVIDE BETWEEN THE WATER- SHEDS OF THE TWO OCEANS . 134 780930 CHAPTER I. THE REPORT OF THE GEOLOGIST. 1. If the Report of the Commission of Engineers be examined with some care, especially in its declarative portion, it will be observed that it is based upon the opinions of the Geologist. 1 2. Before analyzing this document it is indispensable to determine precisely the limits of the territory personally explored and traversed by the Geologist, for the purpose of ascertaining what facts must be admitted as authentic, as being data gathered upon the ground, and at the same time excluding every item of information or fact in that report lying outside the boundaries of his personal inspec- tion, for the reason that it was not obtained directly upon the ground but by reports, comparisons and unverified hypotheses. 3. The Geologist has exactly fixed those boundaries which we are now about to consider. On page 8 he says : ' ' The territory personally examined geologically * * * is contained between north lati- tude 9 35' and 9 38' and west longitude 82 38' and 82 60'." As we shall see further on (Chap. IV; Q. XIV, a), these boundaries exclude at once the territory from the mouth of the Sixaola, 82 34' 50" west of Greenwich to a half- mile to the west of Punta Mona, meridian 82 38' west, or a distance of 5,852 meters. Report of Commission, p. 43. 5 6 On the other hand, he says: " Unfortunately the writer did not have time to thoroughly examine this upper valley except to make a hasty visit to the lower end of it." 1 This statement confines his personal inspection strictly to a hasty visit to the extreme lower end of the upper valley of the Sixaola ; and on page 45 he indicates the separation of the two valleys into an upper part and a lower part and places the boundary between them at Piedra Grande, by saying "* * * that the division between these two parts is in the vicinity of Piedra Grande." 2 If the map presented by him is consulted it will be found that Piedra Grande is situated at 82 52' 30" west of Greenwich and 9 36' north latitude; from which it may be inferred that his personal inspection did not reach finally to the meridian of 82 60' as it is literally stated, but only as far as 82 52' 30" west of Greenwich, or, that is to say, over a territory embraced between 82 38' and 82 52' 30". 4. The Geologist excludes as a matter of fact all personal investigation in the region of Punta Mona, and within the whole of the territory which extends from Piedra Grande to the meridian of 83 30'; that is to say, that his recon- naissance, which should have included the territory be- tween the meridians of 82 34' 50" and 83 30', or a dis- tance of fifty-five geographical miles, covered only the territory between the meridians of 82 38' and 82 52' 30", or fourteen and a half miles, and hardly three miles in latitude. 5. The accompanying map, Plate No. I, shows the ter- ritory explored by the Geologist between the boundaries that he himself fixed. 1 Report of the Geologist, top of p. 46. 2 Report of the Geologist, sec. 4, p. 45. 6. It was important that this matter be settled at the outset in order to find an explanation for the various anomalies observable in the report. 7. For the purposes of its consideration it will be con- venient to divide that paper into three parts: The first is occupied mainly with historical generalities of geology. The second is devoted to the theory which has recently been prevalent as to the prehistoric formation of such ground. The third is the practical portion, applied to the descrip- tion of the territory. 8. The first two parts do not affect the question. It may even be conceded that the hypothetical submergence at some prehistoric date may have really taken place, but that does not prevent the present situation from being a different one. 9. For that reason everything that relates to the first two parts is excluded from the discussion in this paper in order to take up the third, or the conclusions and facts stated by the Geologist, but always within the boun- daries he himself fixed as coming under his personal obser- vation. 10. A simple inspection of the small area explored by the Geologist, marked byarectangle in the accompanying map, Plate No. I, will be sufficient to show that it is not possible nor logical to accept any of the general principles that he lays down for the whole of the vast region that is to be considered. Geology is a science based upon observation and not upon deduction, and it is impossible to lay down rules covering a given region when only a small portion of it has been studied. 8 11. Hence it comes that the opinions of the Geologist in respect to the valleys of the tributaries of the Sixaola, or as to any other point outside of the limits fixed, cannot be taken into consideration. 12. In this same lower part of the Sixaola, the Geologist, doubtless without looking at the maps, either those pre- pared by the Commission or the one submitted by himself and, furthermore, without having been there, emphatically states: 1 the upbuilding of these natural levees, coupled with the 2.3 meters rise of the land, both brought about in late Pleistocene time, certainly some hundreds and possibly some thousands of years ago, have caused some of the former branches of the Sixaola River, such as Gadokan Creek, to approxi- mately parallel the main stream and flow out into the ocean instead of into the Sixaola where it certainly formerly emptied * *." and on the same page, 24, farther down he says: "In prehistoric times, then, practically all of the creeks, including Gadokan and those northeast of it which now flow into the ocean, were tributaries of the Sixaola." 13. On the contrary, the maps and reports declare that the sources of the Gadokan lie very far to the westward of the Sixaola ; the Chief Engineer of Party A, Mr. Weak- land, says (La Palma, May 19, 1912): "We have established the fact that Gadokan Creek has no connection with the Sixaola and that it heads more to the west than shown on any map we have." 2 Appendix No. 2, p. 24. 2 Appendix No. 3, p. 2. 9 14. The Commission, then, at the same time accepted the parallelism of the Gadokan and the Sixaola, as laid down by the Geologist, and the net divergence of the same, established by the Engineer of Party A, who visited per- sonally and drew the course of the Gadokan. The conclusions of the Commission reveal the fact that it was influenced by the opinion of the Geologist, who had not been upon the ground, and disregarded that of its own Engineer at the head of Party A. 15. The citation of these contradictions might be con- tinued at great length, but a few of the more important will be sufficient. On page 15, section D, the Geologist says: "The percentage of run-off during the wet season is very large, because the rain falls much more rapidly than it can be absorbed by the .ground, hence must run off." And ten pages further on (p. 25) he says: ^ the swamp areas are passable in the dry season, which may have one to three meters of water over them after heavy rains." 1 6. The Geologist neglected to consider the evapora- tion, which is very great in that region, by reason of the high temperature that he himself noted there, 1 but as he also makes the assertion (p. 14) that the maximum rainfall in one year (1910) hardly reached 149 inches, or say 3.75 meters, we would have to suppose that the run-off, perco- lation, etc., be considered as null, together with a dam three Report of the Geologist, pp. 12 and 13. 10 meters high, keeping the waters permanently at that height. But it should also be noted that the 149 inches mentioned was the amount of rainfall for the entire year and not merely one heavy rain, as the Geologist intimates. 17. Summarizing the Report of the Geologist, it should be said that notwithstanding the anomalies thus far pointed out, he did state various actual and authentic facts in regard to that region. It is true that if he did state these facts, he did it with a view of applying his theories and hypotheses to them for the purpose of im- peaching or denying their effect, and it has been necessary to divest them of the appearance they had, for recognition. 1 8. A few instances, among others that could be selected are as follows: First. The Geologist lays it down, for example, that Punta Mona is found to be isolated from the rest of the main land by Swamp A lying between, but as he applies the theory of "low saddles," the result is that it is joined to the mainland. Second. He says that Gadokan and other small streams discharge their waters directly into the ocean, but he subjects them to the submergence hypothesis and makes them in fact tributaries of the Sixaola. Third. He alleges that the rocks of the Caribbean Coast are formed by coral growths, but insists upon reiterating the theory of a submergence, converting Punta Mona, which lies upon the Caribbean shores, into a homogeneous and integral part of the Main Cordillera, etc 11 ig. If each of the above declarations is divested of the hypothesis by which it is impeached, then each one of them stands out as true and authentic by itself; thus: 1. It is a fact that Punta Mona is separated from the mainland by Swamp A. 2. It is a fact that Gadokan, Middle Creek, Punta Mona Creek, Manzanillo Creek, Taiodi, Codes and other small streams do discharge their waters directly into the ocean and take their rise upon a basin that is distinct from that of the Sixaola. 3. It is a fact that the rocks forming Punta Mona are those usual upon the Caribbean Coast (the Antillita of Gabb), coral, and sedimentary formations that have no relation to the basic or crystalline rocks of the Main Cordillera. 20. In the course of this paper each one of the points of the Report of the Geologist that ought to be dis- cussed will be examined. But, as will be seen at the proper place, the meteorological data submitted by the Geologist, from observations continued over a period of six years, were not used by him nor by the Commission for the purpose of seeing whether his assertions were or were not well founded. If such data had been considered, the hypotheses of the Commission would have in great part broken down, giving way to the real facts, proved by these very data. 21. The sole purpose of the examination that is now taken up, is to bring out the truth, using solely and exclusively the data and facts furnished by the reports under discussion. 22. It would have been possible to have had recourse besides to other sources and to other means in order to 12 establish the truth, but it was not necessary, and circum- stances demanded a strict restriction to the data men- tioned as being all that now may be considered to have a full legal status. 23. Thus stated, the foregoing chapter is the preamble to the examination that follows. CHAPTER II. THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. (i) THE LOWER SIXAOLA. 1. This document contains 65 pages, of which 35 are devoted to administrative matters of the Commission and the remainder contain a description of the investigations made. The maps submitted are more explicit than the descriptions, but taking the maps and the report together the subject is so presented that by reference thereto it is very easy to answer the questions asked by the two contracting countries. 2. The matters included by the Commission in the appendices to the General Report, being the special reports of the heads of the technical sections in the locali- ties examined, and which it embodied and embraced by its signature, are in the highest degree instructive, since the facts observed personally and individually are thus established and cannot be controverted. 3. It does not seem as if the Commission gave to these reports the importance which they really have, inasmuch as the conclusions reached by it are not based upon them. It is observed that in some cases the Commission, in com- municating them, suppressed some phrases or ideas, but fortunately there exist and are to be found in the com- municated documents, texts of the greatest value for clearing up and solving the problems submitted, the sole object of the work of the Commission. 4. The detailed statement of verified facts, made by the chief of Party A, in charge of the surveys and topog- raphy of the region embraced between Guabito and 13 14 Manzanillo, which appears in Appendix No. 3, is especially important in this matter; in the first place, because the Commission embodied and transmitted it; and second, because they are facts observed and deduced by the writer in situ, and communicated by him to the Com- mission, not as the final result of his work in that region, not as a conclusion, but as evident and actually observed facts, discussed and verified while engaged in the course of his investigations and not conceived upon the termina- tion thereof. 5. The Commission while sitting, not in its headquarters at Sanchez, nor at Punta Mona, nor even at San Jose, where it had its central office, but at Evanston, ana doubtless when it had finished in the latter place the drawing of the maps, located thereon a line that it felt authorized to call: "Line of a hypothetical divide arbi- trarily drawn." That line does not exist. 6. According to the regulations for its internal opera- tion, prepared by the Commission and approved at its Session, No. 17, of January 19, 1912,* the various chiefs of parties were required to draw out in the form and manner provided all the field notes taken during the previous three days in the course of their surveys. 2 That provision, as may be seen by the special reports of the four different chiefs of parties, was always complied with by them, and, referring to only one instance, among the many that could be cited, it appears that the chief of Party A reported 3 that he had personally verified the fact that no connection whatever existed between the Appendix No. i, p. 102. 2 Rule 18 of General Instructions: Appendix No. i, p. no. 3 Appendix No. 3 to the General Report. 15 course of Gadokan Creek, throughout its entire length, and that of the River Sixaola. 7. It likewise appears that this same section chief arrived some days later at Punta Mona, but there is nothing to be found in his report showing that he met with any connection between that point and the interior of the region. If he had found any he would have reported it, as he did in the case of the low ridge of Gadokan, between this creek and the river; but on the contrary what he did report was, as shown by the maps and docu- ments, marshy and low-lying lands, and the great swamp between Middle Creek and Manzanillo which extends over the whole south of Punta Mona. 8. This is the reason why it is mentioned here that it was at Evanston, and not at the places on the ground where the work was done, that the line traced was called the "Line of a hypothetical divide arbitrarily drawn." 9. The very name given to it by the Commission definitely excludes it from all argument, and if it were not that its creation might be detrimental to the interests of Costa Rica, the designation thus applied to it would be enough to cause it to be disregarded. We feel, there- fore, compelled to discuss the basis of this line assumed by the Commission, which was also the s^^pposed frontier that the French Arbitrator conceived. 10. In calling it "arbitrary," and "hypothetical," the Commission confirmed the fact that it was their imaginary creation, just as the spur that started out from. Punta Mona was also an arbitrary and hypothetical creation. n. If the supposition advanced in the French Arbitral Award in this respect had never existed, there would have been no room for the present discussions, and that arbi- trary line would never have been imagined, at least in 16 the place where it is now located. Such a supposition may to a certain extent have been justified in the mind of the President of France when he drew up the Award of 1900, on account of the little or almost entire lack of knowledge then had of that littoral, but now, after the careful investigation and maps prepared by the Com- mission appointed by the Honorable Arbitrator and the contending countries, there is no ground for such a sup- position, it not being, as the Commission asserts, "hypo- thetical" or "arbitrary," but simply replacing the line that the President of France thought existed. As to this, the General Report, the maps and the details submitted by the Commission, could not be more eloquent or decisive, for they clearly and definitively show that the line supposed by the Arbitral Award to exist was a "hypothetical and arbitrary line." 12. The best explanation regarding this and covering this point was furnished by the commissioner Mr. Hodgdon, in his special report, where he speaks of establishing the fact that the little streams of Gadokan, Middle Creek, Manzanillo and others, discharge their waters "directly into the Ocean," and without any connection with the vSixaola or with its valley. 1 Having set forth this preamble, let the facts now be examined. 13. Plan No. 2, Sheet No. 2: "A map of the eastern portion of the region covered by surveys in 1912," upon a scale of i : 10,000, definitely marks a line separating throughout its entire extension the basins of the Sixaola and of the Gadokan. This line begins upon the map exactly on the meridian of 82 40' and at 9 35' 20" north latitude, and it ends upon the Atlantic Coast to the west 'Supplemental Report of Mr. Hodgdon, p. 5. 17 of the outlet of the Sixaola at 82 34' 39" west of Greenwich, and 9 35' north latitude. This line, from its starting point upon this map, follows a ridge, the contours of which indicate an elevation of about fifty meters, to the parallel of 9 34', at longitude 82 39' 20" west; where no contours nor details of elevation appear upon the plan, but the course of the Gadokan is indicated and the ridge continues until it terminates at the coast. 14. Sheet No. i of the same map shows the continua- tion of the ridge indicated upon Sheet No. 2, and upon the same scale i : 10,000, from a point designated 82 40' west, and 9 35' 20" north latitude, in a northerly course and almost upon the meridian 82 40' west to. the parallel 9 35' 2 5" north, where the ridge takes a direction toward the northwest. Upon this course the ridge runs until it reaches the parallel of 9 36', at a point the longitude of which is 82 40' 45" west, and the elevation of which is marked upon the map at a height of 100 meters. From this point the direction of the ridge continues to the northwest at elevations between 50 and 100 meters; but another divide also appears starting out from that same point, taking a course nearly north, over hilltops, the elevation of which is not greater than 50 meters, and with depressions as low as about 10 meters above sea level, as may be seen by referring to the point where this new divide crosses the intersection of longitude 82 49' 39" west, with the parallel of 9 36' 30" north latitude, 1 and which is distant one kilometer from the x The writer of this report takes this method in all cases to indicate the point to which allusion is made and thus avoids making any sign, mark or annotation that might in any way disfigure the original map of the Commission, which is thus left intact. 1559 2 18 starting point taken. From this depression the line rises again to the extremity of the ridge, the next level curve being 150 meters, and it reaches a height of 193 meters at Station A-I239. This culminating point is only distant 830 meters from another situated to the northwest, the elevation of which is 169 meters, marked upon the map as Station A-i26i, and distant from the coast, in a straight line toward the sea in a northerly direction, only 1,760 meters; but this point upon the coast, as may be seen by a reference to the map, lies 6,000 meters to the west from Punta Mona; that is to say, still further west than Manzanillo. 15. This other divide which we left at Station A-I239, and which began at the point before cited, 82 40' 45" and 9 36' north latitude, is indicated upon the maps by a double continuous black line, and the Commission designate it: "Divide which is the north limit of the area which drains into the Atlantic further south than Punta Mona," in order to expressly and deliberately distinguish it from the divide that is marked by a single continuous black line, and which is entitled: "Divide which is the north limit of the drainage area of the Sixaola River;" and to differentiate it yet more clearly and precisely from the divide marked with a double line of black dashes, and which is called: "Line of a hypothetical divide arbi- trarily drawn across Swamp A." 1 6. This other divide, we repeat, instead of continuing in the direction which has been described and which to a certain degree seems the most logical, inasmuch as it runs along higher elevations, and is consequently better visible and more certain, to the point already mentioned at the height of 169 meters, at Station A- 1261, which is distant from the coast only 1,760 meters, although 19 the Commission has indicated it as a "divide" differing from the one that bounds upon the north the Valley of the Sixaola, is continued by the Commission, not forward but rather backward and carrying it to the east, some distance still further to the south, until it reaches, after running a distance of 2,500 meters, a point yet lower than the one just indicated (169 meters), since it only has a height of 90 meters and is situated at 82 39' west longi- tude and 9 36' 40" north latitude, or more exactly at 82 38' 57" west longitude and 9 36' 43" north latitude, whilst the point A- 1261 at the height of 169 meters, distant from A- 1239 only 830 meters, is situated at 82 40' 34" west longitude and 9 37' 26" north latitude. 17. From the point having an elevation of 90 meters, the line descends, running toward the north, to the parallel of 9 37', at longitude 82 38' 54" west, where it is on the edge of the marsh ; thence in a northeast direction it trav- erses the entire marsh to the parallel of 9 38' at longitude 82 38' 06", where a little hill rises that ends in Punta Mona, and there also the divide that is being traced terminates. 1 8. The separation of this divide, which, according to the maps, is hypothetical and arbitrary, not only across Swamp A, but also after it leaves Station A- 1239, is very logical, and the comparison that is made between the hypothetical tracing marked upon the maps and the more accurate one shown by these very same maps, along greater elevations and nearer to the coast, was simply with the purpose of confirming the appellation given to that divide, as a "hypothetical and arbitrary line." 19. So that, among all the numerous facts and data furnished by the report of the Commission of Engineers in 20 justification of the rights claimed by Costa Rica, there is none better, clearer or more convincing than the one shown by the maps at the precise point being analysed in this report. 20. In fact, plan No. 2, sheet No. 2, ends toward the north at the point we have noted as the "divide," at the intersection of 82 40' west longitude and 9 35' 20" north latitude. From this point onward map No. 2, sheet No. i, shows the continuation of said actual divide from the basin of the Sixaola upon the north. This divide runs thence upon the same meridian of 82 40' to the parallel of 9 35' 25", where the divide bends toward the northwest and on this course is found the point at the intersection of 82 40' 46" and 9 36', where the other divide starts that is distinguished by the Commission as the ridge that bounds upon the north the drainage area that is "further south than Punta Mona," and which, as has been seen, is hypothetical and arbitrary. The result is, therefore, that looking at the maps, there are to be seen at the same time and to a certain extent parallel, two divides; the first one close to the bed of the Sixaola, being the real and actual one that limits the basin of this river upon the north; whilst the second one, beginning at the point mentioned, proceeds by a very long and winding course, hypothetical and arbitrary, toward Punta Mona. That is to say, there are two divides of the Sixaola Valley upon the north, on the same side of that stream ; one of them cutting the meridian of 82 40' at the parallel of 9 35' 24", and the other cutting the same meridian of 82 40' at the parallel of 9 37' 04", the distance between them being 3,000 meters. 21. This undeniable fact, unanimously stated and sub- scribed to by the entire Commission of Engineers, brings into clearer relief than others that might be cited the fact 21 that, even supposing and conceding that the hypothetical divide of the Commission did exist, there exists at the same time another real divide, which, closer to the course of the Sixaola, closes the basin of this river before the former one ; but this real divide does not enjoy the privilege of terminating at nor does it run to Punta Mona, for it ends just to the west of the outlet of the Sixaola into the ocean. 22. The Commissioner, Mr. Hodgdon, in his supple- mental report, had the honor of corroborating this funda- mental fact, while establishing those that were derived therefrom; that is, that various creeks, including the Gadokan and others farther to the west of Manzanillo, empty their waters directly into the ocean, without any connection with the Sixaola 1 . 23. The fact could not be otherwise, for it is shown by the documents presented by the Commission, the report or reports of the Engineer of Section A, that he personally examined this portion of the territory, and he says, among other things: 2 "We have established the fact that the Gadokan Creek has no connection with the Sixaola and that it heads more to the west than shown on any map we have;" and he reiterates it when he says: 3 "I walked over the ground between the Creek Gadokan and the Sixaola and satisfied myself that there is no connection between them." 24. Evidence of all these statements will be found recorded upon the maps, where the divide shown by a continuous line is extended until it ends at the coast to the west of the mouth of the Sixaola. Report of Mr. Hodgdon, p. 5. 2 Appendix No. 3, p. 2. 3 Appendix No. 3, p. 3. 22 25. There exists another divide, also, equal to the foregoing, between Gadokan and Middle Creek, which the maps do not indicate, but which is known to all those who travel on foot or upon horseback between Punta Mona and Guabito. 26. Based upon new mathematical data furnished by the investigations of the Commission, other conclusions may be deduced no less important. One is that the delta of the Sixaola, which up to the present time has been understood to extend to near the mouth of Gadokan Creek, is confined to its own actual mouth and very close to which the divide, indicated upon the maps by a broken line, terminates. 27. There is no doubt that these points, inasmuch as they are easily accessible, were recognized at the outset of the work of the Commission, and if it were not that it is presumed the Commission prudently thought it well to gather the fullest data possible in order to facilitate the solution of the problem it might be alleged that the Commission had exceeded the powers committed to it by the Honorable Chief Justice, the Arbitrator in this litigation, who, in accordance with the Treaty, limited the investigations of the Commission to the "line that closes on the north the Valley of the Sixaola," and not the basin of the Sixaola. 28. The Commission, having recognized the fact settled by Mr. Hodgdon 1 , that the little streams which run, from the Gadokan, inclusive, toward the west, are inde- pendent of the Sixaola and discharge their waters directly into the ocean, should have refrained from taking the whole of that region into consideration, and if deemed to have Report, p. 5. 23 a place on the maps, the region should have been included therein merely by way of illustration and nothing more. 29. Still, upon the maps, and in the descriptions more especially, a tendency may be noted to assimilate the basin upon which Punta Mona is found, a watershed that drains directly into the ocean, to the basin of the Sixaola. To arrive at this the maps say: "Divide which is the north limit of the drainage area of the Sixaola River when that river and Gadokan Creek are at low stages, but which may be submerged in portions and hence is not a divide when either the Sixaola River or Gadokan Creek is at a high stage and their waters mingle." 30. Before going thoroughly into this classification sui generis, let us state parenthetically in the fewest possible words two ideas, which are essentially identical and yet are interpreted by the Commission in a diametrically opposite sense. 31. The Commission, relying upon the opinion of the Geologist, accepted the conclusion that the hypothetical divide that appears upon the maps, proceeding across Swamp A, toward Punta Mona, ought to be considered, although a great part of it is constantly submerged below the level of the waters of the swamp. The strongest reason adduced was that in some prehistoric period that territory was buried at a depth of 120 meters, 1 and, con- sequently, not Punta Mona alone, but also the islet lying in front of it, formed the termination of a high and visible divide; and the Commission, contradicting the very lan- guage of the reports made by its Engineer of Party A, showing that no connection exists between the Gadokan and the Sixaola, says that the divide between these two water-courses must not be considered, when both streams Report of the Geologist p. 21. 24 flood the land near their discharge outlets; that is to say, a divide must not be considered when it is submerged, although not constantly, like the above, but by the simple rising of the waters. 32. So that what must be accepted as an accomplished fact, because it was so in some prehistoric epoch, must not be accepted as an accomplished fact, because it is so during the present epoch. 33. The two facts are identical and yet the conclusions put forth by the Commission are diametrically opposed : in the first case it accepts, and in the second case, pre- cisely the same, it denies. Going to the bottom of the matter and stating it succinctly : in one case a fact is sup- ported that is injurious to Costa Rica, and in the other and like case it is rejected when it favors Costa Rica. 34. This disposes of the parenthetical matter and, re- turning again to the question, it is very noticeable that there is, both upon the maps and in the descriptions, a tendency to assimilate what we know under the name of " Manzanillo Basin " with the " Sixaola Basin." The argu- ment adduced for this is condensed by the Commissioner, Mr. Hodgdon, in his supplementary report, by saying that the Gadokan, Middle Creek and all the other little streams that discharge during flood periods into the ocean, ought to be considered as tributaries of the Sixaola, because by the rains the course of the Sixaola and the courses of those creeks become mingled. 35. The argument is not a consistent one and it is one that could be used to assert that the Mississippi is a tribu- tary of the Rio Grande del Norte, because both empty into the Gulf of Mexico. And the most remarkable thing is that if we were very careful as to the significance of the word "tributary " it would be found that in the case before 25 us, the flow of the Gadokan being extremely small in comparison to that of the Sixaola, in cases of floods it would not be the Gadokan that would pour into the Sixaola, but a part of the waters from the Sixaola would be found to go to swell those of the Gadokan, so that the former would then be a tributary of the latter, and not the latter a tributary of the former. 36. So, while the Commission as a body, termed simply "low saddles" the submerged part that it supposed ran and terminated at Punta Mona, in accord with the Geologist who asserted that "In geological studies it is a very common thing to find low saddles in divides," 1 why was not this same dictum applied to the divide that exists between Gadokan and the Sixaola? And let it be especially noted that this "low saddle" is always submerged, while that between the Gadokan and the Sixaola is visible throughout the dry season and is only submerged during high floods in the rivers, as the Commission asserts in its hypothesis. 37. But the very climax of this whole matter is that the divide which is sought to be imposed, to end at Punta Mona, and which is supported and maintained by the very same arguments by which the other divide is rejected, is not the divide that closes upon the north the valley of the Sixaola. 38. If, as this Commission declares, the divide that runs hypothetically toward Punta Mona is simply the line that limits the drainage area toward the Atlantic,' 1 ' farther south than Punta Mona, what is to be done with this divide thus categorically defined, existent or not, which not corresponding, either with the description or the explicit conditions set forth by the French Award, Report of the Geologist, p. 19. 2 See the legend upon the maps. 26 ought not to be given any consideration whatever? There is no object in further discussion or denial of that point after the Commission has officially declared that this is not the divide that separates upon the north the valley of the Sixaola. 39. If it exists, it is not the one meant by the French Award, and if its existence is merely hypothetical and arbitrary, worse yet. That it was delineated finally in a hypothetical form, that such hypothesis came to have some semblance of reality, even so, the result is, as defined by the Commission : a new divide which limits solely and only the drainage area toward the Atlantic further south than Punta Mona, and which starts and separates itself from the crest that forms the divide of the Sixaola upon the north. It is not possible to controvert these fundamental facts that are laid down by the Commission. 40. The appended map, Plate No. II, will show at a glance all the details that have been discussed. In this the posi- tions of the important points that relate thereto have been preserved as they were laid down upon the maps of the Commission, and the same conventional signs were adopted as used by it to indicate the divide of the Sixaola, the divide of the area to the south of Punta Mona, etc., while making use of a new conventional sign to express some- thing not already defined upon the maps. (2) THE LOWER SIXAOLA (CONTINUATION). 41. Up to this point the examination of the Commis- sion's Report, has dealt with certain strange and inexplic- able items proposed by it. 42. They are inexplicable, because the Honorable Chief Justice, with great foresight, at an opportune moment, brought to the knowledge of the Commission the 27 original text of the French Award of September n, 1900, and it appears that the Commission took full notice of it at its eighth session, held in Washington, D. C., on November 23, iQii. 1 43. The perusal of that document reveals the fact that it does not refer to "a line that closes on the North the basin of the Sixaola" but to "a line that closes on the North the valley of the River Tarire or Sixaola." Here are two different and quite distinct ideas, particularly when ex- pressed in technical language. 44. It is well to ask here, before going into the matter, whether the four notable engineers who made up the Commission confused the meaning of "valley" and "basin" and whether these two terms were by them considered synonymous. 45. Such a thing cannot be presumed. Synonyms have their limits and those engineers knew how to distinguish perfectly between what was a valley and what was a basin; and the maps they presented are a proof of this fact. It is true that Colombia formerly, and afterwards Panama, sought to make these two terms synonymous, when this question was discussed subsequent to the delivery of the French Award, which was confined to "* * * the line that closes the valley and not the one closing the basin (in French vallee, not bassin) . 46. Happily, the maps furnished by the Commission are delineated in such a way that by a simple glance any one can separate the "valley" of the Sixaola from the "basin" of the Sixaola. 47. In separate documents, the Professor of Geology from Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, and the author of Report, Vol. II; Appendix No. i. Minutes, p. 31. 28 this report, have fully discussed the difference existing between "valley" and "basin," to which attention is called, showing that everybody understands that the "basin " is the whole of the watershed belonging to a river, to a lake or a sea, while the "valley" is limited to the lower portion of the basin, so to speak the bottom of it. 48. Among the most notable naturalists, Figuier and Penck are in full accordance with the principle set forth, that the valley is constituted by the bottom of the depres- sions of hills and mountains. 49. The total depression between hills or mountains, that encloses or constitutes the valley or valleys and extends further on to embrace all the regions that dis- charge their waters into a given stream, is the basin or catchment-area of that stream. 50. The difference is so patent between the two ideas, "valley" and "basin," that the very first paragraph of the Loubet Award states them both, using different words. In the first case the frontier closes on the north the valley of the Sixaola ; and in the second it is the line that divides the watersheds of the two oceans. Greater clearness in two distinct ideas cannot be imagined. 51. Fortunately, as already indicated, the maps are so explicit that it is easy to trace upon them the line that closes upon the north the valley of the Sixaola. (3) TRACING OP THE LINE THAT CLOSES UPON THE NORTH THE VALLEY OF THE SlXAOLA. 52. It is very certain that, notwithstanding all the theories that have been suggested in respect to the forma- tion of valleys, no one has clearly defined where the valley ends and where the slope begins of the height that, taken together with the valley, constitutes the basin, since that 29 is a particular physical fact to be determined in each case and place; but such a line does exist in all valleys and may be definitely determined. All that is needed is to establish the transverse or cross-sections of the basin in question, perpendicular to the hydraulic axis of the current of the river. These cross-sections will furnish the different points of the line that is to be traced, and once located they may be transferred to the maps. These points, when joined, will form the line that closes the valley. 53. On the south side and the right bank of the Sixaola the cross-sections were not carried out, for it was on that side the Sixaola Valley stretched out and the limit there was not a subject of discussion, whilst upon the left bank the valley hardly amounts to anything, as may be seen by a reference to the maps and the line limiting that valley. 54. As will be observed further on, in discussing the Upper Teliri, the line that closes upon the north the valley of the Telire, ends at a point of which the co-ordi- nates are: 83 03' 20" west longitude and 9 35' 45" north latitude, where the Telire Valley terminates, and where the bed of the river becomes walled in between high mountains already forming a canon. 55 . Up to this point, also, the tracing of that line extends in the auxilliary map that is submitted. CONCLUSION. 56. Considering all the data furnished by the Com- mission of Engineers, and in conformity with the language of the text of the French Award, the line that closes upon the north the valley of the Sixaola, being already indicated upon the map, the result is : i . That such line does not start out from Punta Mona ; 30 2. That such line does not follow any divide; and 3. That such line does not connect with a point or points of the Main Cordillera. TRANSVERSE SECTIONS AT POINTS UPON THE SIXAOLA AND TEURI RIVERS. The data for the transverse or cross-sections here pre- sented were taken from the maps and profiles of the Commission of Engineers. Azimuths, in all sections, were measured from point on the Sixaola River. (See "Explanation of Table," Item III.) General scale adopted for all cross-sections: Horizontal i : 40,000 Vertical i : 100 EXPLANATION OF TABLE. DATA FOR POINT ON THE SIXAOLA RIVER. I. Section number. II. Name of place. III. Geographical location, longitude west of Greenwich and latitude north. IV. Elevations in meters above sea level: (a) Bottom of the river. (6) River at low water. (c) River at high water. DATA FOR THE POINT LIMITING VALLEY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIVER. V. Distance from hydraulic axis of river. VI. Azimuth. VII. Geographical location, same as above. VIII. Elevation in meters above sea level. 31 M I hH M * 1OOO CN O M i-i CN CO co O CO <* CO cooo oo r^ IO IOVO OO ON O ECTIONS. VII. 00 CO S3 CO ^ CO ON CO Os M CO Os CN IO TJ- ro O M CO CO co ON ON ON *d- 1000 CN Tf- ^d- ro "O ro ON ON ON . O CO 10 -f CO 10 CN O Tj- 10 Tj- ON ON ON 10 O CO CO ON ON IO w T>i y^, >J ""* CN 00 c> PO r <~. oc n oo VO O ON O O "~3 co w M o o '-d 10 vo oo O "-i CN J>^_ ^" ^)" T|" CO iO 1O^ - CN CN CN CN CN CN T3 OO 00 00 00 00 00 V CO >o CN 00 O t^* ^i~ O O rh i-i O lOVD OO O CN CN CN CO 00 00 00 00 O O CO O CO >O O CO CO 00 00 3 5 00 00 CN 00 M O o o o oo r-oo ON O 00 00 o'B oo to - : O O ON 00 O O O ON ON ON O ON 00 (H - = ^ > ^O fe! o o 8 C 8 iO QOO O O IO IO M M sl O 10 CO o 10 M O O "0 iO t^ CO HH hH > VO CN M N CN CN rf ro CN ^w, CO CO CO CO CN CO CO CO CO -O CN W CN CN CN CN CN ^t- CO CN CN CO CO CN CN CN VO ca OS g ^-00 TJ- >-i l-i CN O * CO co O O CN 'd- co co ON ON f~- IO CO CO ON co O co VO ^h co co >O vD OO CN VO t 1 h- 1 s v3 O CO t~^ co ON f. C CO CO O oo O CN O 10 10 r->- CO CO CO ON ON ON O O tf- CO IOVO CO CO ON ON vO * CO ON O O w CO CO CO ON ON CO CO O> O co T}- TJ- co co co ON ON ON 10 O CO co ON ON r^ 10 . >O 10 w ro ^ CN CN 00 00 00 O O O O O 10 vO 00 O ^ CN CN CN CN CN 00 00 00 00 00 00000 O O co 10 CN CN CN CN CN CO CN CN CN CN CN OO OO OO OO OO 8 >j-. ~c 000 CO CN O VO 00 O 10 10 O (N Ol CO 00 00 00 S8 t CO O O co co 00 00 TABLE II. : Zavala Landing . . en P. Grande Nievecito Paraiso . . Dos Cano Sanchez. Cuabre . . 'N +J Sirukicha Canon. . . Yorkin . Suretka Shiroli . M M co ^J" 10 vD r>.oo < m ON ON ON u ON O M CN CO Tt IOVO 32 CROSS-SECTION No. i. ZAVALA LANDING. X, Hydraulic axis of river. L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. CROSS-SECTION No. 2. NIEVECITO. 1 meter above Sea level X, Hydraulic axis of river. if, Point limiting valley on north side of river. ISS93 33 CROSS-SECTION No. 3. PARAISO. Sea levl . X, Hydraulic axis of river. L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. CROSS-SECTION No. 4. DOS CANOS. 3 meters labove Sea X, Hydraulic axis of river. L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. .34 CROSS-SECTION No. 5. SANCHEZ. 2 Rneters above Sea level X, Hydraulic axis of river. L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. CROSS-SECTION No. 6. CUABRE. 11 meters above S^a lev^l X, Hydraulic axis of river. I/, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 35 CROSS-SECTION No. 7. WATZI. gfra leirel - - X, Hydraulic axis of river. 36 CROSS-SECTION No. 8. X, Hydraulic axis of river. I/, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 37 CROSS-SECTION No. 9. PIEDRA GRANDE. Sea leivel X, Hydraulic axis of river. L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 38 CROSS-SECTION No. g PIEDRA GRADE. X, Hydraulic axis of river. 39 CROSS-SECTION No. 96. PIEDRA GRANDE. X, Hydraulic axis of river. 40 CROSS-SECTION No. gC. PIEDRA GRANDE. 30 meters abovte $bfc jllevel ! I I 15594 X, Hydraulic axis of river. 41 CROSS-SECTION No. 10. YORKIN. Sea level X, Hydraulic axis of river. L, Point limiting valley on north side of river, 42 CROSS-SECTION No. n, X L Sea leyel. X, Hydraulic axis of river. it, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 43 CROSS-SECTION No. 12. SURETKA. X L 50 metprs above $ea level X, Hydraulic axis of river. L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 44 CROSS-SECTION No. 13. SHIROU. f^^^J^^^g - r -j?*? : x?.W*rr zjgi'-.-fR* 58 meters'atfcjve Sea level X, Hydraulic axis of river. L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 45 CROSS-SECTION No. 14. X L 51 tneteifs abovfe Sea level . X, Hydraulic axis of river. L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 40 CROSS-SECTION No. 15. SIRUKICHA. 102 meters . a"bove fe^a level X, Hydraulic axis of river. 47 CROSS-SECTION No. 16. CANON. 109 -meters iabcfrve fte;a level X, Hydraulic axis of river. 48 I" O -Q I OJ - o 'So 3 1559 5 i > & T 1 HH en fl a 5 LJ jy a 3 p o> > ^ .& o OS /> Bottom. lOOtoOOOo"^ (S rj- t^ IO COOO ON *"* W H fs ^-vo ON ro^O 1 < I ^ 1 aii ^ -i u 1 I :::::: '^ ':::::: o .J, 3 d a oooooooo GOOOOOOOCOCOONON << 1 : location. 4-i rt h-r ^ iDOOOOOOO | - | OwO | - (l O | - |l o vo vo vo l^vo CO C^ OO fOcOr^fOrOrOrON o ONONONCNONCNQNON Geographic M d o h4 5 OO which the method adopted by the Commission as regards the contour lines has given rise, it is sufficient to refer to what happened in the case of the traverse line run to Middle Creek, upon the coast the levels for which were determined by instruments and for some unknown reason this line was omitted in the considerations of the Commission. 29. The construction of the map showing the substitu- tion of the line that was drawn upon the maps of the Commission as running to Punta Mona for the line that was run to the mouth of Middle Creek, will be justified by the appending full notes relating to the survey of this last line, as they are found in the field books cited in paragraph 7 of this chapter, and the calculations of which were embraced in Pamphlet No. 24, submitted by the Commission, and are here repro- duced : Book. Page. Sta. Azimuth. Dist. Elevation. 3A 33 776 311-44-00 69.2 106.9 33 777 246-57-00 55-7 IOI . I 39 796 218-48-00 39-6 94 6 4i 797 273-48-00 55-2 81.1 4i 798 266-36-00 46.2 79-4 4i 799 282-15-00 74-9 83.6 Bravo 377 4i 800 301-40-00 79-2 92.8 4i 80 1 318-34-00 52.5 94-o 4i 802 301-02-30 58.7 84.9 43 803 333-36-00 64.9 77-7 43 804 337-35-oo 56.3 89-5 43 805 260-03-00 68.2 91.7 49 824 274-56-00 46-3 88.3 49 825 326-49-00 67 .0 87.4 49 826 349-34-00 3i-7 90-3 49 827 324-22-00 39 o 10 v 3 Bravo 388 59 849 254-54-oo 52-0 87.2 59 851 287-35-00 58.4 97.2 Bravo 392 Ill Book. Pay. Sta. Azimuth. DisL E'evalioii. 3A 59 852 270-02-00 36-3 98.2 59 853 284-1 i-oo 5i-3 93 . 9 Bravo 394 59 854 300-55-00 65.0 95-8 61 855 296-26-30 57-9 99-4 61 856 249-19-30 37-8 89.9 4 A 23 893 176-07-00 91.7 63-7 23 894 182-37-00 46.6 57-3 23 895 254-53-oo 54-5 94-9 23 896 278-06-00 62.8 94-7 23 897 310-30-00 45-3 96. i 25 898 325-37-oo 27.9 98.5 25 899 297-05-00 54-7 98.1 25 900 333-27-oo 20. o 100.8 25 901 338-44-00 40.2 loo.S 2 5 902 285-17-00 38.3 91 .2 3 A "5 1092 234-16-00 34-5 79-7 "5 1093 21130-00 57-9 74-8 "5 1094 234-05-00 34-5 74-8 "5 1095 184-57-00 82.6 73-7 IJ 5 1096 i 90-02-30 37-2 72. i H5 1097 196-21-00 60.7 68.7 117 1098 206-00-00 57-i 66.5 117 1099 179-10-00 4i-5 66.3 117 IIOO 234-42-30 49-9 630 117 IIOI 209-09-00 53-o 62.6 117 IIO2 229-15-00 3i-3 62.3 117 1103 193-52-00 49.8 57-5 119 1104 233-48-00 61.1 61 .0 119 1105 166-38-00 27-5 60.0 4A 53 1127 152-12-00 58.3 52-6 53 1128 183-01-00 40.6 49-9 53 1129 187-34-00 56.4 49-0 53 II30 2 I S-Og-OO 65.1 56-7 53 II 3 I l6l-59-OO 68.0 53-4 53 1132 I59-O6-OO 29.0 55-9 55 1133 138-42-00 36.9 59-6 55 H34 86-35-30 36.9 56.6 55 "35 55-51-00 41.2 46. i 55 1136 62-30-00 58.9 48-5 55 1137 I 50-04-00 63-3 47-o 55 II 3 8 186-55-00 44-8 5i-4 57 XI 39 206-49-30 33-5 46.4 112 Book. Page. Sla. Azimuth. Dist. Wevati 4 A 57 1140 171-56-00 67-3 47.0 57 1141 228-25-00 4i-4' 43-7 65 1 163 240-38-00 58.5 42.2 65 1 164 229-25-30 45-8 43-i 65 1 165 253-12-00 36 . 9 48.1 65 1166 254-48-00 39-3 49-4 65 1167 268-49-00 27.8 43 9 65 1168 214-41-00 39 3 53-3 67 1169 156-46-00 71 .3 51 * 67 1170 209-49-30 42. <) 54-4 67 1171 270-45-00 68.4 55 7 67 1172 256-16-00 27-4 58.9 67 11 73 162-39-00 42.4 54'Q 67 1174 178-53-00 43-7 59- 69 "75 221-21-30 44-7 54 5 69 1176 176-01-00 38.6 54-3 69 1177 193-10-00 50.6 57-8 69 1180 179-12-00 47-6 73-4 69 1181 281-39-00 16.6 71.6 3A 129 I2OI i 48-49-00 25-5 77-4 129 I2O2 73-04-00 23.1 70.0 129 1203 138-58-00 46.2 67.7 I 3 I I2O4 181-34-00 57-2 68.6 131 1205 204-59-00 32-4 7-5 131 1206 181-54-00 52.6 67.9 131 1207 i 90-50-00 43-8 75-4 131 1208 160-16-00 36.8 87.9 131 I2O9 202-08-00 61.4 102.5 133 I2IO 226-38-00 25-9 105.8 133 121 I 189-42-00 48.5 II9-5 137 1224 278-35- 52.7 124.9 137 1225 255-13- 60.9 129.6 137 1226 293-20-00 40.0 129.2 137 1227 294-26-00 18.5 134-9 137 1228 254-27-00 25-6 131.8 139 1229 281-31-00 41-5 137-4 139 1230 264-48-00 32.1 134.8 139 1231 271-31-00 43-3 127.8 139 1232 243-30-00 32.9 123.2 139 1233 227-03-00 56-9 146.2 139 1234 228-53-00 34-3 H5-7 141 1235 218-42-00 20.2 144.4 113 Book. Page. Sta. Azimuth. Dist. Elevation. 3 A 141 1236 224-39-00 49.6 164. i Bravo 483 141 1237 208-03-00 27.4 180.7 141 1238 260-12-00 35.3 184.3 145 1239 260-45-00 19.4 192.7 145 1240 306-15-00 60.7 188.2 4 A 75 1264 299-22-00 22.6 189.2 75 1265 325-02-00 34.7 186.4 75 1266 331-18-00 22.4 180.8 75 I26 7 334-5o-oo 19.8 180.6 75 1268 09-22-00 24.5 175.0 75 1269 266-18-00 38.9 176.7 77 1270 252-38-00 56.0 180.0 77 1271 290-30-00 25.2 183.8 77 1272 274-15-00 21.0 180.5 77 1273 280-31-00 57.2 178.7 77 1274 257-25-00 40.3 178.5 77 1275 229-40-30 22.9 187.5 79 1276 321-47-30 22.6 191.7 79 1277 303-52-30 57.8 186.1 79 1091 331-24-30 51.1 176.9 79 1278 303-44-00 70.7 176.5 79 1279 304-32-30 56.1 173.1 79 1280 284-01-00 36.9 178.8 81 1281 218-57-00 31.8 185.2 81 1282 250-25-00 57.3 185.0 Si 1283 271-36-00 53.1 194.0 Bravo 511 8 i 1284 309-53-00 79.6 188.9 81 1285 323-35-00 24.1 187.0 81 1286 303-30-00 77.2 166.2 83 1287 296-34-00 59.5 166.3 83 1288 319-04-00 56.0 177.7 83 1289 290-45-00 67.9 155.2 83 1290 298-06-00 52.1 158.5 83 1291 293-05-00 67.2 144.8 83 1292 280-09-00 . 62.6 166.7 85 1293 280-50-00 41.3 175.0 85 1294 313-05-00 58.5 171.5 87 1295 271-14-00 68.1 147.0 87 1296 268-54-30 44-i 166.9 87 1297 248-36-00 26.9 183.8 87 1298 260-56-00 34.4 179-3 87 1299 329-16-00 48.8 151.4 114 Rook. 4 A Page. Sta. Azimuth. Disl. Elevation. 87 1300 317-10-00 69.4 131.6 89 1301 338-27-00 40.4 144.6 89 1302 293-19-00 36.4 135-6 89 1303 269-30-00 48.1 151-5 89 1304 301-12-00 19.8 147-8 89 1305 317-46-30 58.1 127.0 89 1306 312-26-00 46.8 126.8 9 1 1307 285-12-30 43-3 128.4 91 1308 280-40-00 61 .9 117.8 9i 1309 281-24-00 41.9 110.4 91 1310 327-28-00 23.1 106.3 9 1 1311 317-04-00 27-3 101. 8 91 1312 278-15-30 65-3 95-i 93 1313 285-17-00 63-5 79-8 93 1314 24922-00 29. i 96-5 93 1315 262-33-00 17.8 100.9 93 1316 263-38-00 39-3 102.3 93 1317 291-25-00 43-i 107-3 93 1318 258-17-00 61 .9 112.4 95 1319 275-30-00 38.2 109.4 95 1320 296-21-00 56.5 92.9 95 1321 256-29-00 50-3 99.1 95 1322 272-32-00 64.9 86.4 95 1323 265-34-30 65.9 78.3 95 1324 293-59^oo 36-9 70.1 97 1325 263-01-00 70.1 84.0 97 1326 272-19-00 45-8 62.0 97 1327 249-12-30 65-1 41.1 97 1328 303-59-^00 53-2 35-8 97 1329 03-04-00 54-3 39-i 97 1330 281-07-00 47- l 82.6 97 I 33 I 302-50-00 108.9 61 .4 99 1332 337-23-30 44-o 61 .9 99 1333 313-00-00 35-3 67.! 99 U34 271-51-30 46. i 64.2 99 1335 235-46-00 39-8 55- l 99 1336 i 84-05-00 61.8 36.4 99 1337 243-24-00 44-o 43-8 101 1338 170-12-00 68.7 53-5 101 1339 247-50-00 53-9 46.7 IOI X 34 205-14-00 50-5 45-9 101 *34 X 140-41-00 42.1 49.0 115 Book. Page. Sta. Azimuth. Dist. Elevat 4 A IOI 1342 167-47-00 33-3 49.1 101 1343 113-47-00 85.1 41.8 103 1344 156-52-00 59-7 39-9 103 1345 185-43-30 39-3 40.8 103 1346 247-04-00 44-5 28.5 103 1347 160-39-00 76.6 10.3 103 1348 140-13-00 38.6 17-5 103 1349 i 60-44-00 34-3 05.6 105 1350 205-51-00 106.3 4.9 105 i35i 210-41-00 "3-3 3-9 105 1352 2OI-2O-OO 76.3 3-8 105 1353 2O5-O8-OO 70.6 3-7 105 1354 2OO-O5-OO 45-3 3-8 105 1355 2O6-O9-OO 93-3 3-5 107 1356 2O8-OI-OO 45-3 3-5 107 1357 2OO-I5-OO 64-3 3-5 107 1358 209-35-00 39-8 3-6 5A 55 1685 Il8-06-00 47-3 6.9 55 1686 88-27-00 45-4 6.7 55 1687 356-04-00 125.8 7-3 55 1688 I9-22-OO 98.9 7-9 55 1689 00-19-30 72 .2 9-5 55 1690 9I-3O-OO 74-4 14.0 55 1691 91-08-30 105.2 20. o 55 1692 334-56-00 76.3 8.4 57 1693 306-15-30 37-3 9-2 57 1694 329-43-00 42 .2 5-8 57 1695 9O-3O-OO II9.4 21.2 57 1696 90-25-00 43-6 26.6 57 1697 97-I2-OO IOO.O II. 8 57 1698 II2-25-OO 43-i 27.2 59 1699 66-4I-OO 69-3 28.9 59 1700 132-47-00 69. i 32.9 59 1701 96-09-00 103.2 29.8 59 1702 138-38-00 68.9 35-o 59 1703 164-48-00 89-3 34-i 59 1704 141-13-30 55-8 34-i 61 1705 92-18-30 62.0 27.1 61 1706 94-47-00 51.0 42.3 61 1707 98-13-00 114.9 42-5 61 1708 II8-O9-OO 98.4 41.2 61 1709 121-00-00 77.1 45-4 Book. Ptige. S/d. Azimuth. Dist. Elevation. 5 A 6 1 1710 150-31-00 65.3 45-2 63 1711 i 34-08-00 72.2 41.4 63 1712 112-24-00 86.8 43-5 63 17U 141-01-00 95-3 40.7 63 1714 142-43-00 82.7 40.0 63 1715 136-32-00 62.8 34-2 63 1716 95-23-00 59-4 45-5 65 1717 119-04-00 95-6 45-6 65 1718 107-22-00 22.4 47.0 45 1625 323-26-00 243-8 3-5 45 1626 36-49-00 220.3 4-4 47 1627 31-33-00 172.8 3-5 47 1628 26-16-00 174-3 5-5 47 1629 44-52-00 226.0 5-8 47 1630 32-04-00 186.9 5-5 47 1631 23-04-30 139-3 5-6 47 1632 02-47-00 174-3 6.1 49 l6 33 358-45^00 168.6 6-7 49 1634 354-47-00 114.8 7 r 49 1635 43-49-00 H8.3 7-4 49 1636 45-44-00 161 .2 7-2 49 1637 46-56-00 155-4 7-2 49 1638 48-22-00 188.5 7-o 51 1639 54-00-00 83-3 7.0 51 1640 66-30-00 169.7 7-9 51 1641 62-40-30 144.8 8-7 51 1642 49-04-30 169.6 9-9 51 1643 49-58-00 194-3 12.4 51 1644 44-49-00 127.8 14.1 4 A ! 47 1645 213-31-00 35-3 3-4 ! 47 1646 226-27-00 99-5 8.4 H7 1647 205-21-00 74-5 4-o H7 1648 233-18-30 49-3 5-2 *47 1649 257-43-00 96.9 4-7 H7 1650 188-22-00 57- ! 149 1651 i i 1-49-00 49-7 4-7 149 1652 i 73-20-30 74-3 5-o 149 1653 124-17-30 40.2 9.0 149 1654 175-35-00 45-o 5-5 149 1655 229-59-00 46-3 4-5 I 5 I 1656 207-11-00 50.1 28.7 151 1657 283-38-30 158.1 34-8 117 Book. Page. Sta. Azimuth. Dist. Elevation. 4 A I5 1 1658 228-24-00 32.6 29:0 151 1659 277-21-30 106.5 19.2 151 1660 277-31-00 29.2 18.9 153 1661 283-19-00 30.5 15-7 153 1662 255-45-00 96. i 5-2 153 1663 298-19-00 194-3 2.O 153 1664 145-44-00 75-o 23-5 155 1665 106-49-00 51-2 21.6 155 1666 143-46-00 34-7 18.1 155 1667 165-05-00 75-6 3-o 155 1668 165-17-00 93-4 n-5 155 1669 237-13-00 48.7 1.6 157 1670 114-58-00 18.4 16.7 157 1671 129-17-00 41.9 20. i 157 1672 204-41-00 22 . 2 21.3 157 1673 188-34-00 25-3 22. O 157 1674 168-11-00 71-3 I8. 3 157 1675 93-39-00 15-9 15-2 5A 21 1676 84-00-00 53-9 14.6 21 1677 100-55-00 23-4 18.4 21 1678 104-30-00 64.2 16.0 53 1679 82-59-30 127-3 5-4 53 1680 70-24-00 128.5 5-9 53 1681 5646-00 76.9 6.7 53 1682 90-08-00 77-6 6-5 53 1683 06-27-00 63.8 5-i 53 1684 73-16-00 50.3 5-8 55 1685 i i 8-06-00 47-3 6.9 55 1686 88-27-00 45-4 6.7 3 1 . The line to Middle Creek being thus vouched for, the Commission undertook to justify the line to Punta Mona which it substituted therefor, by the use of the following language : "With this exception this divide is well determined, by closely controlled topography depending upon a traverse line run near or along it, under, etc." 1 Report of the Commission, p. 55. 118 32. There are in that paragraph two fundamental errors. The first one is in the reference to "this divide," where it is presented as the main divide, whereas the fact is that it is no more than the divide which is the north limit of the area which drains into the Atlantic further south than Punta Mona. The second, and most important one, is in asserting that such divide "is well determined by closely controlled topography depending upon a traverse line nui near or along it," for it only needs a glance at the map, Plate No. VI, to be convinced that the line drawn in black is not near the traverse line that was run (in red), but that it was distant therefrom at times as far as 3,250 meters, as was the case at the point A- 1690, upon the left bank of Middle Creek, and at the place close to Station A- 141 4, in the survey of Punta Mona. 33. There has been prepared one profile of the traverse line that terminates near the mouth of Middle Creek, using the same data that is to be found in the field books, to which reference has been made. This profile in shown on Plate VIII, entitled: "Profile of the traverse line that follows a permanent divide to the mouth of Middle Creek, together with the profile of the hypothetical line arbitrarily drawn across swamp A." CHAPTER VII. THE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION. 1. This profile appears upon a single page and it is entitled : "Profile of the Sixaola River and of the Divide which is the north limit of its drainage area, together with branch divides to the north." 2. A profile is a section normal to the horizontal plane of a line traced upon a surface, and serving to represent one aspect of the data used to locate the line in question, showing its elevation and the differences in the heights of all the points along such line. 3. But if the points upon the horizontal plan are uncer- tain, approximate, hypothetical or arbitrary, as some of these appear on the maps of the commission, then the profile that is prepared from those points is also subject to these same anomalies. 4. It so happens that there has come to our knowledge the motive that led the Commission to present such a document and which explains more satisfactorily its existence. 5. It has been said more satisfactorily, because it does not appear from the series of questions formulated by the two countries and laid before the Honorable Arbitrator any request made in that respect. Nor is there any indication in the plan formulated by the Commission, approved by the parties and by the Honorable Arbitrator, that the pres- entation of any such profile was contemplated. (H9) 120 6. But in the "Estrella de Panama' 1 (Panama Star, a newspaper published on the Isthmus), on the 26th of July last past, there appeared an interview with Senor Dr. Jorge Boyd by the Editor of that periodical, in which the former made the statement that such a profile had been constructed by the Commission in compliance with one of the requests made thereto by Dr. Boyd himself during the course of the work, he being the Representative of Panama in the Boundary Question. 7. In that interview, are to be found, literally copied, various paragraphs from the Report of the Geologist of the Commission and several notes taken from the General Report, revealing the fact that such data were already within the knowledge and in the possession of Panama, before the Honorable Arbitrator knew anything about them, and, unless the moral responsibility were placed upon the Commission of having communicated its opinion to one of the parties, before it was known by the Honorable Judge who is to give the decision, it might be supposed that this was the result of some confidence on the part of the Engineer of that Republic, and on that account to a certain extent excusable; but what neither is, nor can be a matter of confidence nor excusable, was the fact that appeared in that article in the "Estrella" where Senor Boyd declared, in speaking of the documents submitted to the Honorable Arbitrator, using the following language : "Beside there is one special profile, on a single sheet, entitled : 'A combined profile of the River Sixaola and of the drainage from the area of the same river throughout its entire extent,' as far as Punta Mona, which I particu- larly asked for in one of my requests to the Commission," 7. Compare the translation made by Dr. Boyd with the original title of the map and with what is said in this 121 respect on pages 2 and 5 of the report of the Commission, and their identity will be manifest. 8. The facts, therefore, appear, as evidenced by Dr. Boyd himself, that the Commission, in the preparation of the profile submitted, did comply strictly with one of the various requests that Panama made to it directly, through its Representative. CHAPTER VIII. NEW PROOFS. 1 . It has been stated that the line drawn upon the maps as the Divide of the Sixaola Basin on the north, does not in any of its intermediary or its extreme points, meet the conditions of the Lou bet Award. As stated elsewhere this demonstration has been founded solely and exclusively upon facts and arguments derived from the reports of the Commission itself. 2. The different portions of that line of uncertain, approximate, hypothetical or arbitrary character, were pointed out and records were produced of another line that combined with the first, and having its same irregularities did not terminate at Punta Mona but near the mouth of Middle Creek, and for this reason, perhaps, was not included or marked upon the maps of the Commission. 3. As a consequence of this demonstration, it is now possible to state the corollary to be drawn therefrom. No unity of agreement whatever exists between the, maps and the reports presented, nor is there any unity or agreement found to exist between the reports and the data obtained for their preparation. 4. These categorical conclusions are strong enough to destroy the arguments against the facts established, and now this seems the proper place to detail the causes which have influenced their appearance in the report. That is the purpose of the present chapter. 5. It will be for the first and last time, contrary to the plan followed hitherto, that we are compelled to use proofs derived from other sources than those from which all our conclusions have been taken. It could not be otherwise, since it is, indeed, illogical to undertake to prove an irreg- (122) 123 ularity by the same irregularity; a theorem cannot be demonstrated by using the same hypothesis stated in submitting it. 6. As a preliminary, however, it may be well to state that the proofs about to be offered are also within the knowledge of the Commission and that they were sub- mitted by the opposing party, Panama. 7. It could not be expected, naturally, that Panama would submit documents in this matter that were favorable to Costa Rica. Panama, however, did put into the hands of the Commission the results of its own investigations, its plans and its documents; but it is also true that in so doing it could not have foreseen the use to which they would be put in the course of events ; still the fact is that such data were in the possession of the Commission and if Costa Rica now makes use of them, not however in its own favor but merely to show the reasons for the irreg- ularity of the documents of the Commission, they must be admitted. 8. That these documents to which reference is made were in the possession of the Commission and used by it, is made evident by the detailed citations made therefrom in the course of the present analyses. These antecedents having been settled, let us now get to the bottom of the matter. 9. (a) The Commission presented a line of the North Divide of the Sixaola Basin, measuring 148 kilometers 1 . (b) Panama submitted to the Commission the plan of the line claimed by it, measuring only 109 kilometers; that is to say, a distance of 39 kilometers less. 2 'vSee the longitudinal profile prepared at the request of Panama and without the knowledge of the Honorable Arbitrator, as shown in Chapter VII. 2 See the plan by Doctor Don Abel Bravo, of December, 1910. 124 10. Whatever that line may be the one offered by the Panama Plan, it does reveal the fact that it followed the crest or summit of a cordillera, which in its lower portion and near the coast coincided exactly with that of the Com- mission in the course where the Commission designated it as arbitrary and hypothetical 1 , but from Buena Vista this line branched off and ran closer to the Sixaola and Telire Rivers until Monte Uren was reached. 1 1 . This Monte Uren, the name of which is found upon the map of Senor Peralta 2 , is situated at 83 29' oo" longi- tude west from Greenwich and 9 38' north latitude ; and upon the map of Petermann's Mittheilungen, year 1900, Plate 22, at 83 33' oo" longitude west from Greenwich and 9 36' north latitude, is not defined as being the Chirripo Grande placed by the Commission at 83 29' 38" west of Greenwich and 9 29' 2" north latitude, for the difference in latitude is very considerable. 12. At this Monte Uren Panama found that the crest it was following connected with the Cordillera desig- nated upon its map under the name of "Cordillera of Talamanca," at the end of the 109 kilometers measured from Punta Mona; whilst the maps of the Commission connected its line at Chirripo Grande at the end of 148 kilometers from Punta Mona. 13. As has been already stated, it could not be expected that Panama would offer proofs favorable to Costa Rica, but it is clear that such line, if it did exist, would best *" It therefore be understood that there is no actual, permanent, natural divide, nor parting of the waters across swamp A * * *. " Report of the Commission, p. 53. 2 PERALTA: Mapa Hist6rico Geogrdfrco dc Costa Rica y del Ducado de Veragua (Historical-Geographical Map of Costa Rica and of the Dukedom of Veragua), by Don Manuel M. de Peralta; Madrid, 1892. Special edition for the Fourth Cente- nary of the Discovery of America. 125 suit Panama if it were as long as possible, just as it would best suit Costa Rica if it were the shortest possible, as thus each one would obtain the most territory. Nevertheless, it appears that the survey made by Panama was in December, 1910; that is, some months after the Treaty of Washington was celebrated between the plenipotentiaries, Anderson and Porras; and when the Engineer commissioned by Panama Dr. Bravo was surveying this line, he knew that his work would be carefully examined by an impartial commission of experts provided for in that treaty, so that he had every reason for seeking to execute the work as correctly as it was possible to do it. Doctor Don Abel Bravo, commissioned for that purpose by Panama, undertook those investigations with the aid of a French Engineer, M. Lambert, who had come to the Isthmus during the period the French Canal Company was at work there, and who had located at Bocas del Toro for some years. These two competent engineers, both of them familiar with the region, determined by direct surveys, using the chain, that the distance from Punta Mona to Monte Uren was 109 kilometers. Thus measured and laid down upon their map, it was submitted to the Commission. 14. Notwithstanding this, the Commission deviated from it and showed the distance of 148 kilometers. 15. Neither is the line that Panama offered approved, nor is it admitted that it should be heeded ; on the con- trary the facts are stated simply for the purpose of estab- lishing a logical comparison between them and deducing the consequences that flow therefrom. If the plans are laid over one another, the Panama Line will be found to lie, in its upper portion, between the divide delineated by the Commission and the Rivers Sixaola and Telire. 126 1 6. For greater clearness, the following statement sum- marizes the comparison: Panama Line. In its lower portion it co- incides with that of the Commission. Panama would naturally be partial in the execu- tion of its surveys. Panama did the work with only a single party in the field. Panama proceeded upon an unbroken course from Buena Vista to the Main Cordillera. Panama measured its dis- tances directly with the chain. Panama Line. Panama did not abandon its continuous line to Monte Uren, where it declared it found the connection with the Main Cordillera of the crest it was surveying. Commission Line. In its lower portion it co- incides with that of Panama. The Commission must be impartial in the execu- tion of its surveys. The Commission did the work with four parties in the field. The course of the Com- mission was broken be- tween Buena Vista and the Main Cordillera. The Commission meas- ured its distances in- directly, by calcula- tion and some courses by trigonometrical means and others by estimating distances by the time taken to traverse them. Commission Line. The Commission did abandon its continu- ous line, and went to San Jose de CostaRica to undertake it at the other extreme, and by a hypothesis fixing there the connection with the Main Cordil- lera. 127 17. It is not strange that after this accumulation of irregularities so great a difference was finally reached between the two distances. Such an assemblage of mixed data could lead to nothing else but to mistake the facts and, at least, to exhibit them, in a veiled and covered form. 1 8. As a matter of fact, every one knows that uniform procedure in surveys is the best guaranty of accuracy. The longitude of one of the railway lines from Washington to New York would of course be more correct if its meas- urement was verified by a direct and uniform procedure than if it were done by sections, using indirect means and even taking as to some portions the method of determining the distance by the time it took a roadman to traverse them. That is just what occurred in the case of these two sur- veys, one made by order of Panama and the other by the Commission. 19. Let it be repeated that the measures of Panama are not accepted; they are cited solely for the purpose of comparing them with those of the Commission. These, likewise, are not accepted. 20. As may be seen by the Minutes (Appendix No. i), the Commission stopped without finishing the studies it was pursuing upon the left side of the Sixaola, and it moved to San Jose de Costa Rica to take them up anew from a point that it made the terminus of a spur by a hypothesis as untenable as the others. 21. It is evident at once that it was practically quite impossible to know whether that extremity which it had assumed was or was not the terminus of the spur that it had stopped studying, no one knew if it were, nor could they know. It pointed this out in its declaration very 128 positively, when it said: "* * * that divide, if such divide exists. 1 " 22. For such a change to have been legal and allowable, and for the connection of the two extremities of the line to have been justified, it would have been necessary and indispensable : (1) To determine exactly the astronomical situ- ation of a point of the line or of its extremity on the left side of the Sixaola; (2) To determine in like manner the astronomical situation of a point on the line begun on the side of San Jose de Costa Rica; and (3) To connect the extremities of the two lines, correctly calculated in azimuth and distance from the points astronomically fixed. 23. Quite the contrary appears to have been the case; none of these three operations were performed, instead, the connection was made by the use of approximate and uncertain lines, the very start from the extremity of the upper part of the line being altogether hypothetical. 24. That is the reason for the great discrepancy be- tween the two lines and indeed for the grave error of the Commission. 25. The line that Panama drew is not admissible under any theory, but this line along the summit of a cordillera lying quite near to the Sixaola and Telire rivers and their valleys, is an indication of the existence of another high and elevated range between the one traced by the Commission and the same rivers, at the foot of which would then be the line that closes the valley upon the north. 'Report of the Commission, p. 55. 129 26. The accompanying map Plate No. VII shows a drawing of the two lines ; the outside one, with a black line, two black lines, two broken lines and an ending of dashes, is the one delineated by the Commission; while the inside one, traced with a line made up of dots and dashes, is the one drawn by Panama. 27. It has been demonstrated that the one of the Com- mission is: (1) Approximate from the coast to a point situated at 82 29' 3" longitude west of Greenwich and 9 33' 9" north latitude. (2) Imaginary and arbitrary from Punta Mona to Point A. (3) Uncertain from D-629 to A-25H ; and (4) Arbitrary again from A-25H to Chirripo Grande. 28. The comparison made of the two lines that have been drawn reveals to us therefore the fact that from Point- A, the location of which is 82 40' 45" west of Green- wich and 9 36' north latitude, to Buena Vista, the Com- mission Line is almost the same, with some insignificant variations, as the one delineated by the Engineer Bravo, as also is the hypothetical and arbitrary section that ter- minates at Punta Mona; but from Buena Vista two lines appear, the divergence of which is notable ; the one by the Commission farther to the north and the one of Panama farther to the south and closer to the Rivers Sixaola and Telire. 29. It is evident that arguments by one of the parties that are not based upon data submitted by the experts (the Com- mission) are without any force before the Honorable Arbi- trator, but if these arguments are employed by the oppo- site party they become proofs of the highest order and of 130 as much force and value as those presented by the Com- mission itself. That is just the case here : the line claimed by Panama, one of the interested parties, is shorter and lies inside the one that the experts indicated. Such a situation, as a matter of fact, makes both of the lines doubtful; that of Panama as being biased and that of the Commission on account of having neglected to con- sider the Cordillera crest that appears to run parallel to the one traced by it and nearer and closer to the Rivers Sixaola and Telire; that is to say, more in accord with the conditions imposed upon the Commission. 30. There was a neglect to characterize the portion to which we have alluded among all the anomalies as to the other sections of this line, but Panama has come to our aid in its designation and to establish with as much effect as the admissions of the Commission that the portion between Buena Vista and Station D-629 constitutes a doubtful section. 31. It is therefore worth while to complete the state- ment made in Paragraph 27 above, by the following addition. The supposed North divide of the Commission begins at a point the co-ordinates of which are: 82 34' 38" longitude west of Greenwich and 9 35' north latitude, and it ends at Chirripo at 83 29' 30" longitude west of Greenwich and 9 29' 30" north latitude.' That line is made up as shown on the following page. (i) Report of the Commission, page 53. 131 1 W M CO "3- >O 4-i efl ~ON O CS C4 rO ViO^V"^ .a r o o o o o ON ON ON ON ON en O *O i \o^O tf > O a 3 o o o o o 00 00 00 00 00 -M 03 l-f ^00*00 C4 O W W ^ V 5 'oo^O ) "o_V .s - .3 *-. o o o o o ON ON ON ON ON OO O 'O O 'O co fO ^f O '*' ^ *Vj-*VN.*b f "^ bi) o o o o o ^ 3 OO 00 OO OO OO >o "=? . rA IO t~ b" c cT c DO o o . en co en en 1 tS sT . o?3 1 ^ SI. SI OO |00 II ill "S *8 .^ *8 *S *- 6 *-, O O 0. O 132 32. This shows how the documents presented by Panama have come to constitute the most eloquent proof of the errors in the course followed by the Commission, because they are not only evidence of those errors but they point out and indicate the reason why they orignated. Panama could not enter into the territory at San Jose to assume, as the Commission did assume, the extreme point of the supposed divide line and for that reason its investi- gation was continued from its beginning at Buena Vista to its ending at Uren. 33. The reasons stated have also justified the use of the arguments foreign to the Report of the Engineers but not foreign to the subject under discussion. CHAPTER IX. THE DIVIDE BETWEEN THE WATERSHEDS OF THE TWO OCEANS. 1. The preceding chapters have been devoted exclu- sively to the analysis of the supposed divide limiting the Sixaola Basin upon the north and the conclusions of the previous chapter have summed up the prior ones and demonstrated the mistakes of the Commission, as well as shown the cause and source of those mistakes. The present chapter will analyze the divide traced by the Commission, supposed by it to separate the water- sheds of the two oceans. 2. It should be mentioned here that the corollary stated in paragraph 3 of Chapter VIII, resulting from the exam- ination of the Sixaola divide, is not applicable to this divi- sion. On the contrary there is as to this divide a uni- formity in the proceedings of the Commission, more unity and a great degree of harmony between the maps and the reports, both of these characterizing it with the frank and honest statement of the truth ' ' This section is approxi- mate and uncertain." 1 3 . Inde.ed, it was demonstrated by unquestionable data that the ending of the divide at Chirripo Grande was in no way justified. The Commission arbitrarily assumed that point, as it could have assumed any other whatever in that region, and the course of three kilometers only which was run toward the northwest from Chirripo is a proof of its arbitrary character. Report of the Commission, top of page 57. (133) 134 4. In the same way it was seen that the paramo or high plateau which was attained at Chirrip6 Grande, not by any means in a continuous or uniform manner, for the work was stopped and the entire outfit engaged in the survey transferred to San Jose de Costa Rica, was wide and extensive and it was discussed enough to make it evident that this point was an arbitrary one. There would have been no need for all this argument inasmuch as the Commission itself proclaimed the fact, when it said that " * * the line from Chirripo Grande to Durika is uncertain. * * * M1 5. It is proper to observe, now, the mathematical con- tradiction in which the Commission fails in speaking of the accuracy in the tracing of the North Divide : It states on page 54 that : "The remainder of the divide is drawn as a continuous line indicating that it is known with a con- siderable degree of accuracy," this line is marked thus at Chirripo Grande and three pages further on top of page 57 it says that: "* * in the portion from Chirripo Grande to Durika and from Dome to Cerro Pando, where there is some uncertainty as to the location * * *" i. e., Chirripo Grande is certain for the extremity of the line and at the same time uncertain for the beginning of the other, which is its continuation. 6. It would be of no consequence that the section from Durika to Dome were correctly localized, if it did not appear joined in a satisfactory way to the two extremi- ties of the divide. 7. The map of Dr. Bravo, a document submitted by Panama, raises again a doubt in this respect; the Main Cordillera is called here "Cordillera de Talamanca" and starts, in this map, from Monte Uren, where the crest that 'See the conventional signs on map No. i , sheet No. i . 135 begins at Buena Vista terminates. This Panamanian line is enclosed by the uncertain divide drawn by the Com- mission and as the one is biased by reason of being sub- mitted by one of the parties (Panama) and the other is uncertain according to the declaration made by the Com- mission itself, it is not possible to solve the question and it ought to be left as an acknowledged uncertainty. 8. It would not be proper to allege that the examination and preparation of the Panama map was wrong, just because so great a difference existed between the two courses. It has been shown that the surveys by Panama were more methodical and more uniform than those made by the Commission, and consequently, in case of a dis- crepancy, the probabilities are very much greater in favor of the correctness of the Panama map, more particularly as on the very face of the one made by the Commission there is the confession of uncertainty, whilst the Panama map does not suggest any doubt. 9. The portion between Durika and Dome was sur- veyed by the Commission sending a field party by Punta Arenas (Costa Rica) to Boruca, upon the Pacific side; and thence this field party proceeded by a trail to- wards the Cordillera, as far as "Cruz del Obispo" (the Bishop's Cross), a camping place of our well remembered Bishop of Costa Rica, Dr. -B. A. Thiel; but from here the investigations to one side and the other of ' ' Cruz del Obispo ' ' concerning the ridge or crest of the Cordillera did not extend beyond Durika upon the west and Dome upon the east. 10. The very situation of the extremity delineated by the Commission is uncertain. The words used "Possibly Cerro Pando," indicate a probability, nothing more, but no certainty. 136 1 1 . This point seems to be one of vital importance, if it is considered that the error as to its situation, as tin- Report of the Engineers certifies (p. 59), is greater in an east to west direction than in the north to south direction, for since the upper end of the southern frontier is not fixed, there would be left between the two countries a territory that might be of considerable extent, without any frontier line, nor any way to mark it. SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE COMMISSION. 1 . After all of these papers have been studied with due attention, it is not difficult to formulate a summary of them. 2. The Report arid the Maps of the Commission are distinguished by three essential characteristics: The first is what they appear to say ; The second is what they really mean ; and The third is what they ought to state and to mean. I. The first characteristic does not need any comments. But, as it has been pointed out, in accordance with all the proofs established, the submerged divide which cuds at PuntaMona MUST BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE MAPS; IT BEING A CREATION OF THE COM- MISSION AND NOT A FACT OF NATURE. II. 3. The result of the analysis demonstrates the second. Sufficient data are to be found in the documents to 137 establish the facts, as they have been established, and at the same time there are data enough to annul and destroy those arguments presented which are not in accordance with the actual facts. 4. The truth is always to be found if we go to the bottom of a question, and the contradictions that appear are explained by the same citations and data furnished. 5. The Commission could not have established the irregularities affecting its studies and the maps of the Sixaola and Telire divides any more honestly, nor could it have been less frank in its expression in considering the results of its examination of the divide between the two oceans, than it did in stating that it was left uncertain. 6. Incapacitated by those very irregularities, it would not proceed to formulate the answer to the questions pro- pounded by the two countries not for lack of data col- lected, but for want of a method for their analysis. 7. The Commission from its inception being led by the erroneously preconceived idea of a divide, at the very outset upset the methodical plan that would have con- duced to the establishment of the truth without any cir- cumlocution, in a clear- and definite way. The Sixaola divide," * * if such divide exists * * *, " always was and it will be one of the things perhaps least needed in the whole question, but this secondary and insignificant matter was considered by the Commission as the sole and only object of its investigations. This was the basic reason for all of its mistakes. 8. The effort to give credit to an unjustifiable hypothe- sis, laying down a priori a theory so foreign to the question 138 and trying to convert it into the object of the question itself, notwithstanding all the probability to the contrary, and despite the clearness and conciseness of the conditions and documents within the control of the Commission indicating that it should be an analytical investigation, devoid of any preconceived element, led it to deductions at variance with the real significance of the facts, but which it has been easy to demolish with the same trust- worthy data that appear in the papers themselves. III. 9. In the preceding paragraph the intimation was made for the first time of the reason for all the mistakes pointed out in the analysis, and that was the method adopted. 10. The Commission well knew the subject matter upon which it was to give an expert opinion and the causes that had given rise thereto. This appears from the data that it communicated and is shown by the first 35 pages in its report. Therein may be found the whole of the original Loubet Award, the Anderson-Porras Treaty, the questions propounded by the two countries and the plan under which the investigations were to be made. This plan held already in embryo the bad system adopted by the Com- mission, and indeed paragraph (a) of that plan said : l "A topographical survey from Punta Mona along the divide which is the north limit of the drainage area of the Tarire or Sixaola River to its junction with the Main Cordillera." 1 1 . This first clause of Plan V, which seems to give to it the character of a study or investigation, is correct, but not as the basis and admitted object, not as an accom- 'Report of the Commission, p. 12. 139 plished fact which it should be sought to demonstrate by the use of every sort of argument and even imaginary suppositions. 12. The Commission, in the discharge of its duties and having proved that Punta Mona is isolated by an enor- mous swamp, that separates it from the rest of the main land, ought to have stopped there so far as regards clause (a) of said report (p. 12), establishing the fact that no divide starts from Punta Mona, but that this locality is found upon a basin foreign to that of the Sixaola, and not even contiguous thereto, for that might give rise to doubt and still more, if any divide did exist there, that divide is not the one that limits upon the north the basin of the Sixaola. 13. On the contrary, however, the Commission, instead of all this, settled a priori as existing in fact what it ought to have studied and proved, whether it did exist or not; and hence the origin of all its irregularities and mistakes. 14. The Commission changed the subject of study into the basis of study. Clause (a) of Plan V, cited (p. 12, Report of the Commission) , was a subject proposed, not an admitted conclusion. As a subject or theory it was allow- able; but not as a conclusion or fact. This clause was headed: "The survey is to embrace * * *": the plan did not say, " * * * it is a fact that * * *." 15. It has, then, been purely a question of method, and if instead of taking the supposed divide for granted, the Commission had devoted its efforts to investigating the reality or the supposition of the fact stated, it would then have proceeded in compliance with its duties. 1 6. The course taken by our studies of this matter has brought out the continuous tendency that is noted in the documents, to try to establish such a divide, contrary to the 155911 140 real facts, even going so far as to employ an erroneous and false hypothesis, shown to be so by the very data furnished by the Commission itself. 17. If instead of considering as demonstrated what it should have taken up as something to be demonstrated, the Commission had proceeded in an analytical way to search for the truth, its methods and conclusions would have been altogether different. To get the topographyof the entire territory and from it deduce all the facts as they really and actually exist; that was the whole of its mission, in its double character, technical and expert; but from the very moment that it devoted itself, without regard to the means, arguments or the hypotheses used, to the effort to demonstrate one of the things presented solely for investigation, treating it as it were an accomplished fact, the Commission disregarded its duty and converted itself into an advocate, getting away from the question. 1 8. It is true that this question was proposed by Panama, but it was in conditional terms. Panama said: 1 "If any such branch, secondary divide or counterfort exists * * * ", a phraseology of which the Commission also made use when it stated "* * * if such divide exists * * *", 2 and saying this too after all the inves- tigations that had been made which should have developed whether it did or not exist. 19. The object of all this conditional part, like all the others of the questions submitted, was to have the Com- mission establish or reject it ; to either accept it in view of the data that might be secured in its favor, or deny its correctness after considering all the facts opposed to it; but contrary to what was expected, the Commission 'Report of the Commission, bottom of page 21. 2 Report of the Commission, p. 55 (^f 2). 141 assumed its existence as certain, without any premises authorizing it, although the party interested sumbitted it as doubtful. 20. The logic of these facts is so irresistible, that the arguments would be the same if the Commission instead of assuming as an accomplished fact one of the things pre- sented in a conditional form by Panama, had taken up one of those submitted by Costa Rica. For example, it would not have been admissible for the Commission to have per- sisted in an effort to demonstrate the nonexistence of the supposed spur, if in order to do so it became necessary to have recourse to pre-historic hypotheses in the field of geology or to those common to the present epoch. That was the manner in which it did proceed, in the first case under the theory of a submergence and in the second under the erroneous supposition of an inundation, in the attempt . to arrive at a demonstration that fell by its own weight and could not resist the slightest analysis. 21. The recourse to hypotheses is excluded in expert opinions. 22. As already stated, the greatest source of error was the method adopted. In order to secure all the requisite data the Commission was called upon to furnish, the logi- cal and impartial procedure would have been to once hav- ing shown the course of the Sixaola, to take cross sections at convenient intervals, perpendicular to the axis of the current of the river. No opinions would thus have been advanced nor hypotheses offered, either ancient or modern , but with the simple facts that were collected it would have been easy to answer the questions propounded and to state the real and actual facts regarding the region. Those cross sections could have been prolonged as far as the divides, if it were desired, without relying upon any data 142 or document offered by either one of the parties, which the Commission had the right to disregard and was even under obligation to put aside, as dangerously compromising its impartiality in the discharge of its duty. 23. It is proper to say here, at the conclusion of this third division, that the first reading of the opinion of the Commission was a source of real surprise. A frank and ingenuous statement of the facts had been expected: In a paper entitled "The Manzanillo Basin" and prepared on the 1 4th. of May of last year, after making the general statement, the writer said: "From the foregoing allegations, which will appear in all their fullness and detail in the work and reports of the Commission, the following facts are evident: 1 . That the place called Punta Mona is found to be situated upon a watershed directly upon the ocean, characterized by rivers of this second basin or water- shed, being absolutely independent of the basins of the Sixaola and the North River. 2. That the foregoing conclusion establishes with- out any question that no line that starts from Punta Mona can reach, in any direction it may be traced, any valley or any other place that directly or indi- rectly belongs to the River Sixaola, without first cutting and traversing this second watershed, en- tirely foreign to the watershed or basin of the Sixaola." . The paper ended as follows : "The investigations that are now being carried on by the surveying Commission will show the perfect distinction between the basin of the Sixaola and that of Manzanillo." 143 24. Assuredly, to these very conclusions we have in the end arrived, not, however, as had been expected, in the form of a clear and precise statement, but by means of a well founded criticism and by the force of the facts. UJIS MATAMOROS, Consulting Engineer of Costa Rica. Washington, D. C. September 19, 1913. INDEX OF PLATES. PLATE No. I. Map showing the territory personally examined by the Geologist. Chapter I, sects. 5, 10. PLATE No. II. A map based on those of the Commission of Engineers, showing the main points and lines discussed, and the line which closes on the north the valley of the Sixaola River. Chapter II, sects. 40, 55, 59, 65. Chapter III, sects. 20, 30. Chapter V, sect. 40. PLATE No. III. Map showing the only data taken by the Commision of Engineers at Punta Mona and surroundings. Chapter V, sect. 4. Chapter VI, sects. 12, 17. PLATE No. IV. Lines drawn by Dr. Abel Bravo and the Com- mission of Engineers. (Near Punta Mona). Chapter V, sects. 13, 34. PLATE No. V. Bravo's map. Chapter V, sects. 13, 14, 34. Chapter VIII, sect. 7. PLATE No. VI. Map showing the line suppressed by the Com- mission and the line substituted therefor. Chapter VI, sects. 20, 29. PLATE No. VII. Map showing two lines from Punta Mona to Chirrip6 Grande and to Monte Uren drawn respectively by the Commission of Engineers and Dr. Abel Bravo, Consulting Engineer of Panama. Chapter VIII, sect. 26. PLATE No. VIII. Profile of the traverse line that follows a permanent divide to the mouth of Middle Creek, together with the profile of the hypothetical line arbitrarily drawn across swamp A. Chapter VI, sect. 33. (144) INDEX. Chap. Sec. Andes, Cordillera V i Antillite, de Gabb IV Q. XIV Appendices to General Report II 2 No. 3 V 9 Approximate course V 23,32 IV 5, Q. IV and uncertain divide IX 2 Arbitrary course IV 5, Q. IV. and hypothetical line II 10, n, 15, 18, 21, 39 IV 8, Q. I Arbitrator, Honorable II 11,27, VII President of France II 9, n, Area explored by the Geologist I 3, 4, 10 Ashmead, Commissioner V n Award, French II 1 1, 42, 45, 50, 56 Basic, rocks . . .- IV 4, Q. II Basin, Sixaola IV 4, Q. IV II 27, 43, 46 Boyd, Senor Doctor VII 6, 7 Books, Field (Party A) V i Bravo, Doctor Abel V i, 2, 14, 16 VIII 9, 28, plate V VI 14 Buena Vista IV 4, 5, Q. I IV 6, Q. IV IV 3, Q. VIII (145) 140 Chap. Sec. Buena Vista II 57 VIII 28 Cana La Creek Ill 8 Cerro Doble IV 4, Q. X Cerro Pando, situation of IV i, Q. Ill IV 3, Q. V IV 2, Q. VI IX 5 Counterfort II IV 6, Q. IV Cordillera, Main IV 2, 3, Q. I IX 7 ^ IV 4,Q. IV IV 3, Q. II Cross Sections Ill i , 2 Cuabre IV 3, Q. X II 60, Chirripo Grande II 66 IV 3, Q. I IV i, Q. VI l< T-V IX 3. 4. 5 Divide hypothetical II 5 " Main IV 4, Q. IV which is the north limit of the area which drains into the Atlantic further south than Punta Mona II 15, 29, 38, 39 limiting upon the north the Sixaola basin IV 3, Q. I of the two oceans IX i uncertain II 64 Documents, summary of the IX Dome IX 5, 6, 9 IV i, Q. Ill Doubtful portion VIII 30 Durika. . . .Ill 28 147 Chap. Sec. Durika IV 6, Q. IV IX 5, 6 Equation of lines VI 13 Evanston II 5,8 Evaporation I 16 Explanation as to the tracing of the line that closes the Valley of Sixaola upon the north Ill i Facts, furnished by the reports I 21 " observed in situ II 4 established by the Geologist I 18,19 Field books of the Party A V i French Award II 11,38 Gabb, Wm IV i, Q. II Gadokan Creek I 12, 13, 14 II 13, 22, 23, 26, 29, 34 36. III 8 IV 7- Q- I V 24 Geological investigations, Punta Mona ex- cluded from I 4 Geologist, area explored by the I 10 limits of the territory personally explored by the I 2, 3, 4 hypothesis of the IV 4, Q. XIV opinion of the I u Grape Point, Punta Uva , IV 3, Q. VIII IV 3, Q. XII IV 10, Q. I Guabito II 25 Hodgdon, Commissioner II 12, 22, 28, 34 IV i, Q. X IV 2, Q. XIV 148 Chap. Sec. Hypothetical line II 10, u, 15, 18, 21,38. divide IV 6, Q. IV Hypothesis of the Geologist IV 4, Q. XIV Hypothesis V 26 Imaginary portion IV 5, Q. IV V 21 Limits of the territory explored by the Geologist I 2, 3, 4 Line north divide VIII 27 " which closes on the north the Valley of Sixaola Ill In plate No.II " drawn by Dr. Bravo and the Commis- sion V 13, see Plate No. IV Loubet Award V i, VII Low Saddles II 36 Main Cordillera II 56, 68 " points and line discussed II 40, 55, 59, 65, III 20, 30, see Plate II. Manzanillo II 12, 22, 34 IV 10, Q. I IV 3, Q. XII IV i, Q. XV. IV i, Q. XVII. IV i, Q. XVIII Meteorological observations I 20 Middle Creek II 7, 12, 25, 34 IV 7, Q. I IV i, Q. XVIII VI 5 149 Chap. Sec. Panama V 18 Estrella de (Newspaper) VII 6 " proofs VIII 13, 32 " map IX 8 Pando Cerro IX 5 Party A, chief of II 4, 7, 23, 31 Plates (see Index of Plates.) Peralta, N. M. de VIII n Phrases suppressed in the report II 3 Pico Blanco . . Ill 28 IV 2, 4, Q. V Piedra Grande Ill 14, 16, 24. IV 2, 4, Q. II Profiles VI 33, see plate No. VIII. Proofs, new VIII i Punta Mona I 4 II 5, 7, 10, 15, 17 20, 21, 25, 29, 31, 36, 38, 39 IV 8, 10, Q.I IV Q. IV, Q. VII IV 4, Q. XVIII IV 3, XII IV 3, VIII IV i, XVI IV 1,6, Q. XV. IV i, Q. XVII " V i Report of the Geologist I 1,17 II 31 Rocks, basic IV 4, Q. II Sanchez II 5, 56, 57 150 Chap. Sec. San Jose VIII 32 Shiroli II 62 Sirukicha II 71 IV 4, Q- I Sixaola, branch of the I 12 Sixaola II 12, 13, 20, 22, 23, 24, 34, 36, 39, 40, 4i 57, 6o> 61, 64 IV i, Q. II " Basin of the II 27, 43, 46 IV 4, Q. IV " Delta of the IV Q. XIII, * XVIII Divergence with the Gadokan I 14 " Lower I 12 " Parallelism with the Gadokan I 14 " River '. IV 2, Q. XII IV i, 3, Q. VIII IV 7, Q- I IV Q. II III 6, 8, 19 " Valley IV 2, 3 ,6,Q.VIII III 6,8,15,16,17 19, 26, 28 " waters IV 6, Q. XV Star of Panama (Estrella de) VII 6 Substitution of a line VI 20, see plate No. VI Summary of Documents IX Swamp A II 7, 18 151 Chap. Sec. Swamp A IV 3, Q. XII IV i, Q. XVII V 10 Talamanca Valley Ill 28. 29 Tables of traverse line to Middle Creek VI 30 Temperature VI 10 Tarire or Telire Rivers IV 2, 3, Q. I. " Upper Telire II 57, 67, 71 Tracing of the line that closes upon the north the Valley of Sixaola. II 52 III i Uncertain course IV 5, 6, Q. IV Uren Mountain VIII n, 12 Valley of the Sixaola II 12, 27, 37, 38, 43, 46, 50, 5i, 52, 56, 65 III 6, 8, 19, 26, 28 IV 2, 4, Q- X. Valleys, independent IV 1 1, Q. I Yorkin River IV 4, Q. II Watzi Creek II 60, 6 1 IV 6, Q. VIII Watershed IX i Zavala Landing Ill 22, 23 APPENDIX. APPENDIX I. PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEW NO. 125. 1 . It has been abundantly shown in this study that the theory of the North Divide is wholly foreign to the ques- tion now in litigation, for the French Arbitrator, as has been repeatedly stated, never referred in this connection to any divide whatever, but to a spur or counterfort which he supposed existed, closing on the north the valley of the Tarire, or Sixaola River, and which, starting from Punta Mona, ended in the chain that separated the waters of the two oceans. 2. It has also been established that if the Commission undertook the location of that divide, they should have treated it as a mere detail or as information for use in illustrating their study, but under no circumstances as the principal subject of their inquiry; much less should the Commission have adopted it as a basis for its conclusions, which apparently is what was done. 3. Because, even in the event that that divide as shown on the maps and reports had been topographically correct, such conclusions would still have been without value on account of the admitted fact that no spur or counterfort whatever exists which starts from Punta Mona and continues uninterruptedly to a terminal in the cordillera dividing the waters of the two oceans and which, at the same time, closes on the north the valley of the Talire and Sixaola rivers. 4. This indisputable proposition, which is in itself alone enough to upset the conclusions of the French Award, remains in full force and vigor, based as it is upon the in- controvertible facts and arguments presented in the maps and reports of the Commission and detailed at great length in the present report. (iii) IV 5. Nevertheless, the positive establishment of this truth is so important to a just determination of the present liti- gation that no discussion tending in any manner to throw more light on the point can be looked upon as a work of supererogation. 6. For the determination of a real and material fact science offers many resources and none more simple, none more exact and eloquent than photography. By means of this process the real and material facts as they exist impose themselves upon the human mind before all other considerations ; they are made to stand forth by the aid of this art in defiance of and in the face of the craftiest arguments of the logician, of the most exact maps of which the hand of man is capable subject as they are to imper- fection and error and even in the face of contradiction of mathematical deductions. 7. Precisely of this character is the final evidence ad- duced as to the indisputable proposition above mentioned. 8. In fact, photographic view No. 125, which the Com- mission presents in its report (Vol. 4, Appendix No. 4) suffices in itself to give full light to the truth and could in strict justice be held to render negligible any contradictory contentions on this point. 9. It is also true that, as in the case of the reports of the engineers in the field corps, the Commission did not give to this document the most important of all that have been presented the merit to which it is entitled; that body contented itself with tracing between stations D6i6 and Cerro Doble, which appear in the said photo- graph, the line of the North Divide, which is drawn on the maps as a continuous ridge between those stations, leaving out the other points shown in the photograph, which also form part of the Divide. s 1 10 h II II I) II I! (I II \l i '5 00 o k 10. The filling in of this omission 's the sob labor that remains to be preformed in this connection, and this Chapter will undertake the task in the fewest possible words. 11. According to the Commission 1 the photographic camera was located at some 410 meters towards the north of Station A248o on the Divide, and at the respective azimuths of 202, 232 and 252 were taken the views num- bered 1 20, 121 and 122, which together compose the view numbered 125 A, and later known as No. 125, and finally the view which is the subject of this Chapter, enlarged for greater clearness. 12. In this view it not only appears that the Commis- sion marks D6i6 and Cerro Doble as forming the North Divide, but that from the same point are also taken peaks 66A, 65 A, 58A, 43 A, 54A, and 68A which in the same way pertain to the Commission's Divide, as may be seen on the maps. 13. These stations occupy the following positions on the maps of the Commission: Longitude W. Location. Station. of Greenwich. TV. Latitude. North Divide. . . . 66A 83 20' oo" 9 40' oo" North Divide. . . . 6 5 A 8 3 20 ; 4 " 9 39' 50" North Divide. . . . 5 8A 8 3 20' I 5 " 9 39' 32" North Divide. . . 43A 83 2 3 ' 50" 9 36' 40" North Divide. . . 54A 8 3 20' 12" 9 39' 32" North Divide. . . . 68A 8 3 21 ' 4 0" 9 37' 30" North Divide. . . . D6i6 83 16' 30" 9 40' 5 o" Cerro North Divid . . . . Doble 83 io' 20" 9 38' 5 o" 'Report of the Commission, Vol. 4, Appendix No. 4, page 13. VI 14. These points having been thus fixed, it is enough to glance at the photograph in order to be convinced : FIRST. That the stations 66A, 65 A and 58A are found to be in the same file, or ridge, B. SECOND. That in order to continue the Divide from 58A on the ridge B to station 43A on the ridge F, it has been necessary to cut across the ridges C, D, E, with their corresponding deep depressions, to reach the ridge F whereon is located point 43A. THIRD. That in order to go from 43A to point 54A in the Divide, it has been necessary to descend ridge F and ascend ridge G. FOURTH. That from ridge G, whereon is located station 54A, in order to reach ridge J, whereon is located station 68A, it has been necessary to cross ridges F, H, I, and one side of J. FIFTH. That from ridge J, station 68 A, it is necessary to cross ridges K, L and M in order to reach station D6i6, which the Commission connects directly with Cerro Doble. 15. From these five propositions apparent from a simple glance the irresistible conclusion results that NO CONTINUOUS SPUR OR COUNTERFORT OR CORDILLERA WHATSOEVER EXISTS THAT CLOSES ON THE NORTH THE VALLEY OF THE Vll SIXAOLA AND TEURE RIVERS, but that, on the contrary, the supposititious Divide is itself formed by a group of ridges alternating with deep ravines that place beyond the possibility of doubt the fact that there is no regular and continuous spur or cordillera. 1 6. To make perfectly clear these facts shown in photographic view No. 125, attention is called to the accompanying diagram . On it the ridges are designated with the same letters that are used on the photograph, and the dotted line indicates the course of the Divide. Ridge A is the most distant. Then follows ridge B, whereon are located stations 66A, 65 A and 58A; but from this point it is necessary to cross the ridge C, D, E in order to reach 43 A on ridge F ; from that point on F, 54A ridge G is reached, and then, this time recrossing F, and afterwards H and I, ridge J is reached, whereon is located station 68A; but from this point, in order to reach D6i6, it is necessary to cut across ridges K, L and M. 1 17. The Commission assumes that D6i6 connects with Cerro Doble along the ridge, but if the photograph is examined, or a glance taken at the above diagram, it will be seen that stations D6i6 and Cerro Doble are not in the same chain contrary to the indication of the maps. The merest glance at the photograph shows that station D6i6 is on ridge M, which lies at a considerable distance from ridge N, whereon is located the Cerro Doble station. It will be seen that ridge N loses itself exactly in the direction of the station 69 A between ridges K and M, ridges K and N being nearer the camera than ridge M. The error in the maps is therefore incontrovertibly established by this photograph. l lt may be possible that ridges E and H, D and I, C and J, be respectively the same ridge, but this does not change the argument. Vlll 1 8. It is impossible to conceive a simpler and more evident demonstration of the fundamental principle which has been established, to-wit, the non-existence of a counter- fort or cordillera on the site fixed by the Survey Com- mission on its maps as the divide north of the Sixaola and Telire Rivers. LUIS MATAMOROS, Consulting Engineer of the Government of Costa Rica. LIBRARY tamped below. 001 085 180 6 F 15U9 B71.il; Un