IF73 A A — ===== o A = CO == (- — == J3 — 5 — ' ' ' — 1 = > ^^— r — 8 = r — =^= CD ^^— -n 9 = 4 = ' ^ ^^= (D = ^^^ I — : — t ^^= -< 2 ■■ t' 1 i' j;% V V ;iTY OF LOS ANGELES wm. i-''ir * "'. Before the CENTRAL AMERICAN COURT OF JUSTICE The Republic of El Salvador Against The Republic of Nicaragua COMPLAINT OF THE REPUBLIC OF EL SALVAIX)R WITH APPENDICES 1916 Translation WASHINGTON PRESS OP GIBSON BROS., INC. 1917 JX S I F7-^ IN THE Central American Court of Justice The Republic of Ki, Salvador vs. The Republic of Nicaragua COMPLAINT OF THE REPUBLIC OF EL SALVADOR. The Honorable, The Central American Court of Justice : In the name and on behalf of the Government of El Salvador, the Salvadorean Foreign Office, under the authority of the convention that gave legal existence to this honorable Court, and with the high consideration which is its due, presents this its complaint against the Government of Nicaragua, in the form and for the purposes hereinafter set forth. On the 5th of August, 19 14, the Government of Nicara- gua, through the medium of its diplomatic representative in the United States, Don Emiliano Chamorro, joined with the Honorable WilHam Jennings Bryan, then Secretary of State, in signing a treaty whereby, in addi- tion to conveying to the United States certain rights for Note. — Translated by Harry W. Van Dyke, of the Washington, D. C, bar. (i) 15920 liKi « • • • • the construction of an interoceanic canal, Nicaragua ceded to the North American RepubHc, for a term of ninety- nine years, renewable at its expiration for the same period, a part of the Gulf of Fonseca for the purpose of establishing a naval base. The text of the said treaty — which has been duly ratified by the United States Senate and the legislative bodies of Nicaragua — together with the amendments thereof made by the Senate of the first-named republic, is set forth in Appendices H and J. The stipulations contained in that treaty are, in the opinion of the Government of El Salvador, extremely prejudicial to the highest interests of the Salvadorean nation, in that they place in danger its integrity and security, violate its undeniable rights of co-ownership in the Gulf of Fonseca and menace its most legitimate aspirations for the future as a Central American nation. Indeed, of such magnitude and gravity is that danger, that violation and that menace to which the treaty exposes those vital interests, rights and aspirations of the republic, that the Government of El Salvador is com- pelled to present, and, through the medium of this Foreign Office, does hereby present, this complaint against the Government of Nicaragua, secure in the conviction that justice is on its side and that its complaint is founded upon bases legally sound and clear. • * • I. THE TREATY IS AN OFFICIAL ACT OF THE GOVERN- MENT OF NICARAGUA THAT PLACES IN DANGER THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF EL SALVADOR. It must be patent to every one that the establishment, by a powerful State, of a naval base in the immediate vicinity of the Republic of El Salvador would constitute a serious menace — not merely imaginary, but real and apparent — to the freedom of life and the autonomy of that republic. And that positive menace would exist, not solely by reason of the influence that the United States, as an essential to the adequate development of the ends determined upon for the efficiency and security of the proposed naval base, would naturally need to exercise and enjoy at all times in connection with incidents of the highest importance in the national life of the small neigh- boring States, but would be also, and especially, vital because in the future, in any armed conflict that might arise between the United States and one or more military powers, the territories bounded by the Gulf of Fonseca would be converted, to an extent incalculable in view of the offensive power and range of modern armaments, into belligerent camps wherein would be decided the fate of the proposed naval establishment — a decision that would inevitably involve the sacrifice of the independence and sovereignty of the weaker Central American States, as has been the case with the smaller nations in the present European struggle under conditions more or less similar. It would seem impossible that the Government of Nicaragua could have taken into account and carefully considered and weighed the facts and possibilities above suggested ; on no other theory can be explained its defense of its action in concluding the Bryan-Chamorro treaty — a defense that is scarcely sustained by the wholly inad- missable argument that in contracting Nicaragua confined herself within the exclusive territorial jurisdiction that belonged to her as a State, and was not "injuring in the slightest degree the legitimate rights and interests of El Salvador or those of any other Central American Repub- lics." (Appendix M.) In support of its contentions in this regard, this Foreign Office will proceed, in the light of public internal law and international law, to analyse that defense and thereby demonstrate its utter lack of merit from legal and scientific standpoints. In the first place, this Department maintains that the Nicaraguan Government, in concluding the Bryan- Chamorro treaty, failed to respect one of the most con- spicuously legitimate rights of a nation, which is that no other nation may in any manner place in danger its se- curity, much less the very existence of its independent life; and Complainant repeats that the fears entertained by the Government of El Salvador in this connection are very far from being unfounded. For reasons much less clear and positive alarm has been manifested on various occasions by governments of power- ful States that could well rely on their material forces for the preservation of their political existence whenever menaced. In the Agadir case, Germany, in 191 1, sought to take possession of that port on the coast of Morocco for the establishment of a naval base, and France and England raised their voices in protest, and, when Germany decHned to evacuate, made of the situation a casus belli; whereupon the latter was forced to enter into an adjustment that resulted in the withdrawal, without dishonor, of her marine forces which had been landed on that coast. On that occasion France maintained that Germany's act constituted a menace to her national security in respect to her colonies in North Africa; and England, in her turn, made it clear that she was in perfect accord with the French Government in its understanding of the situation. She held that the establishment of a German military base at a strategical point such as Agadir, lying as it does on England's line of communication with her colonies in Southern Africa and being so close to the course of her ships passing through the Strait of Gibraltar en route to Oriental India, could not but constitute also a menace to the security of her commercial and political interests in the Orient. More in point, however, is the case of the United States herself in the matter of Magdalena Bay. Here the North American Government made positive objection to the transfer to a Japanese commercial company, by certain United States citizens, of land along the shores of that bay which had been ceded to them by the Mexican Govern- ment. The matter reached the Senate and gave rise to some apprehension in that body, with the result that the so-called Lodge Resolution was adopted. In that resolu- tion the Senate declared: "That when any harbor or other place in the American continent is so situated that the occupation thereof for naval or military purposes might threaten the communications or the safety of the United States, the Government of the United States could not see without grave concern the possession of such harbor or other place by any corporation or associa- tion which has such a relation to another Govern- ment not American as to give that Government practical power of control for national purposes. The American Journal of International Law (Vol. VI, No. 4, for October, 1912, 938), referring in its "Editorial Comment" to the Lodge Resolution, states: "It is understood that in secret session for the last word but one 'national' was substituted for 'naval or military. ' " And the Editor continues : "A Senate resolution is an expression of its opinion. This resolution was intended to be an announcement of national policy to foreign Powers. It was intro- duced after information had been sought from the President on the subject. This went to show that the conduct of other Powers in regard to those lands had been entirely correct. In the discussion which led up to and which followed the introduction of this resolution it appeared that its mover chose not to regard it as an extension of the Monroe Doctrine, but as based upon the law or right of self-defense which is fundamental, the Agadir incident being a precedent. But in Africa, the German action was official, Governmental, whereas in Magdalena Bay, as Senator Rayner had brought out in May, it was a question of private commercial use only. Has the United States a right to assume that private com- mercial use of such a harbor as this, could be so easily converted into Government use as to warrant its prohibition before any sign whatever of abuse or of danger was visible? That the Senate so believes is clear, for it passed the Lodge Resolution. That the legal mind shares this view is not so clear. Let us state it in general terms. On the ground of self- defense a State may forbid its neighbor to sell lands of strategic value to the private subject of a third Power, there being no act, but mere suspicion, to warrant the fear that the third Power will make sinister use of its subject's property. What becomes of the sovereign right of the neighbor to dispose of its lands for commercial development? If the principle of self-defense is unduly stretched, will it not break down and become ridiculous? Is an attitude of constant suspicion consistent with inter- national good will? These are doubts which fairly arise from the Lodge Resolution." The Lodge Resolution is susceptible of being mis- leading under the test of legal opinion, because the principle maintained therein does not refer to official acts or measures of government; nevertheless, it shows how far in the opinion of the North American Senate, a nation, even though powerful, may give way to its fears and display its zeal for national security, and for this reason the Foreign Office cites the Magdalena Bay case. Fur- thermore, the Senate's resolution puts in strong relief the fact that the opinion of that high legislative body of the United States — the nation with which the Bryan- Chamorro treaty was concluded — is wholly in conformity with El Salvador's contentions against that treaty, however much that same high body, in its amendments to the said convention adopted at the time of its ratifica- tion, showed that it did not have it in mind to affect any existing right in either of the States of Costa Rica, El Salvador, or Honduras, which, however, it was recog- nized, had protested /or /^ar oj the contrary. This declara- tion of the United States Senate is in no way consonant with the spirit of the Lodge Resolution and the trend of opinion which, but a few years before, controlled that body in adopting the Lodge Resolution. Consequently the reasoning on which the Government of Nicaragua relies in support of the legitimacy of its action in concluding the Bryan-Chamorro treaty, when it says that it contracted "without injuring in the slightest degree the legitimate rights and interests of El Salvador or those of any other Central American republics," is in manifest contradiction of the positions taken by other nations, for instance, the North American nation, through the medium of its national legislature; and it stands to reason that the fears entertained by the Government of El Salvador are of greater moment than were those of England and France in the Agadir case, and are of a character more definite and real than the fears that agi- tated the United States in the Magdalena Bay and other analogous cases contemplated by the Lodge Resolution. II. THE BRYAN=CHAMORRO TREATY IGNORES AND VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP POS- SESSED BY EL SALVADOR IN THE GULF OF FONSECA. From the sixteenth century, when this gulf was dis- covered by the Spaniards who conquered Central America and who named it the Gulf of Fonseca in honor of the President of the Council of the Indies, in whose charge was reposed the government of these territories as repre- sentative of the Crown of Castile, it belonged throughout the entire period of the Spanish dominion to the mother country, whose rights of exclusive ownership in its waters were never placed in doubt. On the emancipation of Central America, that dominion passed into the patri- mony of the Federal Republic formed by the five Central American States. The exclusiveness of Spain's ownership in those waters during the Spanish domination, and the exclusiveness of the ownership of the Central American States confederated into a republic after their emancipation, as well as the exclusiveness, subsequently, of that same ownership as exercised by the three States of El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua — which States, by reason of their geo- graphical situation, almost surrounded those waters — are evidenced by the circumstance that their use for fishing and other analogous purposes has never been exercised, or even attempted to be exercised, by other nations. The Government of Nicaragua maintains that the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca are not common to the three States, but, they having for many years belonged historically to a single political entity, which was first the Spanish Government in Central America, and after- wards the Federal Republic of Central America, the conclusive truth results that, on the dissolution of the Federation wdthout effecting the dehmitation of the three riparian States, in relation to their sovereignty in the waters of the Gulf, those three States have continued to enjoy ownership in common therein. And it matters not that Honduras and Nicaragua, in consequence of the Convention for the Demarcation of Limits, entered into on the 7th of October, 1894, fixed, in 1900, a divisionary line between those States in the waters of the Gulf, because that action was brought about without the intervention of El Salvador, and such intervention was indispensable to its validity and practical effectiveness, since it related to property common, not alone to Honduras and Nica- ragua, but to the former sovereign State also. That antecedent, then, in no wise affects the root of the question. On the contrary, it shows, as did the attempt that was made with the same object in view by El Salvador and Honduras, in 1884 — without consummation, however — that the idea which has always prevailed among all three of the riparian States is that their ownership over the waters of the Gulf of fonseca is an undivided ownership. The Foreign Office of Nicaragua, in the annual report of the Ministry of Foreign Relations to the National lO Congress for the year 19 14, after explaining that a Hne separating the waters of the Gulf had been fixed upon by Honduras and Nicaragua by virtue of the convention above cited, makes the following statement: "There exists, then, no community between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Gulf of Fonseca, and El Salvador being neither a neighbor nor a co-boundary State with us, and the Republic of Honduras lying in between, the community claimed with Nicaragua and alleged in the Salvadorean pro- test does not and cannot exist. "Furthermore, the status of common ownership in and the indivisibleness of the waters of a bay is very different from that of an inheritance, or an estate in lands, for, whereas, with respect to the former, there exists the general principle that the parts adjacent to their coasts belong to the several nations — so that, on the laying out of the terrestrial boundary line, demarcation of the maritime waters is understood — there is no similar principle with respect to landed properties, since at one point or another the coparceners thereof stand to receive what belongs to them indifferently, and even in the case where those landed properties are contiguous, the civil law provides that the portion to be adjudicated to each coparcener shall be that part of the common prop- erty which is contiguous to his own land. "One nation cannot possess the right to a greater portion of the waters of a bay possessed in common with others than that shown to belong to it by the extension of its respective coasts; and the Republic of El Salvador, being situated at the extreme North- west of the Bay of Fonseca, and that of Nicaragua in . the extreme Southeast, the two being separated by Honduras, the maritime ownership of the first-named Republic could not possibly extend one inch farther than the point fixed by the limit of its coasts which separates it from the Honduran territory." (Appen- dix M.) II The paragraphs copied from the report referred to contain the opinion of the Nicaraguan Foreign Office. That opinion presupposes that the sovereign ownership and jurisdiction of El Salvador does not extend over all the waters of the Gulf far enough to meet and be con- founded with the ownership and jurisdiction pertaining to the sovereignties of Honduras and Nicaragua. More- over, the report is also based on the demarcation effected in 1900 by the two last named republics whereby a line separating those waters was established by them. To the first proposition this Foreign Office will address itself at once in order to demonstrate that the views of the Nicaraguan Foreign Office on that point do not con- form with the facts as they are presented in the Hght of the principles of international law. Respecting the second proposition, it repeats that the line of demarcation referred to by the Nicaraguan Minister can not produce in any way the effect ascribed to it by him^ — that is, to restrict the rights of co-sovereignty and co-ownership that El Salvador has always possessed in the Gulf of Fonseca from the dissolution of the Central American Federation down to the present, because she was not a party to the convention involved, nor did she intervene in any other manner in the operations and acts that culminated in the establishment of that line. The Gulf of Fonseca, by reason of the form in which, as heretofore stated, ownership over its waters has been exercised since the sixteenth century, belongs, as main- tained by the Government of El Salvador in its protests addressed to the Department of State of the United States, to the category of so-called "historic bays" as do Chesapeake and Delaware Bays on the coast of the great RepubHc of the North, and the Bays of Conception, Chaleurs and Miramichi in the Dominion of Canada. 12 This Foreign Office refers, in its entirety, to what it laid before the Department of State of the United States in demonstration of the fact that the Gulf of Fonseca is a bay that must be considered as under the exclusive owner- ship of the proprietary riparian States. The doctrines it has maintained in this regard and in relation to other points connected with the case presented in this complaint and set forth in the respective documents (Appendices A, C, Ch, E, I and K) from the time of the conclusion by the Governments of the United States and Nicaragua of the Chamorro-Weitzel treaty on the 9th of February, 1913 — for which, subsequently, the Bryan- Chamorro treaty was substituted — are clear doctrines, based upon the admitted principles of international law. But one illustration need be pointed out at this time: The circumstance that the shores of the Gulf are owned by three States — El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua— and not by a single State, is in no way inconsistent, as might be believed, with the application to the Gulf of Fonseca of the principle governing territorial bays. Those three States, proprietors of the coasts that surround the Gulf, are not States which, throughout the course of their history, have always been independent one of another; on the contrary, they are States which formerly constituted parts of a single international political entity and which, in their constitutions, still recognize them- selves as forming parts disintegrated from that larger entity. The case presented by them in this particular, cannot be likened, for example, to that of the Gulf of Bothnia in the Baltic Sea or to that of the Black Sea. In those and in all analogous cases — which have given occasion for the opinion of certain law writers that a bay, before it can be held to be closed water, must meet the condition, among others, that its coasts belong to a single 13 nation — the fact must not be forgotten or ignored that that opinion is founded on the proposition that the States which owned the coasts were States that never formed a single international political entity. Russia and Sweden, in the first example, never constituted a single nation; nor, in the second, have Russia and Turkey, which enclose the Black Sea, ever been States pohtically united in this sense — Bulgaria and Rumania, independent States to-day, formed an integral part of Turkey three- quarters of a century ago. This undoubtedly is the reason at the root of the theory of those authors. In fact the attempt to convert the extensions of water embraced between the coasts of nations that have always been independent of each other, into closed bays would have been wholly lacking in philo- sophical fundament. This is not true when those nations are but disintegrated parts of a prior international political entity, as is the case with El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, whose exclusive dominion, derived from the dominion exercised over the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca by that larger international political entity, continues to be common among the States into which the parent State was broken up. The Gulf of Fonseca, apart from the character of an historic bay with which it is fully clothed, presents, besides, the particular condition that its entrance, across the summits of the islands of Meanguera and Meanguerita on the line traced from Chiquirin Point on the mainland of El Salvador, to Rosario Point in the northeast region of the peninsula that forms the Nicaraguan promontory of Cosigiiina, is not of an extent greater than that prescribed by international law as essential to considering a bay as "territorial" or "closed." That distance is generally fixed by the law writers at ten miles, although some have extended it to twelve 14 miles, maintaining that when the so-called inter fauces terrcc line does not exceed ten or twelve miles, the bay must be held to be territorial or closed. The geographical situation of the Salvadorean islands in the Gulf, and the legal fact that they are separated from each other and from the island nearest the mainland, and the latter from Chiquirin Point, by narrow straits whose lower depths are sown with sand banks that in some instances prevent navigation by vessels of large draft, and, in others, permit navigation only through channels of narrow width that have been established by soundings, are elements sufhcient under international law to sustain conclusively that the chain formed by those islands constitutes a prolongation of the national territory into the Gulf; so that the Salvadorean mainland reaches out along the line above indicated as far as Meanguerita Island and narrows the entrance to the Gulf at that height, in the direction of Rosario Point on the Nicaraguan coast, to a width of less than ten miles, counting such miles at sixty to a degree of latitude. This Foreign Office claims that that width is less than ten miles because the measurement is verified by the scale on the best-known maps of El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Those maps show that the width of the Gulf's mouth proper is at most thirty-five kilometers, which, at one kilometer to 0.539 (five hundred and thirty-nine thousandths) of a nautical mile, equalling one-sixtieth of a degree of latitude, are equivalent to eighteen miles and eight hundred and sixty-five thousandths (18.865) of a mile (Lloyd's Calendar for 1916, page 213, on "Nautical Measures"); that the width of the entrance between Meanguerita Island and Rosario Point at its widest is only a little less than half that distance, that is, nine miles and four hundred and thirty-two thousandths (9.432) 15 of a mile; that the latter width is cut by the sand banks or Farallones that form a prolongation of Nicaraguan territory and in reality reduce that entrance to a much smaller number of miles. The foregoing claim is further- more in accord with the technical report contained in Appendices O and P. Bynkerschoek, who stated the general maxim imperium terrcB finiri ubi finitur armorum vis in his treatise, Diser- tatione de Dominio Maris, says : "I am of the opinion that the possession of an adjacent sea should extend as far as that sea can be considered subject to the land ; certain it is that only up to that point can it be always well defended, even though navigation thereon may not be continuous, and thus far the possession contemplated by the law is protected, because there can be no doubt that he who possesses a thing in such manner that no one else may possess it contrarily to his will, possesses it continuously. Wherefore we do not concede dominion over an adjacent sea more extensive than can be exercised from the land. * * * Thus, then, it seems to us clearly more just that the domin- ion of the land (over the sea) should extend as far as projectiles may reach, since up to that point it not only appears that we dominate but that we possess. Besides, I am speaking, in this epoch in which we use these machines; in other epochs it could be said generally: that the dominion of the land (over the sea) is limited to the range of arms, because that range, as we have said, protects posses- sion." The law writers and jurisconsults have applied the Bynkerschoek rule in fixing the limit of the sovereignty of nations over the sea. In order to determine whether the waters of a bay are territorial or not, they came to estabUsh as a standard the possibiUty or impossibility i6 of defending the entrance to those waters, and in that manner have arrived at the estabUshment of the maximum extent of the Hne inter jauces terrae which has been fixed by some at ten miles and by others at as many as twelve miles. The celebrated Swiss jurisconsult, Emer de Vattel {Le Droit des Gens ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, 1775, vol. I, p. 142), wrote in 1758 as follows: "All that we have said of that part of the sea adjacent to the coast may be applied, and with greater reason, to passes, bays, and straits, for they are more susceptible of occupation and of more importance to the security of the country. But I refer to the bays and straits of small extent and not to those vast expanses of sea to which those names are sometimes given, as is the case with Hudson Bay and the Strait of Magellan, over which dominion, and much less right of property, cannot be extended. The bay whose extrance can he defended is suscep- tible oj possession and can be subjected to the laws of the sovereign country; and it is important that this should be so, since a country could be attacked more easily from those places than on an open coast exposed to the winds and to the impetuosity of the waves." Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain and Holland, on the 6th of March, 1822, signed a con- vention for the regulation of fishing in the North Sea outside of territorial waters. In Article 2 of that con- vention the exclusive right in the fishermen of each nation, to fish within a radius of three miles, measured from their beach at low water, is recognized. The same article goes on to say: "For the bays the radius of three miles should be measured from a straight line drawn across the bay at the points nearest its entrance and in the first part at which the opening does not exceed ten miles.'' 17 The doctrine which may be called "the doctrine of promontories" was established as the proper criterion in the convention concluded between France and Great Britain on the 2nd of August, 1839, wherein it was stipulated : "That the distance of three miles established as the limit for the exercise of exclusive fishing rights on the coasts of the two States shall, in the case of bays whose mouths do not exceed the width of ten miles, be measured from a straight line drawn from promontory to promontory." Sir Robert Phillimore, one of the most distinguished of the English international law writers of the middle of the nineteenth century, Privy Counsellor of England, referring to the limits of territorial waters, says in his Commentaries upon International Law, ist edition (1854), Vol. I, page 179: "Various claims have been made, and various opinions pronounced, at different epochs of history, as to the extent to which territorial property and jurisdiction may be extended. But the rule of law may be now considered as fairly established : namely, that this absolute property and jurisdiction does not extend, unless by the specific provisions of a Treaty or an unquestioned usage, beyond a marine league (being three miles), or the distance of a cannon-shot from the shore at low tide. * * * 'In the sea, out of the reach of cannon-shot' (says Lord Stowell), 'universal use is presumed.' This is the limit fixed to absolute property and jurisdiction; but the rights of independence and self-preservation in time of peace, justify a nation in preventing her revenue laws from being evaded by foreigners beyond this exact limit; and both Great Britain and the United States of North America have provided against frauds being practised on their revenues, by prohibiting foreign i8 goods to be transhipped within the distance of four leagues of the coast, and exercising a jurisdiction for this purpose in time of peace; and in time of war by preventing, within a similar distance, the hovering of foreign belligerent ships so near the neutral seas as to menace and alarm vessels homeward or outward bound." The Institute of International Law, whose members figure among the greatest statesmen of the nations of the world, at its session held in Paris in March, 1894, adopted the following resolutions relating to territorial seas: "Art. 2. The territorial sea extends six marine miles (sixty to a degree of latitude) from low water mark along the entire coasts. "Art. 3. For bays, the territorial sea follows the sinuosities of the coast, except that it is measured from a straight line drawn across the bay in the part nearest the entrance toward the sea where the distance between the two shores of the bay is twelve marine miles, unless a continuous and established usage shall have established a greater width." {Annuaire de VInstitut de Droit International, Vol. XIII, p. 329, Paris, March, 1894.) The articles above quoted were adopted by the Institute by a large majority. M. Edouard Rolin, of Brussels, in proposing the adoption of the twelve miles instead of ten, explained that ' ' they were the double of the six miles that were fixed upon for the territorial sea and were adaptable for that reason in a form more advantageous to the logical development of the project." The doctrine maintained by El Salvador in relation to the Gulf of Fonseca was enunciated and recognized by Great Britain and the United States in the arbitral award 19 rendered at the Hague on the 7th of September, 19 10, on the fisheries question. The award held: "It has been further contended by the United States that the renunciation appHes only to bays, six miles or less in width 'inter fauces terrcB,' those bays only being territorial bays because the three mile rule is, as shown by this treaty, a principle of international law applicable to coasts and should be strictly and systematically applied to bays. "But the tribunal is unable to agree with this contention : " (a) Because admittedly the geographical character of a bay contains conditions which concern the inter- ests of the territorial sovereign to a more intimate and important extent than do those connected with the open coast. Thus conditions of national and territorial integrity, of defense, of commerce and of industry are all vitally concerned with the control of the bays penetrating the national coast line." In consonance with the Bynkerschoek principle relating to territorial ownership or dominion over the adjacent sea to the extent of the range of cannon, many years ago El Salvador made solemn declaration that the territorial sea of the Republic on the coast of the Maritime Depart- ment of La Union comprised the Bay of Conchagua, that part of the Gulf of Fonseca in which are situated the Salvadorean islands, and the territorial sea as far as the parallel of the eastern mouth of the San Miguel River. (Art. 13, No. I, of the Law of Navigation and Marine. Appendix N.) Consequently, the Gulf of Fonseca is enclosed, in its entirety, on that side, because what is called dominium, and especially the imperium, extend, in accordance with international law, as far as twelve miles, and the distance between Meanguerita and Rosario Point on the Cosigiiina promontory, as has been shown, is not even ten miles. 20 El Salvador may and does exercise the powers of imperium, that is, the police power for purposes connected with the security of the country and the fiscal laws, as far as the immediate vicinity of the Nicaraguan littoral in the Gulf. From which it results that, as Nicaragua may exercise equal powers over the same expanse of waters and for the same purposes, the waters comprised between the Salvadorean islands and the Nicaraguan mainland are under all criteria waters common to the two States, and neither can dispose of them exclusively in order to convey to a foreign nation a naval base or for any other purpose outside the limits of what is known as innocent use, without the express consent of the co-sovereign or co-owner. The well-known American publicist, Don Andres Bello, says: "Sovereignty, insofar as it relates to things, is called dominio (ownership) and, insofar as it gives laws and orders to persons, is properly called imperio (jurisdiction) . The functions of the two are repeatedly confused and a given act may pertain at one time to the dominio and at another to the imperio, accord- ingly as it may be considered as relating to persons or to things. However, there are subjects of domestic administration as to which the exercise of imperio, and consequently of jurisdiction, outside the limits oj the territory, is tolerated." The author cites as his authority the British statute of George II, which prohibits the transshipment of foreign merchandise beyond a distance of less than four leagues (i2 miles) from the coast without paying duties; also an act of the North American Congress of the same tenor, dated the 2d of March, 1799, which contains the identical prohibition. He makes mention of the positive and 21 significant words of the great judge, Sir William Scott, who declared in the case of "The Louis" that: ' ' The maritime states have attributed to themselves the right of visit and registration, in time of peace, within certain portions of the adjacent sea, which, by the courtesy of nations, have been regarded as parts of the dominions of those states, for various domestic purposes, and above all, in connection with fiscal and defensive laws more immediately dealing with their health and well-being. Such are our laws for maritime security, which subject foreign vessels to this examination at moderate distances from the coasts." This doctrine has been acclaimed in many decisions of the United States Supreme Court as being "in con- formity with the laws and usages of nations" and France has exercised the fiscal police power through the medium of her revenue cutters as far out as four leagues; that is, twelve miles. It is, therefore, incontrovertible that nations may exercise, for fiscal and defensive purposes, the powers of imperium to the distance indicated, which clearly implies that the belt of jurisdictional waters of El Salvador, Hon- duras, and Nicaragua within the Gulf of Fonseca — con- trary to the claims of the Nicaraguan Foreign Office in the Report on Foreign Relations, above cited — are inter- mingled and confused, and consequently those juris- dictional waters wherein those states may exercise their rights of defense, national security, and police, are waters in which they may exercise their rights as co-sovereigns and co-owners, because the intermingling or confusion of waters pertaining to two or more states in gulfs, bays, straits or rivers has always been called co-ownership or community in waters, according to the teaching of the international law writers, especially Fiore, Bluntschli, 22 Perels, and Heffter. It may be added that that doctrine of co-proprietorship, joint-ownership, or co-sovereignty, had ah-eady been taught by Hugo Grotius, the father of international law, in his masterful treatise De Jure Belli ac Pads, Book II, Chapters 3,7, and 8. Respecting the distances of ten and twelve miles to which imperium (jurisdiction) over the adjacent or territorial sea should extend, not only have England, the United States, France, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, by their laws established that jurisdictional zone of marginal waters, but also Chile in Article 593 of her Civil Code, and Argentina in No. i of Article 2340 of her Civil Code. The distinguished North American jurist, Chancellor Kent, speaking in his well-known Commentaries on American Law of the obligations contracted by States under international treaties and agreements, rests upon the following principle which has been accepted without controversy as a doctrine of international law: "Nations are at liberty to use their own resources in such manner, and to apply them to such purposes as they may deem best, provided they do not violate the perfect rights of other nations, nor endanger their safety, nor infringe the indispensable duties of humanity." (Vol. I, p. 25.) The stipulations of the Bryan-Chamorro treaty are contrary to the principle of strict justice so simply and clearly stated by the North American jurist, for, although, according to the language of the Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, they may tend towards the development and progress of Nicaragua as a nation, they ignore and violate the legitimate rights of joint-ownership, possessed by El Salvador in the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca, and endanger her safety. 23 III. THE TREATY VIOLATES PRIMORDIAL INTERESTS OF EL SALVADOR AS A CENTRAL AMERICAN STATE. The political constitution of El Salvador consecrates the principle that she is a disintegrated part of the RepubUc of the Center of America, and that, as such, the power remains inherent in her to concur with all or any of the Central American States in the organization of a common National Government. This same principle is declared in one form or another in the constitutions of the other States of Central America. It is to be found in the constitution of Nicaragua, in Article 2, hereinafter quoted, which, after providing that the Public Powers may not enter into pacts or treaties that are opposed to the independence and integrity of the nation, or that in any way affect its sovereignty, takes out of the rule ihe cases of pacts or treaties that "tend to union -with one or 1. ore of the Republics of Central America." That same fundamental law of Nicaragua, in Article 262, specifies the form in which pacts of this last nature must be ratified, and provides that by virtue of such signature and ratification, the constitution shall be thereby amended, even though the other requisites prescribed by Title XXIII, relating to its amendment, may not have been fulfilled. Alienations of territory by a Central American State to a foreign nation result, therefore, in impairing the transcendental interest that the vSalvadorean people have always held, and still hold, constantly in mind as one of their greatest and most legitimate aspirations : that of the reconstitution, undiminished, with the brother peoples, of the great country which had been the master of the ancient Central American domain — an aspiration toward 24 which the five states are impelled by their common origin, religion and history. Such alienations would deeply wound that aspiration and detract from the efficiency of the great interests that the Salvadorean people, as a fractional part of the Central American people, hold to be of first importance to its national life in the future. The Nicaraguan people and the peoples of the other three States recognize, maintain and value those interests in the same measure, as is shown by the multitude of historic facts and political acts of their independent lives, among which may be mentioned those that gave rise to the negotiation of the conventions that were concluded at Washington in 1907. One of them was the pact that instituted the Honorable Tribunal before which, through the medium of the Government of El Salvador, represented by this Foreign Office, one of those peoples is now appearing in quest of justice: the Salvado- rean people: The foregoing considerations explain fully those put forth in the following point (IV), in discussing Article 2 of the General Treaty of Peace and Amity, because dispositions or measures like the alienation of the territory of Central America to a foreign nation, far from contribut- ing to the stability of the States that make up Central America, would be a factor exactly contrary thereto, and one that would initiate a political regime wholly opposed to the pure and noble aspirations for the liberty and progress of its peoples, whereby alone may be affirmed in the future their stabihty and the prestige with which they should surround themselves in the family of nations. This Foreign Office thus makes of this point a weighty reason in support of the complaint brought before this Honorable Court on behalf of the Government of El Salvador; and it rests in the conviction that the inherent 25 vice of the Bryan-Chamorro treaty will be understood in its true force and effect, since the object of its stipulations is contrary to the Constitutions of Nicaragua, of El Salvador and of the other Central American States that stand staunch in their generous tendencies and constant eagerness for the reconstruction of the beautiful nation bequeathed to us by the illustrious champions of the Independence. IV. THE TREATY IS CONTRARY TO ARTICLE II OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF PEACE AND AMITY SUBSCRIBED BY THE REPUBLICS OF CENTRAL AMERICA AT WASHINGTON ON THE 20TH OF DECEMBER, 1907. It is unnecessary to engage the attention of this Honorable Court for a lengthy discussion of this point, for the reasons supporting it are sufficiently clear. According to the text of Article 2 of the General Con- vention of Peace and Amit}^, the five Central American States agreed not to alter in any form their constitutional order. Why? The article itself suggests the answer: because any alteration of that order was conceived by the delegates to be a menace to the peace and security of each of the States they represented and of Central America in general, and to be contrary to their established policy and to the prestige with which they should sur- round themselves. The spirit that animated those dele- gates — faithful interpreters, as they were, of the national spirit of the Central American States — was that of ward- ing off, for the future, every danger that could threaten the peace of Central America; and, with those ideas in mind, they could not be oblivious to the greatest of all, which was the possible change of the constituted order 26 established in each Repubhc on the most advanced prin- ciples of modern constitutional science. But, by constitutional order, we should not understand solely the form of government adopted by the funda- mental law of a State, but also all standards adopted by constituent assemblies representing peoples, in order that the Public Powers might model their acts of government in matters of primordial interest according to those standards; and national sovereignty, independence, and integrity are matters that are found, in this sense, ranged in culminating rank. The constitutional order of Nicaragua estabUshes, in this respect, that the Pubhc Powers are inhibited from negotiating treaties wherein the integrity of the national territory or sovereignty is in any way diminished ; and not even for a moment, whether or not there is menace to peace — that is, to the security and tranquility of Central America — can the proposition that one of its States may adopt in this regard, another standard of constitutional conduct that permits the cession, alienation, or abandon- ment of its territory to foreign nations, be submitted to judicial determination. V. THE TREATY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN VALIDLY CONCLUDED. Article 2 of the Political Constitution in force in the Repubhc of Nicaragua provides textually: " Sovereignty is one, inalienable and imprescriptible and resides essentially in the people, from whom the functionaries established by the constitution derive their powers. Consequently, no pacts or treaties may be concluded that are opposed to the inde- pendence or integrity of the nation or which in any 27 way affect its sovereignty, save only those that tend toward unity with one or more of the Central American Republics." The text of this article constitutes a fundamental rule of government which previous poUtical constitutions of that same Repubhc have adopted as the rule that the Nicaraguan people have wished to see respected by the pubUc power. Openly and essentially is the text opposed to the stipulations of the Bryan-Chamorro treaty, whereby the Government of Nicaragua not only cedes to the United States a zone of Nicaraguan soil for the construction there through of an interoceanic canal, also the Corn Islands in the Atlantic and a portion of territory to be selected by the North American Government on the littoral of the Gulf of Fonseca, but, conformably with the amend- ments to Article III of the treaty, made by the United States Senate in its resolution of ratification, restricts its sovereignty in fiscal and financial matters. Those stipulations, therefore, are absolutely invahd, and for that reason cannot be consummated in the face of the principles of international justice that control cases of international agreements fundamentally null, especially when the nation that has contracted with another whose fundamental laws are opposed to the subject-matter of the agreement, had previous and full knowledge of the reasons for the invalidity, and when, moreover, those agreements diminish by their invalid stipulations the primordial rights of a third nation. 28 VI. DIRECT MEASURES FOR SETTLEMENT EMPLOYED WITHOUT SUCCESS. The Government of El Salvador sought to discuss with the Nicaragua!! Governme!it its right to oppose the effective co!!SU!i!i!!atio!! of the Bryai!-Chamorro treaty, ai!d in fact, the Salvadorean Foreign Office addressed to the Nicaraguan Foreign Office the note of which a copy is hereto attached as Appendix L. That document was placed in the hands of His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Relations of that Republic on the 4th of May of the present year, by special couriers, Captain Don Jose A. Menendez and Lieutenant Don Santiago Ch. J^uregui, of the Salvadorean Army. The fact that a considerable time has aheady passed since that date without any answer whatever to the note referred to, and that such answer is not yet forthcoming, forces the Government of El Salvador into the position of being unable to reach a settlement with the Govern- ment of Nicaragua and justifies the former in concluding that the latter has rejected any settlement of the matter by the respective foreign offices; and that, therefore, the condition is fulfilled— which, however, El Salvador does not consider indispensable in the premises — that is contained in the final provision of Article I of the convention for the estabHshment of this Honorable Court, subscribed at Washington on the 20th of December, 1907. VII. PETITION. For the reasons above set forth, the Salvadorean Foreign Office, in the name and representation of the Government of El Salvador, prays that the Government of Nicaragua be enjoined to abstain from fulfilling the Bryan-Chamorro 29 treaty, subscribed at Washington the fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and, therefore, with reiterated expressions of its consideration, petitions the Honorable, the Central American Court of Justice: First. — That the complaint hereby interposed be admitted and considered, together with the Appendices hereto attached. Second. — That, in conformity with the text and spirit of Article XVIII of the Central American convention concluded at Washington, herein last above cited, the appropriate interlocutory decree may issue fixing the legal situation to be maintained by the Government of Nica- ragua in the matter which is the subject of this complaint, in order that the things here in litigation may be preserved in [the status in which they were found before the con- clusion and ratification of the Bryan-Chamorro treaty. Third. — That by the final decision the Government of Nicaragua be enjoined to abstain from fulfilling the afore- said Bryan-Chamorro treaty, and. Fourth. — That this Honorable Court will grant such other and further relief as may seem to it just and proper. VIII. SPECIFICATION OF APPENDICES. A. Copy of protest presented by the Salvadorean Foreign Office, through the medium of the Legation at Washington, to the Department of State of the United States on the 21st of October, 1913. B. Reply of the Honorable W. J. Bryan, Secretary of State, relating to that protest. C. Copy of the Salvadorean Legation's rejoinder. Ch. Copy of the note of July 8, 19 14, addressed by the Salvadorean Legation in the same matter to the American Department of State. D. Reply of that State Department, dated July 16, 1914. E. Copy of the note addressed on the 21st of July, 19 14, to the said Department of State referring to its answer of the 1 6th of the same month. F. Copy of the Salvadorean Legation's note of December 21, 1 9 14, to the Salvadorean Foreign Office, transmitting the Bryan-Chamorro treaty, which had been handed to it by the Secretary of State of the United States. G. Note of Honorable W. J. Bryan to the Salvadorean Legation, transmitting copy of the treaty above mentioned. H. The Bryan-Chamorro treaty. I. Note of protest relating to said treaty, addressed on the 9th of February, through the medium of the Salva- dorean Legation, to the Department of State. J. Note of the United States Legation, dated the 19th of February, 1916, wherein, under instructions from the Department of State, the Minister informs the Salvado- rean Foreign Office that the said Bryan-Chamorro treaty had been ratified, with amendments by the United States Senate. (30) 31 K. Copy of the Salvadorean Foreign Office's reply, dated March 3, 19 16, wherein it protests against the ratification of the said treaty. L. Copy of the note addressed by the Salvadorean Foreign Office to the Nicaraguan Foreign Office on the 14th of April, 191 6, and delivered by the Foreign Office couriers, Captain Jose A. Menendez and Lieutenant Santiago Ch. Jauregui. LI. Copy of the telegrams addressed from Managua to the Salvadorean Foreign Office on the 4th of May, 1916, by His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Relations of Nicaragua and by the Foreign Office courier, Captain J. A. Menendez. M. Copy of certain paragraphs of the report for the year 19 14 presented to the National Congress of Nicaragua by His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Relations of that Republic. N. Copy of certain articles of the Law of Navigation and Marine in force in El Salvador. O. Technical report of Civil Engineers Don Santiago I. Barbarena and Don Jose E. Alcaine, relating to the Gulf of Fonseca. P. Map of the Gulf of Fonseca. National Palace, Ministry op Foreign Relations, San Salvador, August 14, igi6. F. MartInez Suarez. ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING COMPLAINT. The Honorable, The Central American Court of Justice: At the last hour, after the signing of the complaint of the fourteenth instant, the answer of the Nicaraguan Foreign Office to the note addressed thereto by the Salvadorean Department of Foreign Relations on the 14th of April last and mentioned in Point VI ("Direct Measures for Settlement Employed without Success") of said complaint, has been received. In that answer the Nicaraguan Foreign Office, having recited the bases on which the Salvadorean Government relies in its opposition to the Bryan-Chamorro treaty, and after setting forth, in its turn, the bases con- sidered by the Nicaraguan Government as warranting its insistence, over the protests of El Salvador, upon carrying out the fulfilment of that treaty, concludes textually as follows : "In conclusion, with Your Excellency's permission, I will state that in consonance with the solemn declaration contained in the Note itself that the Government of El Salvador will avail itself of every means afforded to it by justice, law and existing inter- national agreements to secure invalidation of that agreement, my Government, in its turn, expresses to Your Excellency's Government its unalterable pur- pose to avail itself also of all means afforded to it by justice and law to maintain inviolate the vaUdity of that diplomatic agreement." From the paragraph above quoted, it will be clearly seen that the Nicaraguan Department of Foreign Relations rejects any settlement between the Foreign Offices tending to the non-execution of the Bryan-Chamorro treaty. 33 The Government of El Salvador, therefore, considers that the measures indicated in the final part of Article I of the Convention for the Establishment of a Central American Court of Justice subscribed at Washington on the 2oth of December, 1907, have been exhausted; and, consequently, prays this Honorable Court to take action upon its complaint and to accept this communication as a part thereof and as modifying, on the point to which it relates, what is set forth in that complaint in Point VI ("Direct Measures for Settlement Employed without Success"). National PaIvAce, Ministry of Foreign Relations, San Salvador, August 15, igi6. F. Martinez Suarez. APPENDICES. APPENDIX A. Legation of El Salvador In the United States of America Washington, D. C, October 21, IQ13. The Honorable William J. Bryan, Secretary of State of the United States of America, Washington. Mr. Secretary: Information has reached my Government that the Government of Nicaragua has entered into a treaty with the United States for the construction of an interoceanic canal by way of the San Juan River and Lake Nicaragua, and that, in that pact, the United States is granted, among other concessions, a lease for ninety-nine years, renewable at the will of the latter, for a naval station at a point inside the Gulf of Fonseca on the Nicaraguan coast. The geographical and legal situation of the Gulf or Bay of Fonseca is of such a nature that a lease of any part thereof must of necessity affect all the other parts. From the time when, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Spanish discoverers who conquered and occupied Central America came upon the considerable expanse of water that indents the coast from Amapala Point in our territory to Cosigiiina Point in Nicaragua, the bay or gulf which since then has borne the name of Fonseca, in honor of the President of the Council of the Indies, who governed those countries from Spain as the (34) I 35 representative of the Spanish Crown, has never ceased for a single day to belong to the three riparian countries of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, to whose sovereignty and jurisdiction also the said Gulf of Fonseca has always belonged, and still belongs. During the three centuries of Spanish dominion in that part of the continent the three countries mentioned possessed the bay referred to without opposition or question, and that dominion has been confirmed by the spirited defense made on more than one occasion by the peoples of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua against the hordes of fihbusters that ravaged the Central American coasts during those centuries and even penetrated into the heart of the Gulf in an effort to establish themselves on Tigre Island. These historic facts, and many others that need not be recorded here, suffice to demonstrate that the Gulf of Fonseca belongs unquestionably to the category of bays classed as "historic" by international law, and by virtue of that classification are considered as subject incontes- tably to the exclusive ownership and sovereignty of the riparian States, whatever may be the extent of their penetration into the land and the width of their entrances, and even though the latter should exceed the six marine miles that international law recognizes for territorial bays ; provided, that, as is the case with the Bay of Fonseca, the riparian countries shall have affirmed, and continued to affirm, their sovereignty under circumstances that depend upon geographical configuration, immemorial use, and, above all, on their proper defense. So, then, the Bay or Gulf of Fonseca is historic in character in the same way, and under the same principle, as Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, in the United States, and the Bays of Conception and Miramichi, in British 36 America, have been recognized to be. The right of owner- ship enjoyed by the United States and Great Britain in those bays has been recognized and confirmed in treaties and arbitral awards as an incontestable title of ownership and sovereignty. That same right, which the Spanish Government enjoyed from time immemorial over the waters embraced inter fauces terrae- — whether territorial or not — that form the Gulf of Fonseca, passed, by the fact of the Inde- pendence, to the Federal Republic of Central America, which included that gulf within its maritime limits as the successor of all the rights of ownership and sovereignty that once belonged to the Crown of Castile in connection with its territory. And during the period in which the Federal Govern- ment of Central America was in the exercise of its powers, the possession and ownership of the Gulf of Fonseca were confirmed by many legislative acts and acts of national jurisdiction under which laws relating to ports, police, and other matters were enacted. When, in 1839, the federal bond between the five States that formed the federation was broken, the States of El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua survived as the legitimate proprietors and sovereigns in common over the Gulf of Fonseca, and they so possess it to this day; for up to the present there has never been any pact or agree- ment that has put an end to the status of indivisibility and community which the three riparian States found to be preexisting when they constituted themselves as free and independent nations; although on several occasions the attempt was made, as happened on the occasion of the unperfected treaty of limits negotiated on the loth of April, 1884, between El Salvador and Honduras, which for the purpose of putting an end to the community, 37 provided in Article 2 that "the maritime Hne between El Salvador and Honduras begins in the Pacific and divides equally, in the Gulf of Fonseca, the distance between the Islands of Meanguera, Conchagiiita, Martin Perez, and Punta Zacate, in El Salvador, and the Islands of Tigre, Zacate Grande, Inglesa, and Exposicion, in Honduras, and terminates at the mount of the Goascoran." That pact never went into effect because it was not ratified by the Honduran Congress, and, therefore, left in force the original status of indivisibility and community. For the foregoing reasons and antecedents the Govern- ment of the United States must be convinced of the right residing in my Government to consider itself to be affected by the project of leasing a part of the Gulf of Fonseca without previous consultation with, and the consent of, the other proprietory and co-owner States, even though the object of the lease is located exclusively on the coast of Nicaragua. Besides these considerations there are others even more weighty that justify El Salvador and Honduras in holding themselves to be injured by the promised aliena- tion of a part of the Gulf of Fonseca provided for in the clauses of a lease for years. It is a principle of international law founded on uni- versal equity, that a nation must refrain from those acts which by their nature may compromise the existence and security of other nations. By virtue of this principle, nations are given the right to appropriate to themselves the gulfs and bays that are naturally defended by islands, sand bankb or rocks, or by the cross fire of cannon sta- tioned at the extremes of their entrance, and even to prohibit the entrance into such gulfs and bays. Under the same rule it has been agreed that bays that possess a width at their entrances as great as six marine 1159^0 38 miles, shall, in matters pertaining to police power, security, and to the exercise of fishing privileges (up to ten miles) , be held to be territorial bays incorporated as a part of the national territory and the three mile limit from the coasts is estimated therein, towards the open sea, from an imaginary straight line cutting across the bays from cape to cape. These principles should reasonably apply to the gulfs or bays that belong in common to various States, irrespec- tive of the distance to which they indent the land, and whatever may be their geographical configuration in relation to the marginal belt of territorial waters that correspond to each of the riparian States. The foregoing doctrines have been declared and recog- nized by Great Britain and the United States in the arbi- tral award rendered at The Hague on the yth of Septem- ber, 1910, in the fisheries question. The award holds: "It has been further contended by the United States that the renunciation applies only to bays six miles or less in width 'inter fauces terrcB,' those bays only being territorial bays because the three- mile rule is, as shown by this treaty, a principle of international law applicable to coasts and should be strictly and systematically applied to bays. "But the Tribunal is unable to agree with this contention : "(a) Because admittedly the geographical charac- ter of a bay contains conditions which concern the interests of the territorial sovereign to a more intimate and important extent than do those connected with the open coast. Thus conditions of national and territorial integrity, of defense, of commerce and of industry are all vitally concerned with the control of the bays penetrating the national coast line." The award itself cites the convention concluded, in 1846, between Great Britain and the United States, where- 39 in the two countries put an end to the status of com- munity and co-ownership in the waters of the Strait of Fuca and attributed reciprocally and exclusively to each other the ownership of those waters to a distance as great as seventeen miles from their respective shores. The existence of various islands belonging to El Salvador and Honduras inside the Gulf of Fonseca constitutes another of the reasons that give vigor to the legal doctrines here set forth in support of the rights of El Salvador which my Government holds to have been violated by the concession sought to be given to the United States for the cr estabhshment of a naval station, which concession would not only necessarily restrict those rights, but would even compromise the most valuable interests of El Salvador and Honduras. It must be noted that Nicaragua's interests and rights which she has ceded to the United States possess a value far inferior to those of Honduras and El Salvador. In fact, in the Gulf of Fonseca, the waters of which are common to the three States, Nicaragua possesses no port of any importance, and the ports of Corinto and San Juan del Sur would be without the zone of influence cor- responding to the naval base which it is proposed to establish inside the Gulf. This influence, and its conse- quent predominance, would most forcefully aflfect the exercise of fiscal and police powers by Honduras and El Salvador — powers of high importance to those countries, which would be permanently subordinated to police and security measures which the United States would adopt as of course for the preservation and safeguarding of her naval base. And, in case of war between the United States and another maritime power, the three countries that own the Gulf would necessarily find themselves involved in serious 40 dangers and the gravest difficulties in the effort to preserve and defend their neutraHty; their waters, furthermore, within the Gulf, would be converted into a belligerant camp and surrounded by all the calamities incident to armed strife. Those risks and difficulties increase in their menace when it is considered that El Salvador and Honduras possess inside the Gulf two important ports of con- siderable size. La Uni6n and Amapala ; whereas Nicaragua, as has been said, has no port in the Bay. Through those ports the two States named turn over a great part of their interior riches, and import merchandise in great quantity; so that it is no exaggeration to say that Nicaragua, by ceding the naval station, enters into an agreement with the United States that affects, rather than her own patri- mony, the vital interests of El Salvador and Honduras, who cannot, and should not, consent to that unauthorized aUenation of their rights. On the other hand the constitutions of the Republics of Central America, and especially those of Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua, have consecrated the principle that those Republics are disintegrated parts of the old Federation of Central America, and, therefore, recognize the positive duty to contribute to the reestablisment of the Central American nationality. That fundamental duty which those States must recognize and respect, estops them, in a certain manner and in a certain measure, from diminishing the integrity of the Central American territory without the concurrence of all of them, especially territory located at points in which two or more States possess common rights and interests. For the purposes of such alienation, it is necessary to obtain, in addition to the collective consent, the authoriza- tion of a plebiscite of the peoples whose territorial and 41 jurisdictional rights would be diminished by the projected alienation. By \'irtue of the foregoing bases and reasons, my Government has given me special instructions to present to Your Excellency's Government its formal protest, on the ground that its rights and interests would be dimin- ished, or affected, if the concession for the establishment of a naval station at any point in the Gulf of Fonseca should be carried forward, even though only the small part of the coast possessed by Nicaragua on the shore of the gulf be involved. By reason of the joint ownership which the status of indivisibleness establishes over the jurisdictional and sovereign rights exercised by the three riparian States over the Gulf of Fonseca, it has been necessary, in the course of this statem-cnt, to mention conjointly the interests and rights of El Salvador and Honduras in juxtaposition to those of Nicaragua; but it will naturally be understood that the present protest is limited exclusively to the interests and rights that belong to El Salvador in the aforementioned Bay of Fonseca. I beg that Your Excellency will accept the assurances of my most distinguished consideration. Francisco Duenas. APPENDIX B. Department of State, Washington, February i8, 1914. * Senor Dr. Don Francisco Duenas, Minister oj Salvador. Sir: The Department has received and has maturely con- sidered the protest which you were so good as to address to it on the 2 ist of October last for the purpose of reserving any rights and interests of your Government which might be affected or impaired by the grant to the United States by the Repubhc of Nicaragua, within the latter's jurisdic- tion of the right to establish a naval station on the Gulf of Fonseca. In your protest the position is taken that the Gulf of Fonseca is a territorial bay whose waters are within the jurisdiction of the bordering States. This position the Department is not disposed to controvert. Your protest, however, further claims that, after the dissolution of the Repubhc of Central America, the States of Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua remained "the joint lawful owners and sovereigns of the Gulf of Fonseca as they now hold it," no treaty or agreement having been made to bring to an end the condition of "undivided and joint ownership" which previously existed. The grounds of this claim are not evident, nor do they appear to have been admitted by the bordering States, namely, Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. From the fact that the Repub- hc of Nicaragua deems itself to have the right to make the concession to which the protest relates it is necessarily to be inferred that that Government regards the jurisdic- tion not as belonging to them in undivided and joint ownership. The Department understands that this has been and is the view of the Government of Honduras. (42) 43 It would also appear to have been heretofore the view of the Government of Salvador, as is shown by the treaty between Salvador and Honduras of April lo, 1884, by which the boundary between Salvador and Honduras was extended across the Gulf of Fonseca. This treaty, it is true, never became effective for the reason that the Congress of Honduras failed to approve it ; but it is under- stood that this failm-e of approval was not due to any supposition that it involved the division of a proprietor- ship which was previously undivided and joint. On the contrary, the treaty seems to have presupposed that each of the three bordering States claimed as its own a certain part of the Gulf and asserted jurisdiction only over such part. The Department is advised that this is the condi- tion of things which exists today. The protest makes a further claim to the effect that the establishment by the United States of a naval station in the Gulf of Fonseca would radically alter the political situation in that quarter in such manner as to put in jeopardy important interests of Salvador and Honduras. In this relation the protest points out that the interests of Nicaragua in the Gulf are much smaller than those of Honduras and Salvador, and that, while Nicaragua has no port of entry in the Gulf, Salvador and Honduras have therein two such ports, La Union and Amapala, through which a large part of the commerce of the two countries is conducted. The Government of tne United States desires to give the most respectful consideration to those representations, but is obliged to think that they rest upon apprehensions which are hardly justified by the circumstances. In estabhshing a naval station in the Gulf of Fonseca the Government of the United States would have at heart the interests of Central America no less than its own. Par- ticularly would it have in view the safeguarding of the 44 local sovereignty ; and to this end this Government would be prepared to consider a concession either from Salvador or from Honduras, or from both of them, similar to that which Nicaragua has indicated a wilUngness to make. With reference to the objection that the proposed con- cession by Nicaragua would form an obstacle to the restoration of the Union of the States of Central America, the Department cherishes the hope that your Government will, upon further consideration of all the circumstances, be inclined to view the subject in a diiferent light. The concession would not give the United States any right or interest in the political affairs of Central America beyond that which now exists and would in no respect form an obstacle to the political union of the Central American States in case they should at any time wish to take such a step. The protest finally suggests that the concession of a naval station to the United States in the Gulf of Fonseca would require the plebiscitary authorization of the peoples whose territorial and jurisdictional rights would be affected. This objection seems of necessity to rest primarily upon the claim now made that the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca belong to the bordering States in undivided and joint ownership, for, on any other supposition, the question of a plebiscite could hardly be raised by Salvador in respect of a concession proposed to be made by the Republic of Nicaragua in waters which the Nicaraguan Government evidently regards as being within the exclu- sive jurisdiction of Nicaragua. The claim of undivided and joint ownership having heretofore been discussed, it is hoped that the Government of Salvador will, for the reason above set forth, concur with this Government in the view that the claim does not rest upon soUd foundation. Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. William Jennings Bryan. APPENDIX C. Legation of Kiv Sai^vador in Washington, March ii, 191 4. His Excellency, William J. Bryan, Secretary of State, Washington. Your Excellency: Under special instructions from my Government, I have the honor to reply to Your Excellency's esteemed note of the 1 8th ultimo, wherein you were good enough to set forth the considerations that moved the Department of State to decide that there was no soHd basis for the protest brought to its attention on the 21st of October, 1913, for the purpose of safeguarding such rights or interests of the RepubHc of El Salvador as might be affected or diminished if the concession should be made effective that was granted to Your Excellency's Govern- ment by the Nicaraguan Government for the establish- ment of a naval station in the Gulf of Fonseca. Yotu- Excellency states that the Department is not disposed to dispute the point that the Gulf of Fonseca is a territorial bay the waters of which are embraced within the jurisdiction of the adjacent states; the position thus taken by Your Excellency is well understood by my Government because it deals with a fact which is the essential basis of the protest it holds to be incontro- vertible. As Your Excellency, however, confines yourself to declaring unsound the fundaments on which my Govern- ment relies for support in its claim that the Gulf of Fon- seca belongs in common — as it is now possessed by them — to the States of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, (45) 46 without favoring me with your reasons, and as, on the other hand, you do not cite any pact or agreement that has put an end to the status of indivisibleness and com- munity, the considerations set forth in my above-men- tioned protest in support of that point still stand. But, as Your Excellency thinks, furthermore, that those fundaments do not appear to have been admitted by the boundary States, I beg leave to inform you that the terms of the Treaty of April lo, 1884, to which I refer in my protest, are perfectly clear in the sense that the purpose of the signatory Governments was to put an end to the community in the Gulf of Fonseca, and that from those terms it cannot be deduced, as you appear to have done, that the High Contracting Parties could have supposed, in signing that treaty, that each of the boundary States claimed as its own that certain part of the Gulf over which it exercised jurisdiction. That treaty never reached the category of a law, and the fact that it did not is one of the best proofs of the recognition by the contracting States of the communal or undivided possession of the Gulf of Fonseca. Your Excellency is pleased to indicate to me that your Government would be prepared to consider a concession from El Salvador similar to that which Nicaragua has voluntarily offered. In that regard, Sir, I am con- strained to state that Article XXXVIII of our Funda- mental Charter is conclusive in prohibiting the constituted powers from signing or approving treaties or conventions that would in any manner diminish the integrity of the national territory or sovereignty. The fact that the Government of the United States has always been so just and so universally recognized for its strict respect for its institutions, permits me to hope, with the fullest confidence, that Your Excellency will 47 justly appreciate that my Government, too, maintains perfect observance of its constitutional precepts. The Salvadorean people as well as my Government are sincerely devoted to the idea of the unification of Central America, and appreciate at its just value Your Excellency's declaration that under no consideration would the United States place any obstacles in the way of the political union of the Central American States. I beUeve that I have demonstrated that the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca belong indivisibly and communally to the riparian Republics, and, consequently, my Govern- ment insists that the concession for the estabUshment of a naval station in that Gulf would require the authoriza- tion of a plebiscite of the peoples whose territorial and jurisdictional rights might be affected. I cannot conclude this note, Your Excellency, without confirming the ideas set forth in my aforesaid protest and without expressing the fact that my Government is confident that you will accord it justice. Reiterating to Your Excellency assurances of my highest consideration. Francisco Duenas. APPENDIX CH. Legation of El Salvador in Washington, Washington, July 8, 1914. His Excellency, William J. Bryan, Secretary of State, Washington. Your Excellency: I have the honor to bring to Your Excellency's dis- tinguished attention the fact that my Government, on being informed that the project of a treaty with Nicaragua now pending ratification in the Senate, contains a clause similar to the so-called Piatt Amendment, which estab- lishes a protectorate on the part of the United States over that Central American Republic, has instructed me to present to Your Excellency, with all due respect, a formal protest against that clause. My Government is of opinion that, in view of the pecuUar bonds that have always united the States of Central America, the partial loss or destruction of Nicaraguan autonomy would seriously affect the autonomy of El Salvador. The projected protectorate would nulUfy the conven- tions signed at the Conference of Washington (the Cen- tral American Conference at Washington of 1907), since those treaties were negotiated for the purpose of bringing into closer relations the Central American States for the furtherance of peace and the development of common interests, and it is an indisputable fact that the interest and progress of each of the States are identical. My Government beHeves that, in conformity with the treaties between El Salvador and the United States, the Nicaraguan treaty cannot be submitted to the considera- (48) 49 tion of the Senate for ratification pending the discussion provoked by the protest laid before Your Excellency on the 2ist of October, 1913, with the purpose of safeguarding the rights and interests of El Salvador that would be affected by the concession granted to your Government for the estabUshment of a naval base in the Gulf of Fon- seca. My Government, in respectfully presenting this pro- test, not only fulfills a duty imposed upon it by the Fundamental Charter of the country, but thereby also faithfully interprets and expresses the sentiment of the nation. With great pleasure I reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my most distinguished consideration. Carlos A. Meza. APPENDIX D. Department of State, Washington, July i6, 1914. Senor Dr. Don Cari^os A. Meza, Charge d' Affaires of El Salvador. Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication of July 8, and to say that your Government has been mis- informed in respect to the proposed treaty with Nicaragua. The negotiations have not been concluded and no treaty has been presented to the Senate for ratification. The Department is conferring, in confidence, with the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate in regard to a tentative draft, the terms of which have not been made public. If the matter in which your Government has expressed an interest becomes a matter for practical consideration, we shall be pleased to examine into the protest which you present. With assurances of high esteem, I am, my dear Mr. Meza, Very sincerely yours, W. J. Bryan. (50) APPENDIX E. Legation op Eiv Sai^vador In the United States of America, Washington, July 21, 1914. His Excellency, William J. Bryan, Secretary of State, Washington. Your Excellency: I have had the honor to receive Your Excellency's communication, bearing date the i6th instant, in which you acknowledge receipt of mine of the 8th. Your Ex- cellency informs me therein that my Government has been misinformed with respect to the treaty with Nica- ragua; that the negotiations have not been completed, and that no treaty has been presented to the Senate for ratification; that the Department is confidentially in conference with the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate respecting a tentative draft, the terms of which have not been made public, and that, if the object in which my Government has manifested its interest should reach the status of a matter for practical considera- tion, Your Excellency would be pleased to consider the protests I have presented. I must inform Your Excellency, with all possible respect, that, from the context of my aforementioned protest, it can be seen that it refers to a project of a treaty with Nicaragua; but, availing myself of your suggestion that my protest will be considered if the object to which it refers should reach the status of a matter for practical consideration, I also leave the pro- test as standing and as pending that consideration. (si) 52 In obedience to the instructions to which I have referred, I must also inform Your Excellency that the action of my Government, directed to safeguarding the integrity of El Salvador's autonomy — which would be diminished if a protectorate over Nicaragua were estab- lished — is perfectly legitimate. The peculiar ties and relations that have always existed between the Central American States are interwoven with their entire history and constitute what is known as Central American inter- national law, which is prescribed in the political constitu- tion of each of those States as an essential part of its existence. Those bonds and that law merit the profoundest con- sideration and respect; they form the common patri- mony of all and each of the States and the separate action of any one of them, destined to destroy them, is wrong and unconstitutional. I beg Your Excellency to accept this communication as a part of my above-mentioned protest. With much pleasure I reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my most distinguished consideration. Carlos A. Meza. APPENDIX F. Legation of El Salvador in Washington, December 21, IQ14. Senor Dr. Don Francisco Martinez Suarez, Minister of Foreign Relations, San Salvador. Mr. Minister: I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of the treaty which, although held under the injunction of secrecy because not yet made pubhc, the Secretary of State placed in my hands yesterday. I also enclose copy of the Secretary's letter in which he mentions the amendment relating to Costa Rica. Reiterating assurances of my most distinguished consideration. CarIvOS a. Meza. (S3) APPENDIX Q. Department of State, Washington, December ig, 191 4. Senor Dr. Don Francisco Duenas, Minister of El Salvador. My Dear Mr. Minister : In compliance with your request, I beg to enclose a copy of the treaty negotiated with Nicaragua. When the treaty is called up for consideration in the Senate the following amendment will be proposed for insertion at the close of Article i : "Provided, that nothing herein shall be so con- strued as to impair or affect any of the rights of Costa Rica whether acquired by treaty or otherwise." As this treaty has not been made public, you will please ask your Government not to give it to the press. Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. W. J. Bryan. (54) APPENDIX H. The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Nicaragua being animated by the desire to strengthen their ancient and cordial friendship by the most sincere cooperation for all purposes of their mutual advantage and interest and to provide for the possi- ble future construction of an interoceanic ship canal by way of the San Juan River and the great Lake of Nicaragua, or by any route over Nicaraguan territory, whenever the construction of such canal shall be deemed by the Govern- ment of the United States conducive to the interests of both countries, and the Government of Nicaragua wish- ing to facihtate in every way possible the successful maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal, the two Governments have resolved to conclude a Conven- tion to these ends, and have accordingly appointed as their plenipotentiaries : The President of the United States, the Honorable Wilham Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State ; and The President of Nicaragua, Senor General Don Emi- liano Chamorro, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- potentiary of Nicaragua to the United States; Who, having exhibited to each other their respective full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the following articles : ArTICIvE I. The Government of Nicaragua grants in perpetuity to the Government of the United States, forever free from all taxation or public charge, the exclusive proprietary rights necessary and convenient for the construction, operation and maintenance of an interoceanic canal by way of the San Juan River and the great Lake of Nicaragua or by (55) 56 way of any route over Nicaraguan territory, the details of the terms upon which such canal shall be constructed, operated and maintained to be agreed to by the two governments, whenever the Government of the United States shall notify the Government of Nicaragua of its desire or intention to construct such canal. ArticIvE II. To enable the Government of the United States to pro- tect the Panama Canal and the proprietary rights granted to the Government of the United States by the foregoing article, and also to enable the Government of the United States to take any measure necessary to the ends contem- plated herein, the Government of Nicaragua hereby leases for a term of ninety-nine years to the Government of the United States the islands in the Caribbean Sea known as Great Com Island and Little Com Island; and the Gov- ernment of Nicaragua further grants to the Government of the United States for a like period of ninety-nine years the right to establish, operate and maintain a naval base at such place on the territory of Nicaragua bordering upon the Gulf of Fonseca as the Government of the United States may select. The Government of the United States shall have the option of renewing for a further term of ninety-nine years the above leases and grants upon the expiration of their respective terms, it being expressly agreed that the territory hereby leased and the naval base which may be maintained under the grant aforesaid shall be subject exclusively to the laws and sovereign authority of the United States during the terms of such lease and grant and of any renewal or renewals thereof. 57 Article III. In consideration of the foregoing stipulations and for the purposes contemplated by this Convention and for the purpose of reducing the present indebtedness of Nicaragua, the Government of the United States shall, upon the date of the exchange of ratifications of this Convention, pay for the benefit of the Republic of Nicaragua the sum of three milhon dollars United States gold coin, of the present weight and fineness, to be deposited to the order of the Government of Nicaragua in such bank or banks or with such banking corporation as the Government of the United States may determine, to be applied by Nicaragua upon its indebtedness or other public purposes jar the advancement of the welfare oj Nicaragua in a manner to he determined by the two High Contracting Parties, all such disbursements to be made by orders drawn by the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Nicaragua and approved by the Secretary of State of the United States or by such person as he may designate. Article IV. This Convention shall be ratified by the High Contract- ing Parties in accordance with their respective laws, and the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible. In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the present treaty and have affixed thereunto their seals. Done at Washington, in duplicate, in the English and Spanish languages, on the 5th day of August, in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen. William Jennings Bryan, [seal.] Bmiliano Chamorro. [seal.] APPENDIX I. Legation of Hi. Salvador In the United States of America, Washington, February g, igi6. His Excellency, Robert Lansing, Secretary oj State, Washington. Your Excellency: I have the honor to inform Your Excellency that my Government has given me special instructions to present to the Department over which you preside, the following protests against the treaty concluded between the United States and Nicaragua, now pending ratification by the American Senate. To the fundamental reasons set forth in the earHer protest of my Government, of October 21, 19 1 3, I have the honor to add herein the following equally fundamental reasons, conclusively demonstrating that the treaty mentioned violates the Central American Conventions that were signed at Washington in 1907, in that the Government of Nicaragua therein cedes to the United States a naval base in the Gulf of Fonseca. The negotiators of the Conventions of Washington of 1907 sought, before all things, the most efficacious means for the estabhshment of a stable peace in Central America ; and it was with that noble end in view that the neutrality of Honduras was stipulated in Article III of the General Treaty of Peace and Amity — a most essential part of those pacts. The geographical circumstance that Honduran territory occupies a central position between Guatemala, El Salva- dor and Nicaragua has in great part facilitated the development of revolutionary uprisings and wars, since (58) 59 they have always found a base of operations, if I may use that expression, in the extensive uninhabited regions of the Honduran Country. From the fact that the neutrahty of the Honduran territory was considered to be the principal basis for peace, that doctrine of the neutrality of Honduras was resorted to by the Central American negotiators in notable good faith and good will, and the North American states- men who aided in the success of the Central American Conferences, grasping instantly the transcendental impor- tance and great efficaciousness of that combination of Central American policy, seized upon it with much eagerness as a capital and happy solution of the pacific undertaking which that Central American Conference had been called upon to achieve. As has just been said, Your Excellency, the permanent neutrality of Honduras was explicitly consecrated in Article III of the General Treaty of Peace and Amity. The text of that Article reads as follows: "Art. ni. Taking into account the central geo- graphical position of Honduras and the facilities which, owing to this circumstance, have made its territory most often the theater of Central American conflicts, Honduras declares from now on its absolute neutrality in event of any conflict between the other Republics; and the latter, in their turn, provided such neutrality be observed, bind themselves to respect it and in no case to violate the Honduranean territory." The conception of permanent neutrality in this case of Honduras, as in any other case, has for its principal object the imposition on the States that recognize and guarantee it the duty to consider themselves isolated or separated by the impassable bridge of neutralized territories, and permanently held at a distance from those strategic 6o points which are comprised within the neutral zone and which, therefore, neither of them can occupy, or even in any wise avail itself of, for the purpose of obtaining an advantage over, or menacing the others. And this rule of equity and impartiality, applicable to the co-guarantor States, is equally applicable to the friends, allies, protectors, and colleagues of any one of them, with respect to the others, even in the case where those others may not have guaranteed or recognized the neutrality, if they try to violate it under the protection of one of those which should respect it. In a word, what one of the States co -guaranteeing the neutrality may not do by itself may not be done through the medium of another, or for another; this because neutrality has for its object, in the interest of those that recognize it, to preserve in the neutralized country a state of peace under such conditions as will offer to all its guarantors and neighbors the absolute security of its frontiers. The undivided community in the Gulf of Fonseca enjoyed by the States to which those waters belong (El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua) is sufficient to justify the right of either to oppose the acts of any of the others that may menace the security of its existence, and with greater reason and justice should that right be held to be incontestable when it is considered that Honduras must extend its neutraUty to the interior of the Gulf of Fonseca. There results, then, from the two combined principles — that of community and that of neutrality — an unrestricted and absolute guaranty of the right of all and each of the three countries to prevent any act on the part of the others which tends to violate either that community or that neutrality. Thus, then, where the preventive measures of one may fail, those measures on the part of another may avail. There is, therefore, 6i constituted within the Gulf a state of inviolable right which guarantees the independence, sovereignty, and security of each of the States against any act of the others that seeks to violate, or even menace, them. It is difficult to conceive the existence of a contrary principle that could limit the guaranty which establishes, in favor of the three States, the legal system created by the co- existence of the principles of community and neutrality. And, necessarily, the Central American Conference at Washington, in proclaiming the neutraUty of Honduran territory, naturally and logically believed that it had forever put an end to disputes that might arise over ques- tions involving in any way the neutralized and guaranteed territory. It must necessarily be believed that, in extend- ing over the whole of the territory of Honduras the prin- ciple of neutrality, there was introduced the principle of harmony and concord, wherein lies the specific solution of all conflicts — even those arising in the communal waters of the Guh of Fonseca, where the principle of its neutralization should put an end to anarchy, ambition, and disorder, from whatever quarter they might make their appearance. That a naval base, arsenal, or military establishment located on a coast would constitute a menace violative of the neutrality of the waters dominated by the military or naval forces pertaining to the point where such estab- Hshments are emplaced, is an incontestable principle of international law. In the projected agreement negotiated by Nicaragua and the Ijnited States for the establishment of a naval base there is an attempt to violate, in a manner both flagrant and evident, the principle of the neutrality of Honduras, and to throw overboard the legal system instituted by the Conference of Washington for the 62 preservation of peace, order, and harmony among the contracting States. So, then, neither Nicaragua nor the United States of North America can lawfully menace the neutrality of the maritime territory of Honduras, within the waters of the Gulf, nor break up the harmony of the status jure that necessarily exists in that locahty, as a consequence of the undivided community in the territorial sea enclosed by the Gulf. That Nicaragua may not lawfully violate the principle of Honduran neutrality, it is idle to suggest, for she was one of the countries that discussed, approved, and exchanged ratifications of the Conventions of Washing- ton, and, as the United States of North America took part in the negotiations of those Conventions in the character of mediator, in cooperation with Mexico, she also can not lawfully violate those pacts. And, in view of the fact that the representative of the United States of North America, as well as the repre- sentative of the United States of Mexico, figure in the preambles of the pacts negotiated at the Conference, which declare that they were present at all the dehberations, it is impossible not to recognize in law the role of mediator which both the Government of the United States of North America and of Mexico assumed in fact and effec- tively before the Conference. Now, the first duty of a mediator is to see to it that the agreements concerning which he interposed his mediation are fulfilled, and to oppose all acts that tend to destroy the results of his mediation. The principle, then, may be depended on that the Repubhcs of Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, by virtue of the Treaty of Washington, have taken upon themselves the character of co-guarantors of the neu- 63 trality of Honduras. And it would seem natural and logical to assume as much with respect to the United States of North America. It is, therefore, a matter of profound surprise, Mr. Secre- tary, to my Government, that the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate should have recommended for the approval of that body, the canal treaty between the United States and Nicaragua, without having defined, and taken duly into consideration, the rights of El Salvador in the Gulf of Fonseca, to which the protest hereinbefore mentioned related. In this matter my Government has submitted to the American Government, on this and other occasions, the group of principles of law and justice which support the right of El Salvador. In doing so, it did no more than fulfill its duty to defend the sovereignty of the country and its consequent rights in the Gulf of Fonseca — a duty imposed upon it by the Fundamental Charter. It has, with all sincerity, put forth, and still urges, those princi- ples before the American Government, with the faith inspired by the sacred respect in which they are held, and especially with the profound faith inspired by the high ideals of justice and international good will that guide the American Government and people in their relations with the other republics on this hemisphere. In making these observations, Mr. Secretary, in the name of my Government, it is exceedingly gratifying to me at the same time to express its profound hope that the American Government will find an effective way to prevent the ratificadon of the Nicaraguan Treaty, unless, and until, the inalienable rights of El Salvador shall have been defined and taken into account. I have the honor. Your Excellency, to reiterate on this occasion the assurances of my distinguished consideration. R. ZaIvDivar. APPENDIX J. Legation of the United States of America, San SaIvVADOR, February 21, igi6. His Excellency, Dr. Francisco Martinez SuarEz, Minister for Foreign A fairs, Present. Mr. Minister: Acting under instructions from the Department of State I have the honor to inform Your Excellency's Government that on the 1 8th instant the Senate, by a vote of fifty-five to eighteen, consented to the ratification of the Nicaraguan Treaty with the following amendments : Article one, line two, after the words United States, insert comma and following words — free from all taxation or other public charge, followed by comma. At the end of Article three strike out period and add the following — or other public purposes for the advancement of the welfare of Nicaragua in a manner to be determined by the two high contracting parties, all such disburse- ments to be made by orders drawn by the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Nicaragua and approved by the Secretary of State of the United States or by such person as he may designate. The resolution of ratification contained the following clause: Provided that whereas Costa Rica, Salvador and Honduras have protested against the ratification of said convention in the fear or belief that said convention might in some respect impair existing rights of said States, therefore it is declared by the Senate, in advising and consenting to the ratification of the said convention as amended, that such advice and consent are given with the understanding to be expressed as a part of the instrument (64) 65 of ratification that nothing in said convention is intended to affect any existing right of any of the said named States. I avail myself of this occasion to renew to Your Excel- lency the assurances of my highest consideration and perfect esteem. Henry F. Tennant. APPENDIX K. NaTIONAIv PAI.ACE, San vSalvador, March j, iqi6. The Honorable' Henry F. Tennant, Charge d'Af aires of the United States oj America, San Salvador. Mr. Charge d'affaires: This Department has received your honored despatch wherein you advise it that, acting upon instructions from the Department of State, you inform this Government that on the i8th of last month the United States Senate, by a vote of fifty-five to eighteen, consented to the ratification of the Nicaraguan Treaty, with certain amend- ments, which you are good enough to indicate, and of which the third reads as follows : ' ' Provided, That whereas Costa Rica, Salvador and Honduras have protested against the ratification of aforesaid convention in the fear or belief that said convention might in some respect impair existing rights of said States, therefore, it is declared by the Senate, that in advising and consenting to the ratification of the said convention as amended, such advice and consent are given with the understanding, to be expressed as a part of the instrument of ratifica- tion, that nothing in said convention is intended to affect any existing right of any of the said named States." My Government, in taking note of this information, believes that it would fail in a primal duty if it did not discuss at length a matter of such importance, not only to the end that effective protection of its rights may be pro- cured, but also that the harmony and loyalty that have always presided over its diplomatic relations with the North American Government may be preserved. (66) «7 Always heretofore my Government, prompted by the high sense of justice of the North American Government, has rested in the behef that, pending ratification by the Senate, the negotiations relating to the matter of the treaty would not be concluded before final action should be taken on the protests it had presented in due course against that treaty. That belief was grounded chiefly on the conviction that your Government would give full consideration to the facts put forth by this Government in its last protest, to the effect that the Nicaraguan Treaty is violative also of the neutrality of Honduran territory, which constitutes a raison d'etre for the Central American Convention con- cluded at Washington on the 20th of December, 1907. My Government believes, Sir, that the Nicaraguan Treaty lacks legal bases in legal rights because manifestly contrary as well to treaties now in force as to the prin- ciples of international law, and, therefore, to justice and to that consideration which nations ought to observe in their amicable relations. The General Treaty of Peace and Amity, which is the principal basis of those conventions, proposes to maintain the peace of Central America as the essential means for the realization of the lofty ends that were pursued by the Central American Conference assembled at Washington in 1907. This purpose was set forth in Article I of that diplomatic instrument wherein the five Central American Republics solemnly declared that they held it to be a binding duty upon them, in their mutual relations, to maintain peace through measures that might be estab- lished for that purpose. The first of those measures should be to secure in the several Republics the benefit derivable from the cooperation of the institutions provided for maintaining their stability and the prestige with which 68 they should surround themselves; and, in order to attain such noble ends, it is declared in Article II that any dis- position or measure that tends to alter the constitutional order in any of the five Republics, will be considered as a menace to the peace thereof. Now, the constitutional order may be altered in many ways, but without the shadow of a doubt the most menacing, grave, and dangerous way of altering that order is the fact, rarely occurring in America, that a foreign nation, strong and powerful, should take possession of a part of Central American territory and establish therein a military predominance, which incontestably would result, in a short time, as the only practical means whereby the military power thus lodged in its territory could consoli- date itself and provide for its security, in creating a political control over the whole of the country thus dis- membered. With the dominion, sovereignty, and juris- diction of the dismembered country thus diminished, it is evident that the constitutional order must be basically altered because the impermm of the constitution and con- stitutional order has for its principal end the free exercise of sovereignty and the unassailable integrity of its territory. When a strong nation seizes upon a part, however small, of the territory of a weak country, the lines of demarca- tion between the exercise of the two sovereignties cannot be fixed morally, although they may be materially, for the reason that it is impossible for the stronger power to refrain from constantly seeking to broaden its sphere of influence, predominance, interest, at the expense of the weaker power; and this even without ambitious designs but solely as the result of a natural and logical tendency and as a postulate necessary to preserve the security and stabiUty of the military or political establishment which the powerful nation seeks to found. 69 Indeed, the instinct of self-defense requires the latter as a paramount necessity for the purpose of constantly broadening the sphere of its power, either by the appropria- tion of strategic points that might menace the security of its military base, or by obtaining control of the poUtical, and even the economic, interests of the weaker country, which otherwise might bring about external or internal complications that would be inimical to the security and existence of the zone reserved by the stronger power, even though that zone were mathematically laid out. The tendency to encroachment, under such circumstances, is incontrovertibly demonstrated by the history of the colonizations made by European nations in America, Asia, and Africa from the fifteenth century to our own day. It is in order to put an end to those always-dangerous encroachments, that the political constitutions of the American States prohibit, as the Nicaraguan constitution does in its second article, the alienation to a foreign nation of any portion of its national territory, because the encroachment upon that territory by a foreign sover- eignty would alter the order that is safeguarded by the constitutional law by the transcendental and efficacious means of excluding foreign power by virtue of the author- ity of the constitutional principle relating to the inalien- ableness of the nation's territory. Doubtless, also, for the same reason, the illustrious President Monroe declared in 1823 that: "The occasion has been deemed proper for assert- ing as a principle in which rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American con- tinents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future coloniza- tion by any European power. * * * We owe it, 70 therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interifered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States." The Monroe doctrine has for its basis, then, the right of self-defense and security of the country that proclaims it, and in this sense it is permissible to say that by providing, in the interest of the immutability of the constitutional order of the Central American States, a means of prohibit- ing the alienation or colonization of their territories. Article II of the treaty above cited, is as legitimate as that famous doctrine and is founded on the same firm base: the right of nations to provide for their security. Every disposition or measure, therefore, adopted by a Central American State which alters its constitutional order by the alienation of its territory and the encroach- ment thereon of the sovereignty of a foreign power flagrantly violates the fundamental and express principle whereon the General Treaty of Peace and Amity rests, even though the alienation or colonization of a part of its territory be merely in the form of a lease for a term of years. The language used in Article II of the canal treaty makes it perfectly clear and evident that the con- stitutional order of Nicaragua must inevitably be altered 71 by the establishment of the naval base provided for in that treaty. The language is as follows: "And the Government of Nicaragua further grants to the Government of the United States for a like period of ninety-nine years the right to establish, operate, and maintain a naval base at such place on the territory of Nicaragua bordering upon the Gulf of Fonseca as the Government of the United States may select. The Government of the United States shall have the option of renewing for a further term of ninety-nine years the above leases and grants upon the expiration of their respective terms, it being expressly agreed that the territory hereby leased and the naval base which may be maintained under the grant aforesaid shall be subject exclusively to the laws and sovereign authority of the United States during the terms of such lease and grant and any renewal or re- newals thereof." The alteration of Nicaragua's constitutional order could not be more clearly shown than by withdrawing from its own sovereignty a part of its territory and subjecting it to the dominion and sovereignty of the United States. Furthermore, by the second amendment of the Senate, the North American Government reserves to itself complete and absolute control over the destination, form and management of the expenditure of the three million dollars that constitute the price to be paid to the Govern- ment of Nicaragua, and direct that the fund so to be paid by the Government of the United States to that of Nicaragua shall be deposited in such banks as the former may determine and disbursed by orders issued by the Nicaraguan treasury and endorsedjby the Secretary of State of the United States or by the person designated by the latter. All of which diminishes the sovereignty of Nicaragua, subjects it to foreign fiscalization and alters unquestionably the^Nicaraguan^constitutional order that 72 rests upon the principle of the absolute independence of the nation's Government and on the inalienable integrity of the nation's territory. But not alone in that serious manner have the contract- ing parties violated the Conventions of Washington by the establishment of the naval base in question. Article III of the General Treaty of Peace and Amity itself, which establishes the civilized and pacific principle of neutraliza- tion of the territory and waters of Honduras as one of the noblest and most useful achievements of those conven- tions, has also been violated. The form and extent in which Honduran neutrality has been consecrated neces- sarily implies the application of all the consequences that may be derived from the principles of international law respecting the permanent neutralization of States. Neutrality, which is one of the legal forms adopted for the maintenance of the right of security belonging to nations, imposes on the nations that guarantee it the unavoidable obligation not to violate that status of neu- trality by any act that might menace the security of the neutralized country, not only within the zone of neutraliza- tion, but even beyond it in the territory proper of the guaranteed State, and it cannot be questioned that the establishment of a naval base in the immediate vicinity, or in the maritime zone, of neutralized territory, is such an act of violation. This has always been the understanding in international practice, because the principle that the neutralization of navigable waters imposes on the riparian States the obligation not to fortify their coasts is a principle long recognized and accepted. To this effect the European powers assembled at the Conference of Paris, in 1856, 73 declared themselves in Article XIII of the treaty of March 30, which reads as follows: "The Black vSea having been neutralized by the terms prescribed in Article XI, military maritime arsenals are objectless and unnecessary on its coasts. Consequently His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias and his Imperial Majesty the vSultan, agree not to establish or maintain on that littoral any military-maritime arsenal." The neutralization of the Baltic Sea was also established in that manner at the same Conference: "His Majesty the Em.peror of all the Russias, in order to satisfy their Majesties the Emperor of the French and the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, declares that the Aaland Islands will not be fortified, nor shall any military or naval establishment be created or maintained there- on." And more recently Germany and France, in exchanging the territories mutually ceded in Equatorial Africa, agreed to neutralize the waters of the great rivers running through them, and, to that end, stipulated as follows in Article IX of the convention known as the "Congo Agreement" of November 4, 191 1 : "France and Germany, desiring to strengthen their good relations in their Central African posses- sions, agree not to construct any fortified work in the neighborhood of the streams or watercourses that are subject to common navigation. This prohibition does not apply to works for simple security, intended to protect military posts against the incursions of the natives." On the 8th of April, 1904, France and England brought to an end their differences over the grave and complicated Moorish question by means of the diplomatic act that 74 has come to be known as the Entente cordiale. Article VII of that convention reads: "For the purpose of insuring the free passage of the Strait of Gibraltar, the two Governments agree not to permit the construction of fortifications or strategic works of any class on that part of the Moroccan coast comprised between Melilla and the heights that dominate the right bank of the Sebu, exclusively. This disposition, however, does not apply to the two points now occupied by Spain on the Moroccan Httoral of the Mediterranean." The British Government considered this stipulation as a compensation for the corresponding stipulation that insured the neutrality of the Suez Canal, and this in spite of the fact that the Strait of Gibraltar had always been considered by England as of vital importance to its commercial and strategic interests. It is, then, incontestably an established fact that, in conformity with the principles and practices of inter- national law, the fortification of points near neutral territories or waters is clearly prohibited as constituting a menace to the existence of the status of neutrahty. The Government of Nicaragua, therefore, had not the power to authorize the establishment of the naval base which stands as a practical menace to the security of the imme- diate neutralized territory. Nor were the United States justified in infringing the Honduran neutrality since the character of mediator that that Government assumed at the Central American Conference of Washington estops it from infringing the stipulations of the pacts subscribed by that Government in the exercise of its counsel and mediation. The con- trary would be in opposition to its duty as mediator. Consequently, because of the fact that the naval base in the Gulf of Fonseca would stand as a violation of the funda- mental principles of the Conventions of Washington, the 75 stipulations of the Bryan-Chamorro treaty are rendered nugatory, and the rights claimed by the United States under such stipulations are invalid. Similarly violated are the principles of international law that relate to the right of security of nations, because, according to those principles, no State is permitted to perform any act that menaces the security of another, and this is an obligation that is even more strict and im- perative when the menacing act is performed in a place which, as in the case of the waters of the Gulf, is legally embraced within the status of indivisibiUty and commu- nity, and which would result in diminishment to the prejudice of those States that, like El Salvador and Hon- duras, have not consented to the establishment of a naval base in the common waters. The danger resulting to the riparian States from the presence of the naval base in the Gulf cannot be doubted, and the State or States that seek to create that menacing danger to the security of the others, by that act alone violate the principles of natural law which are as obliga- tory upon nations as upon individuals. It would be easy to cite a multitude of cases wherein the danger that men- aces the security of a country has given it the indisputable right to oppose the creation of such a state of facts. The opposition of France and England to the establishment by Germany of a naval base in Agadir, in 191 1, is a recent example even more in point in this matter of legal and moral order. Therefore, the flagrant conflict existing between the stipulations of the Bryan-Chamorro treaty and the principles of international law that justify the legal status of the Gulf of Fonseca, constitutes a further and incontestable reason for holding the rights claimed under that pact to be unfounded and without legal value. 76 If the Government of the United States, as it doubtless intends, is to give effective and practical value to the Senate amendment that provides against the diminution of El Salvador's existing rights, it can accomplish this in no other way than by satisfying those legitimate rights of security, sovereignty and joint-ownership by renouncing its design to create in the Gulf of Fonseca a military base or establishment. Supported by the foregoing considerations, which are respectfully brought to the attention of the North Ameri- can Government, this Foreign Office formally declares that it does not recognize the validity of the Nicaraguan Treaty so far as it provides for the establishment of a naval base in the Gulf of Fonseca, and that, therefore, against that treaty the Government of El Salvador will always make use of all measures and proceedings which existing conventions and justice and international law have placed in its hands for the purpose of establishing its invalidity. Again, Sir, I beg leave to assure you of my high and distinguished consideration. F. Martinez Suarez, APPENDIX L. Ministry of Foreign Relations, San Salvador, April 14, igi6. His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Relations Of the Repubhc of Nicaragua, Managua. Mr. Minister: When the Government of El Salvador received the news that the Nicaraguan Repubhc had opened negotiations with the United States involving the alienation of a zone through its territory from sea to sea for the construction therein, at the election of the United States, of an inter- oceanic canal, and the Concession to the latter Govern- ment for the establishment of a naval base at a point on Nicaraguan territory bounding on the Gulf of Fonseca, my Government lodged a protest with the Department of State of the United States, in the note of our Legation in that country bearing date October 21, 1913, a copy of which is contained in the Official Gazette of the 23d of October, 1913, which I have the honor to hand you here- with. Subsequently the Salvadorean Legation at Washington, acting under instructions from this Department, presented a second protest, which Your Excellency is requested to read in the note of February 9th last, that was amplified in the note addressed, on the 3rd of March following, by this Foreign Office to the United States Legation accred- ited to this Capital. These last-referred-to documents are quoted literally in the report of this Department pubUshed in the Official Gazette of March 6th of this year (a copy of which is also handed you with this despatch) which will be dehvered to Your Excellency by the Foreign Office couriers, Captain Jose A. Menendez and Lieutenant Santiago Ch. Jdu- regui. (77) 78 The bases supporting those protests of El Salvador to the Government of the United States, which were prompted by the negotiation of the treaty afterwards subscribed at the City of Washington by the vSecretary of State, the Hon. William J. Bry^an, and General don Emiliano Cha- morro, in his capacity of Minister Plenipotentiary of Nica- ragua, warrant my Government in formulating and lodg- ing with the Government of Your Excellency as well, a similar protest against the conclusion of that treaty which is now pending ratification by the Legislative Bodies of that sister Republic, and such protest is hereby made on behalf of my Government. This Foreign Office does not doubt that Your Excel- lency's illustrious Government, inspired by the same spirit of Central Americanism as well as by sentiments of sincere responsiveness to the cordial friendship that the Government of El Salvador professes for that of Nica- ragua, will be pleased to weigh the reasons that support El Salvador and which demonstrate conclusively that the consummation of the Bryan-Chamorro treaty will seri- ously injure the primordial interests, not only of this Republic, but of all Central America, and which, therefore, merit such friendly action by the Government of that sister Republic as will definitively prevent the treaty from being carried into effect. A contrar}^' decision would bring to the mind of my Government the conviction that the vital interests of El Salvador and of Central America have been laid aside and would force it to adjust its future conduct in consonance with that conviction and to avail itself of every means afforded by justice, law and existing international com- pacts for the purpose of procuring the nullification of the treaty in question. I reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest esteem and consideration, F. Martinez Suarez. APPENDIX LL. TELEGRAMS Managua Palace, May 4, 1916. His Excellency, the Minister of Foreign Relations, San Salvador. In accordance with Your Excellency's telegraphic mes- sage of yesterday, I have the honor to inform you that orders were duly given to grant the Foreign Office cour- iers of your Government, Captain Jose A. Menendez and Lieut. Santiago Jauregui, the immunities, prerogatives and consideration which are their due, and thus they were received to-day at this Ministry. I reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest appreciation. Diego M. Chamorro. Managua Palace, May 4, 1916. The Minister of Foreign Relations, San Salvador. We have placed the documents in the hands of the Min- ister. We await further orders. Respectfully. J. A. Menendez. (79) APPENDIX M. Paragraphs from the Annual Report of the Minister of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Nicaragua to the National Congress for the year 1914. Protest of El Salvador Against the Chamorro-Weitzel Convention. Nicaragua's Note to the American Legation. As a result of the conclusion of the Chamorro-Weitzel treaty, which concedes to the United States a naval base in the Gulf of Fonseca, the Government of El Salvador presented at Washington a protest wherein it claimed communal rights throughout the entire Gulf, and I be- lieved it to be my duty to address to the American Govern- ment, on the 1 8th of April, 19 14, through the medium of its Legation at Managua, an explanatory note relating to the matter, which was accompanied by a map of the Bay of Fonseca and a copy of Act II signed by the Nicaragua- Honduran Mixed Boundary Commission created under the Gamez-Bonilla treaty of October 7, 1894. By virtue of Article I of that pact the Governments of Nicaragua and Honduras appointed commissioners to con- stitute the Mixed Boundary Commission charged with the amicable settlement of all pending doubts and differences and the demarcation, on the land, of the divisionary line that was to establish the frontier boundary of the two Republics. The membership of the Commission was made up of Dr. don Salvador Castrillo and the Engineer, don Emilio Miiller, on the part of Nicaragua, and of Dr. don Pedro J. Bustillo and Dr. don E. Constantino Fiallos, on the part of Honduras, and the Commission sat in the town of San Marcos de Colon on the 24th of February, 1900. (80) 8i According to Acts II, III, and IV it fixed the boundaries of the three sections, from Amatillo Point, in the lower part of the Negro River, to the small port through which passes the road from Totecacinte, which port was chosen as the terminal of the third section as a divisionary line and designated, conventionally, for that purpose under the name of Portillo de Totecacinte. That demarcation fixed definitively the boundaries between the two countries according to Rule ist of Article II, which reads: "The lines on which the two Republics shall have agreed, or as to which there is no dispute between them, shall constitute the boundaries between Honduras and Nicaragua." By Act II above mentioned, the divisionary line be- tween the territories of Nicaragua and Honduras in the Gulf of Fonseca was marked out as follows : "From the point known by the name of El Ama- tillo, in the lower part of the Negro River, the boun- dary is a straight line drawn in the direction of Cosi- giiina volcano, bearing South 86° 30' West and dis- tant approximately 37 kilometers to a point in the middle of the Bay of Fonseca, equidistant from THE COASTS OF THE TWO REPUBLICS ON THAT SIDE ; and from that point it follows the division of the waters of the Bay over a line, also equidistant from the SAID COASTS, TO THE CENTER OT THE SPACE BETWEEN THE Northern part of Cosiguina Point and the Southern part of Tigre Island." That line is so indicated and marked out on a map accompanied by a description thereof, to be found in the volume of Acts of the Mixed Boundary Commission. There exists, then, no community between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Gulf of Fonseca, and El Salvador, being neither a neighbor nor a co-boundary vState with us, since the Republic of Honduras lies in between, the com- munity claimed with Nicaragua and alleged in the Sal- vadorean protest does not, and cannot, exist. 82 Furthermore, the status of common ownership in, and indivisibleness of, the waters of a bay is very different from that of an inheritance or an estate in lands, for, whereas, with respect ^o the former, there exists the general prin- ciple that the parts adjacent to their coasts belong to the several nations — so that, on the laying out of the terres- trial boundary line, demarcation of the maritime waters is understood — there is no similar principle with respect to landed properties, since the coparceners thereof at one point or another, stand to receive what belongs to them indifferently, and, even in a case where the landed proper- ties are contiguous, the civil law provides that the portion to be adjudicated to each coparcener shall be that part of the common property which is contiguous to his own land. A nation cannot possess the right to a larger expanse of waters in a bay held in common with of crs than that which the extension of its coasts fixes as belonging to it; and the Republic of El Salvador, being situated at the extreme Northwest of the Bay of Fonseca, and the Repub- lic of Nicaragua in the extreme Southeast, and the two being separated by Honduras, it is impossible that the maritime ownership of the former could extend a single inch beyond the point fixed by the limit of its coasts that separates it from Honduran territory. I have entered into these details for the purpose of showing that Nicaragua, in negotiating with the United States in the interest of her development and progress as a nation, negotiated respecting that part of her territory that belongs exclusively to her as a State and lies within her respective frontier demarcations, and did not injure in the slightest degree the legitimate rights and interests of El Salvador or those of any other Republic of Central America. Diego M. Chamorro. Managua, January ij, iQij. APPENDIX N. ARTICLES FROM THE LAW OF NAVIGATION AND MARINE, TAKEN FROM THE CODIFICATION OF NATIONAL LAWS SANCTIONED BY THE DECREE OF FEBRUARY 21, 1879. General Principles. * ****** Art. 2. — Estuaries, coves and bays, and the contig- uous open sea to a distance of one marine league, meas- ured from extreme low tide, are of national ownership; but the police power, for purposes connected with the country's security and the enforcement of the fiscal laws, extends to a distance of four marine leagues measured from extreme low tide. Maritime Departments. Art. 13. — The territorial sea of the Republic is divided into five maritime departments, as follows : First. — The maritime department of La Union, com- prising the Bay of Conchagua, that part of the Gulf of Fonseca wherein are situated the Salvadorean islands, and the territorial sea as far as the parallel of the eastern mouth of the San Miguel river. Art. 16. — All officers exercising marine command will enforce the nation's pohce power over the four marine leagues mentioned in Article 2, within the limits indicated by the prolongations of the parallels that mark out the respective departments. ******* (83) APPENDIX O. San Salvador, June 14, igi6. Sefior don CarIvOS Mele:ndez, President of the Republic, San Salvador. Sir: A fortunate occurrence brought the undersigned to- gether shortly after we had had the honor to receive your distinguished communication relating to the Gulf of Fon- seca, and being employed in the same matter and having been jointly engaged in the labor of preparing the New Map of El Salvador, we have consulted each other re- specting certain points involved in said communication, and, therefore, for the sake of convenience and_to avail ourselves of the greater advantage of the opinion of both, have written and subscribed the present joint reply. The map of the Gulf of Fonseca, which we have the honor to submit herewith, is traced in conformity with the map of the American Admiralty, which is, in our opinion, the one that best shows that part of the Central American coast on the Pacific side. Its scale is 1 + 150,000, or 1 = 150,000; that is to say, I millimeter in the map represents an actual distance of 150 meters, and, therefore, a marine mile (1,850 meters) is represented by 12.33 millimeters, a marine league by 37 millimeters, and 4 marine leagues by 148 millimeters. We have not taken into account the difference between high and low tides as they are not appreciable on the said scale and are of no importance to the case. Paralleling the coast we have traced, on the vSalvadorean and Nicaraguan parts that form the gullets or entrance of the Gulf, the two lines (distant twelve miles from the coast) that mark the respective limits of the zone of Mari- time Inspection according to the generally accepted pre- scriptions in that connection, and it is thus clearly to be (84) 85 seen that those Hnes intercept or dovetail, thus closing the Gulf, which is thereby reduced to an interior bay of purely Central American jurisdiction. We have arrived at the same conclusion by merely con- sidering that the entrance to the Gulf is 35 kilometers, approximately, from Amapala Point, in El Salvador, to Cosigiiina Point, in Nicaragua; and that, by measuring four marine leagues, or 22,220 meters, from each of those points the lines traced necessarily meet and dovetail; otherwise the entrance would have to be at least 44,440 meters, or nearly 10 kilometers wider than it is. If the shortest distance between Meanguerita Island — • an integral part of the Salvadorean coast — and the Penin- sula of Cosigiiina be taken as the entrance points to the Gulf, the width would be 15 kilometers, which is scarcely equal to 8 miles ; and if the islets known as the Farallones are taken as the limit of the Nicaraguan coast on that side, the entrance would be reduced to 7 kilometers 950 meters, or some 4 miles and a little more than a quarter (0.295). The undersigned believe that a mere examination of the map attached hereto will resolve the problem to which your communication refers, for one instantly notes that the Gulf of Fonseca is nothing but an indentation with but little open sea — a detail of the coast — which, by reason of the narrowness of its entrance, is exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of Central America. We have the honor to submit the foregoing in response to the request you have been pleased to lay before us. Santiago Ignacio Barberena, Director of the National Meteorologic and Seismo- graphic Observatory. Jose E. Alcaine, Director of the Office of Official Engineers. JS, GULF or FONSECA COPIFO AND ReOOCSO rpoM usff/ODoefiAPwcomcc CMfiT /VO 973 I This book is DUP .j*--TinpH below - -^LIFORN' * u '" . :alifornu LOS ANGELES LIBRARY 3 1158 01217 9809 "^1 -^