PUBLICATION OP 
 
 “EL MENSAJERO DE CENTRO-AMERICA.” 
 
 The Questions Between Mexico and 
 
 Guatemala. 
 
 1895. 
 
PUBLICATION OF 
 
 “EL MENSAJEKO DE CENTRO-AMERICA.” 
 
 The Questions Between Mexico and 
 
 Guatemala. 
 
 1895 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Several newsj)apers of Mexico have been treating the incidents relating 
 to the question raised against Guatemala by that country, in terms that are 
 far from harmonizing with the respect due a country with which friendly 
 relations are cultivated, and, in so doing, they omit facts which throw a 
 full light upon the subject, disfigure others, and fall almost always into 
 inaccuracies which should be rectified in order that public opinion, with 
 impartial judgment, may pronounce its final decision and accord justice 
 where it belongs. 
 
 The press of Guatemala, on the contrary, moderate in tone and courte¬ 
 ous in its estimations, has always maintained itself at the height befitting 
 enlightened journalism, believing that diatribes, insults, and gratuitous 
 and unfounded assertions are means which may only be employed by 
 those who defend a weak cause, and, respecting the natural reserve inher¬ 
 ent in matters subject to diplomatic discussion, abstained at first from 
 entering into consideration of details ; but, since in the neighboring Re¬ 
 public, with the view of attacking Guatemala, it has been thought advis¬ 
 able to swerve from this prudent rule of conduct, by publishing the doc¬ 
 uments, majDS, etc., etc., which it was deemed would serve that end, El 
 Mensajero de Centro-America, performing a patriotic duty and desiring 
 to put in evidence the unquestionable rights of our country, publishes 
 this conscientious study, the work of an enlightened collaborator of that 
 daily. 
 
 It is written in view of the latest publications and maps printed in the 
 neighboring Republic, and of the information furnished by the plan of 
 the frontier, already concluded by the engineer, Mr. Miles Rock, chief of 
 the Scientific Commission of Guatemala. It is, therefore, a work worthy 
 of full faith and attention, in which our rights in the disputed region are 
 clearly proven, and we recommend it to our readers, trusting that its 
 length may not be a hindrance to its favorable reception, since a subject 
 of such magnitude can only be treated in this way, and since everything 
 written at this time touching it must merit the applause of all who are 
 interested in the triumph of reason and justice. 
 
 Guatemala, January, 1895. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Columbia University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/questionsbetweenOOunse 
 
QUESTIONS BETWEEN GUATEMALA AND 
 
 MEXICO. 
 
 Ill the examination of the pending difficulties between Mexico and 
 Guatemala, we purpose only to demonstrate on which side are reason and 
 justice; in nowise to inflame the mind, or to reply in a disputatious tone 
 to the violent charges and untimely and little serious tirades of a part 
 of the Mexican press, engaged, against every dictate of sound policj^ in 
 disguising facts and occurrences, confusing the mind in order that im¬ 
 pressibility and passion may take the place of reason and truth. 
 
 Easy it is to sow impressibility by alleging outrages whose probability 
 the masses do not even uivestigate, and easy it is to arouse anger by in¬ 
 voking a jiatriotism which it is not timely for Mexico to exhibit. 
 
 In the present dispute, it may be said, without any danger of falling 
 into repentance, that the Mexican press has wished to supplant reason 
 with ranting. Intemperance has not only turned truth from its course, 
 but, simultaneously with inaccuracies, unmerited abuse has been levelled 
 at a country which knew no haggling with justice, and which without jeal¬ 
 ousies or envy, but with the earnest desii'e for progress, endeavors to 
 elevate itself and find inspiration in everything M'orthy of being followed. 
 This means of calumny and invective being all the stranger since in the 
 distribution of affronts to all Latin America, made by old ideas and dis¬ 
 ordered ambitions, Mexico did not escape with the smallest share. Strauge 
 to the point that a justifiable suspicion might lead to the belief that the 
 eagerness to traduce is not actuated by the conviction of an Athenian 
 superiority, but rather by the less sensible motive of desiring to turn 
 aside the public gaze from the outrageous course that has been followed. 
 
 We shall not enter the field of recriminations, nor that of doubts as to 
 an established legality which has passed beyond the stage of discussion. 
 The treaty of September 27, 1882, determined a new situation and estab¬ 
 lished a new legal status in the relations between Guatemala and Mexico. 
 All subsequent acts have had reference to the execution of this treaty, 
 subordinate incidents and motives not altering the essence thereof. 
 
 If, then, we turn our gaze to the times and occurrences antedating the 
 year 1882, it is not with the intention of arguing the treaty and presenting 
 the objections thereto as proof; it is for the purpose of considering, that 
 notwithstanding the sacrifices and the losses suffered, those who received 
 the benefits are never satisfied, and never cease to claim regions and 
 territory that decrease the patrimony of Guatemala and increase that of 
 Mexico. 
 
 The case under discussion is one around which the press of Mexico, 
 aided by some foreign publications utterly ignorant of the subject, has 
 formed an artificial atmosphere where nothing either truthful or nat¬ 
 ural abides. And, however incomjjrehensible it may appear, it is beiug 
 alleged that a country reputed less strong raises obstacles and seeks con¬ 
 flicts and prefers obligations and uncertainties to security and peace. 
 That is to say, that having paid, without owing it, an enormous debt, it 
 refuses the proffered cancellation. To spread this is equivalent to ques¬ 
 tioning the common sense of people. But it has been disseminated as a 
 •cause for hostility and the basis of the attacks of the Mexican press. 
 
6 
 
 Three points are embraced in the question raised by the agitators of 
 the Mexican press, and which the Government of the neighboring Repub¬ 
 lic distorts and twists. The first is the boundary, which is not sub¬ 
 ject to modification or change, but which must be confined within the 
 provisions and lawful limits of the treaty of September 27, 1882. The 
 second refers to claims for violation of territorial property and embraces 
 the subject of possession, according to the condition of things in 1882, 
 while the boundaries are being determined. The third is made to con¬ 
 sist of delays or deliberate postponements on the part of Guatemala-— 
 retardations which, aside from not being chargeable to the Republic,, 
 injure it, for it would never be advisable for a smaller state to keep alive 
 litigation in which it is losing costs and charges. 
 
 This statement or report has no official character, nor does it embrace 
 any solidarity other than that of justice, wherein it seeks inspiration. 
 We have collected information wherever procurable, without pretending 
 that some expressions of opinion or some legitimate warmth, which it is 
 not always possible to avoid when unjust affronts are felt, may not strike 
 others, entities or persons, on whom no res]Donsibility rests, although 
 surely all will agree that Guatemala is upheld by a right so plain and 
 perfect that it may be classed in the category of self-evident rights. 
 Perhaps on this very ground there is difficulty in advancing efficacious 
 arguments on many points, for in reality the essential ones are of such 
 a character that impartial judges would decide the problem as solved 
 legally and morally, by merely seeing it stated in all its simplicity, shorn 
 of disguises or amplifications. 
 
 I. 
 
 Antecedents. 
 
 The boundary question between Central America—and afterwards 
 Guatemala—and Mexico is as old as the independence. Chiapas, a prov¬ 
 ince of the Captain-Generalcy of Guatemala, adhered to the plan of 
 Iguala on the 12th of September, 1821. An empire was founded in 
 Mexico, when these countries had emancipated themselves, and all ap¬ 
 peared united, albeit by artificial bonds, in a nationality which was dis¬ 
 membered at the fall of Iturbide. 
 
 The union of Chiapas to the Republic of Mexico, successor to the Em¬ 
 pire, even under the most exce^Dtional circumstances created by the 
 American states, was of a legality more than problematic, even admitting 
 as real the pretended free suffrage of the inhabitants, because neither 
 municipal law nor the law of nations recognizes the right and freedom 
 of one section to separate from the political organism to which it belongs. 
 Mexico will not venture to recognize that right in the provinces consti¬ 
 tuting the Republic; the United States preferred the cruelest and most 
 costly war of the century to secession. 
 
 Chiapas, however, entered the Mexican confederation without Central 
 America admitting that act as legal. Soconusco remained for many years 
 in a neutral condition ; it did not unite with Mexico, nor was it inclined 
 to cede its autonomy save in the way of reincorporation with Guatemala. 
 In 1842, under the specious pretext that emigrants had taken refuge in 
 Soconusco, General Santa Anna occupied the territory, and it was made to 
 share the same fate as Chiapas, it being attempted to justify and defend 
 the occupation by an election under the rod of the conquerors. 
 
 It was argued that Soconusco belonged to the fiscal intendancy of 
 
7 
 
 Chiapas, not seeing nor wishing to see the slight significance of that fact 
 in the confused colonial administrative system. Guatemala maintained a 
 permanent protest, and, like the other Central American Republics, char¬ 
 acterized that annexation as an abuse of force and an arbitrary outrage. 
 Things were not then in a condition to demand reparation; but an appeal 
 to justice was not thereby waived. 
 
 Had Mexico been convinced of a perfect right, she would not have has¬ 
 tened to urge the settlement of boundaries, the country being so little 
 populated, and it not being at all urgent to determine the ownership of a 
 few spans of land. But she needed to sanction the acts, and sent Diaz 
 Bonilla in 1832 and Don Juan Pereda in 1853, without on either occasion 
 succeeding in bringing the Government of Guatemala out of its reserve. 
 
 The boundary question came up again in 1873 with greater pressure, 
 and it was thought unadvisable to evade it. A little later La Hevista 
 Universal of Mexico questioned the ownership of Peten, and from 1877 
 the dispute seemed on the way to adjustment, through mutual conces¬ 
 sions and the appointment of engineer commissions, which, however, did 
 not succeed in establishing the dividing line. 
 
 The cause of the slowness of the operations is not be treated so lightly 
 as it is by JSl Tiempo of Mexico, nor can the well-founded apprehension 
 aroused in the Government of Guatemala by the ever-growing demands 
 and the purposes of some politicians of the neighboring Republic be dis¬ 
 regarded, nor is it timely now to elucidate and sift the reasons upon 
 which Guatemala founded her desire for arbitration. 
 
 The message addressed to the Houses of Congress by the President of 
 Mexico, Gen. Porfirio Diaz, in 1881, put Guatemala in the situation of 
 accepting a seriously strained situation or a compromise. And, con¬ 
 fronted by the impossibility to obtain the damages already suffered, 
 and to restore things to their original status, the latter was preferred, the 
 result being the preliminary bases signed in New York on the 12th of 
 August, 1882, and the treaty of the 27th of September of the same year. 
 
 Guatemala began by waiving all questions touching the right to Chiapas 
 and Soconusco, and also to all indemnity. It could not be understood 
 that the Mexican diplomats accepted the express waiver of indemnity, 
 unless it meant that they had doubts or they thought the doubts of others 
 were legitimate, because where an invulnerable right exists, there is no 
 occasion for reciprocal agreements to obtain it. 
 
 The discussion, so far as Chiapas and Soconusco were concerned, was 
 entirely at an end. Mexico should have been satisfied, and it was to be 
 supposed that other difficulties would not arise, principally because an¬ 
 other abuse similar to the occupation of Soconusco had just been experi¬ 
 enced. 
 
 A few months prior to the negotiation in New York of the preliminary 
 bases of a boundary treaty, Mexico occupied the district of San Antonio, 
 north of Peten, to an extent of four thousand nine hundred square 
 miles, or nearly five hundred and fifty geographic leagues. Neither the 
 peace nor diplomatic relations had been interrupted, nor did the Mexican 
 Government wish to hear or admit any discussion regarding the posses¬ 
 sion of said district, which by use and tradition belonged to Guatemala. 
 
 The Government of Guatemala, resolved to put an end to the dispute, 
 even at the expense of all concessions and sacrifices, did not insist 
 upon reparation for the wrong, nor did it make it the specific cause 
 of a rupture of negotiations. There is no knowing where such routes 
 would lead, for almost at the same time the Minister of Foreign Rela¬ 
 tions of Mexico was proposing to the Envoy of Guatemala a dividing line 
 
8 
 
 which placed all the Department of Peten within the Mexican Republic, 
 and if the proposition was not to be discussed, it proved what were the 
 intentions and pretensions of the neighboring Republic. It proved that 
 neither prescription nor fundamental rights were recognized. 
 
 The invading current appeared to be stayed by the treaty of September 
 27, which closed the doors to all subsequent ambitious calculations. 
 
 II. 
 
 Peeliminaey Bases foe the Bohndaey Teeaty. 
 
 There having met in the city of New York on the twelfth day of Au¬ 
 gust, eighteen hundred and eighty-two, on the part of the Republic of Gua¬ 
 temala, General Don J. Rufino Barrios, as Constitutional President of the 
 Republic of Guatemala, fully authorized thereunto by the Guatemalan 
 National Assembly, by act of the twenty-eighth of April, eighteen hun¬ 
 dred and eighty-two, to settle the boundary dispute pending with Mexico; 
 Senor Don Manuel Herrera, Jr., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plen¬ 
 ipotentiary of Guatemala near the Mexican Government, and Senor Don 
 Fernando Cruz, ex-Minister of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Gua¬ 
 temala and the associate of General Don Justo Rufino Barrios, President 
 of Guatemala, in the discharge.of this commission; and on the part of the 
 United Mexican States, Senor Don Matias Romero, Envoy Extraordinary 
 and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United Mexican States in Washing¬ 
 ton, authorized by his Government to treat with the representatives of 
 Guatemala, they declared that the Governments of Guatemala and Mexico, 
 desiring to amicably terminate the difficulties that have existed between 
 the two Republics, and with a view to establish a solid basis for the fra¬ 
 ternal relations that should bind them together, have agreed upon the fol¬ 
 lowing preliminary articles for a final boundary treaty on that part of 
 their frontier which comprises the State of Chiapas. 
 
 Article I. The RejDublic of Guatemala abandons the discussion it has 
 maintained relative to its right to the territory of the State of Chiapas and 
 its Department of Soconusco. 
 
 Article II. The final boundary treaty between Guatemala and Mexico 
 shall be concluded upon the basis that Chiapas and Soconusco are to be 
 considered as integral parts of the United Mexican States. 
 
 Article III. The Republic of Guatemala, being satisfied with the due 
 appreciation that Mexico entertains of its course, and with the acknowl¬ 
 edgment that the high aims -which inspired what was agreed upon in 
 the foregoing articles are worthy and honorable, will not demand pecu¬ 
 niary indemnity or other compensation on account of the preceding stip¬ 
 ulations. 
 
 Article IV. In the event of the two contracting parties not being able 
 to agree with respect to the fixing of the boundary, either in whole or in 
 part, between the State of Chiapas and its dejoartment of Soconusco, on 
 the part of Mexico on the one hand, and on that of the Republic of Guate¬ 
 mala on the other, or in case the commissioners each Government may 
 name to draw, conjointly, the dividing line shall differ on any point or 
 points relating to such drawing, and it shall be necessary for an umpire 
 to settle the differences that may arise in this regard, both Governments 
 agree to do so, and to invite the President of the United States of Amer¬ 
 ica to act as such umpire or arbitrator. 
 
 Article V. In the di’awing of the dividing line actual possession shall 
 
9 
 
 serve as a basis, as a general rule. This, however, shall not prevent both 
 parties from abandoning this basis by common consent for the purpose 
 of following natural lines, or for any other reasons, and in such case the 
 system of mutual compensations shall be adopted. 
 
 Until the dividing line shall have been drawn each contracting party 
 shall respect the actvial possession of the other. 
 
 Article VI. The Governments of Guatemala and the United Mexican 
 States bind themselves to sign the final boundary treaty in the City of 
 Mexico, upon the bases contained in this convention, within six months, 
 reckoned from this date, at the latest. 
 
 In witness whereof we sign this convention in duplicate, no ratification 
 thereof being necessary, inasmuch as it only establishes bases for the 
 final boundary treaty, that treaty being the one to be submitted to the 
 approval of the respective Governments, according to the constitutions 
 of the two countries. (Signed) J. Rufino Barrios; (signed) Manuel 
 Herrera, hijc; (signed) Fernando Cruz; (signed) Matias Romero. 
 
 III. 
 
 Boundaby Tkeaty with Mexico. 
 
 The Governments of Guatemala and of Mexico, desiring to bring the dif¬ 
 ficulties existing between the two Republics to an amicable conclusion, have 
 agreed to conclude a treaty that shall accomplish so desirable an object; 
 and to this end they have named their respective plenipotentiaries, that 
 is to say: 
 
 The President of the Republic of Guatemala, Don Manuel Herrera, Jr., 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary near the Government 
 of Mexico; and the President of the Mexican Republic, Don Ignacio 
 Mariscal, Secretary of Foreign Relations; who. after having exhibited to 
 each other their respective powers, and finding them in due form, and 
 having before them the preliminaries signed by the respresentatives of 
 both nations, in the city of New York, in the United States of America, 
 on the twelfth day of August of the present year, have agreed upon the 
 articles following : 
 
 Article I. The Republic of Guatemala forever renounces the rights 
 which she considers she has to the territory of the State of Chiapas and 
 its district of Soconusco, and, in consequence, considers that territory as 
 an integral part of the United Mexican States. 
 
 Article II. The Mexican Republic projierly appreciates the conduct of 
 Guatemala and acknowledges that the motives which have prompted the 
 foregoing renunciation are as worthy as they are honorable, declaring that, 
 in similar circumstances, Mexico would have pursued the same course. 
 
 Guatemala, on her part, satisfied with this solemn acknowledgment 
 and declaration, will not demand indemnity of any kind by reason of the 
 foregoing stipulation. 
 
 Article III. The boundary between the two nations shall forever be as 
 follows: 
 
 1st. The middle line of the Suchiate river from a point in the sea dis¬ 
 tant three leagues from its upper mouth, and thence following the deep¬ 
 est channel thereof to the point at which it intersects the vertical plane 
 which crosses at the highest point of the volcano of Tacana, and distant 
 twenty-five metres from the southernmost pillar of the Talquian gate, so 
 that this gate shall remain in territory of Guatemala. 
 
10 
 
 2nd. The determinate line by the vertical plane above defined, after it 
 touches the river Suchiate, until its intersection with the vertical plane 
 which passes the summits of Buenavista and Ixbul. 
 
 3rd. The determinate line by the vertical plane which passes the sum¬ 
 mit of Buenavista, already established astronomically by the Mexican sci¬ 
 entific commission, and the summit of the Ixbul hill, from where it in¬ 
 tersects the former to a point four kilometres beyond said hill. 
 
 4th. The parallel of latitude which crosses the last-named point, and 
 thence eastward until it reaches the deepest channel of the Usumacinta 
 or the Chixoy rivers, in case the said parallel does not cross the first- 
 named river. 
 
 5th. The middle line of the deepest channel of the Usumacinta, in the 
 one case, or of the Chixoy, and then of the Usumacinta, and following 
 this, in the other, from where the said parallel touches one or the other 
 of these rivers, until the deepest channel of the Usumacinta meets the 
 parallel situated twenty-five kilometres to the south of Tenosique in 
 Tabasco, measured from the centre of the plaza of said town. 
 
 6th. The parallel of latitude referred to above, from its intersection 
 with the deepest channel of the Usumacinta, until it intersects the me¬ 
 ridian which passes at one-third of the distance between the centres of 
 the plazas of Tenosique and Sacluc, said distance being measured from 
 Tenosique. 
 
 7th. This meridian from its intersection with the foregoing parallel to 
 the latitude seventeen degrees and forty-nine minutes. 
 
 8th. The parallel of seventeen degrees and forty-nine minutes from 
 its intersection with the foregoing meridian indefinitely toward the east. 
 
 Article IV. In order to properly trace the boundary line on trustworthy 
 maps, and to erect upon the territory monuments which will show the 
 limits of both Republics, as they are described in the preceding article, 
 each of the two Governments shall appoint a scientific commission. 
 Both commissions shall meet in Unicin Jaurez, six months reckoned from 
 the exchange of ratifications of this treaty at the latest, and proceed at 
 once with the said operations. They shall keep daily notes and draw 
 plans from the same, and the result of their labors, agreed to by them, 
 shall be considered a part of this treaty, and shall have the same effect as 
 though they had been inserted therein. Their work shall be completed 
 within two years, reckoned from the date of the meeting of the commis¬ 
 sions. If either of the two commissions shall not appear within the 
 term of six months heretofore stipulated, the other shall nevertheless 
 commence its work, and the work done by it shall have the same force 
 and validity as though it had been done by both commissions. The two 
 Governments shall conclude as soon as possible an agreement which shall 
 determine the details of these commissions and their work. 
 
 Article V. The citizens of either of the two contracting parties, who by 
 virtue of the stipulations of this treaty shall in the future be in the ter¬ 
 ritory of the other, may remain therein or depart therefrom at any time 
 at their own convenience, preserving in said territory the property they 
 may possess, or alienate the same and transfer the price thereof wherever 
 they wish, without thereby incurring any kind of tax, charge, or impost. 
 Those who elect to remain in the territory ceded may retain their con¬ 
 dition and rights of citizenship of the country to which said territory 
 formerly belonged, or acquire citizenship to which it is hereafter to be¬ 
 long. But election of citizenship must be made within a year, reckoned 
 from the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, and those who may re¬ 
 main in said territory after the expiration of the year, without having de- 
 
11 
 
 dared their intention to retain their old nationality, shall be considered 
 to be citizens of the other contracting party. 
 
 Property of ah kinds situate in the ceded territory shall be inviolably 
 respected, and the present owners thereof, their heirs and those who may 
 in the future legally acquire such property, shall enjoy, with respect to it, 
 as ample guarantees as are enjoyed by citizens of the country wherein it 
 is situated. 
 
 Ai'ticle VI. It being the object of both Governments upon adjusting 
 this treaty, not only to put an end to the difficulties existing between 
 them, but also to terminate and avoid such as may originate between 
 neighboring populations of both countries, arising out of the uncertainty 
 respecting the present boundary lines, it is stipulated that within six 
 months after the meeting of the scientific commissions referred to in Ar¬ 
 ticle IV, they shall conjointly transmit to their Governments a notice of 
 such towns, estates, and farms as will, without doubt, be located on a 
 certain side of the dividing line agreed upon in Ai'ticle III. Upon the re¬ 
 ceipt of such notice each of the two Governments is empowered to immedi¬ 
 ately issue the proper orders to the end that its authority may be estab¬ 
 lished at such points as are to remain within the territory of its respective 
 nation. 
 
 Article VII. This treaty shall be ratified in conformity with the politi¬ 
 cal constitution of each of the two Republics, and the exchange of ratifi¬ 
 cations shall be made in this capital at the earliest possible date. 
 
 In testimony whereof the Plenqiotentiaries signed and sealed this 
 treaty. 
 
 Made in duplicate in the city of Mexico, the twenty-seventh of Sep¬ 
 tember of eighteen hundred and eighty-two. (Signed) Manuel Herrera, 
 hi jo; (signed) Ignacio Mariscal. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The Bases and the Tkeaty. 
 
 Although the preliminary bases might signify in their form the mere 
 promise and the obligation to contract, and the treaty when once made 
 alone constituted the law, the former nevertheless furnished the material 
 and the substance which were to be embodied in the final convention. 
 Matters of no small moment were not set forth in the express manner 
 they should have been, although from the spirit of the negotiations and 
 the nature of things it was understood that they were held in abeyance. 
 
 In the fifth article of the bases it was provided that in the event of not 
 following the line of actual possession in the drawing of the boundary 
 in order to follow natural lines, or for other reasons, the system of mu¬ 
 tual compensation would be adopted, and that until the boundary line 
 was defined each contracting party would respect the possession of the 
 other. In the fourth article it was provided that in case of disagreement 
 the President of the United States of America should be invited to act as 
 umpire or arbitrator. 
 
 It is known that Senor Mariscal categorically refused to agree to the 
 arbitration of the President of the United States when the articles of the 
 treaty of the 27th of Sej^tember, 1882, were under discussion. But it 
 was to be presumed that so far as the other conditions were concerned 
 they were still existent: the duty to compensate, by logic and justice ; that 
 to respect the possession until the boundary question was settled, by a 
 common principle of law followed everywhere and in all times, since it 
 
V2 
 
 would be absurd for satisfaction to immediately follow a demand prior to 
 the completion of the status created by a new order of relations. 
 
 Neither were the compensations verified ; on the contrary, Guatemala 
 suffered another large loss in the establishment of the boundaries pre¬ 
 scribed in the third article of the treaty of September 27, 1882. It left 
 in the possession of Mexico four thousand nine hundred miles area of the 
 district of San Antonio north of Peten, three thousand miles to the west 
 of the Chixoy or Salinas river, together with all the basin of the Lacantum 
 to the old frontier, and tour thousand and fifty miles to the west of the 
 Department of Huehuetenango; a total of eight thousand three hundred 
 and fifty square miles—more than nine hundred geographic leagues. 
 
 So that, although the signing of the bases of the 12th of August, 1882, 
 meant a loss to Guatemala of the district of San Antonio, the new dis¬ 
 memberment implied one of no less than three thousand four hundred and 
 fifty miles, equal to three hundred and eighty-three and one-third square 
 leagues. lu exchange, as a small and insignificant compensation, Guate¬ 
 mala received an area of one hundred square miles at the mouth of the 
 Suchiate and another of eight hundred to the south and east of Teno- 
 sique. Total gain, one hundred square leagues ; total loss, five hundred 
 and fifty leagues, approximately, north of Peten, and three hundred and 
 eighty-three to the west of the Chixoy or Salinas river. 
 
 Then, too, the necessity to conclude at once would cause the accept¬ 
 ance of what was covenanted in Mexico. There was no compensations, 
 but there were other sacrifices, other dismemberments in the interests of 
 peace and of retaining in security what remained of the Republic and the 
 fatherland. 
 
 We are convinced that a geographical error of noticeable magnitude 
 was committed respecting the jjosition of Ixbul hill; otherwise it is diffi¬ 
 cult to explain how so southern a parallel was determined on when Gua¬ 
 temala was holding without question all the space between the longitude 
 of ninety and ninety-one degrees and twenty minutes, and from the six¬ 
 teenth to seventeenth degrees of north latitude, which is the quadrant 
 within which lies the ceded territory west of the Chixoy or Salinas river. 
 More yet was compromised, and an objectionable point has been admitted 
 as good. Mexico could not be more exacting even in imagination, She 
 had the renunciation of the rights to Chiapas and Soconusco and eight 
 thousand three hundred and fifty miles of other territory. Guatemala 
 lost all this, and moreover, against every good system of demarcation of 
 national limits, straight lines always being sought, the property acquired 
 by Mexico south of the Usumacinta river and west of the Chixoy en¬ 
 tered the Department of Peten like a wedge, to the middle of the paral¬ 
 lel between Santiago and the Belize frontier. 
 
 Now let it be said whether Guatemala has sought war, whether she has 
 put obstacles in the way of the survey of the boundary, whether she has 
 not done everything to prevent clashings and establish order, and live at 
 l^eace with Mexico ! 
 
 In determining the time for the completion of the survey, and the as¬ 
 sumption of jurisdiction by the country to enter into possession, in the 
 treaty of September, 1882, many circumstances were not taken into ac¬ 
 count. Article IV prescribes the period of two years, reckoned from 
 the date of their meeting, within which the engineers must conclude their 
 work. This condition could not be fulfilled. The line determined on by 
 the third article of the treaty begins at the mouth of the Suchiate river, 
 runs to Ixbul hill, thence, easterly, to the Chixoy river, follows this river 
 and the Usumacinta to the town of Tenosique, runs eastwardly to the 
 
13 
 
 Ceibo, thence north to latitude seventeen degrees forty-nine minutes, and 
 finally extends eastwardly for a long distance, making no less than one 
 hundred and twenty or thirty geographic leagues, which really amounts 
 to much more, considering the twistings and obstacles presented by those 
 regions. The commissions could not accomplish their work in so short 
 a time. 
 
 Nor was it easy to comply with the stipulations of Article VI where it 
 provides that within six months from the meeting of the scientific com¬ 
 missions, they shall, conjointly, transmit to their Governments a report of 
 such towns, estates, and farms as will undoubtedly remain on a certain 
 side of the dividing line established by Article III; that on receipt of such 
 notice each of the two Governments would be empowered to immediately 
 issue the orders necessary to establish its authority over the places to 
 come within the territory of its respective nation. The unsettled condi¬ 
 tion of those i-egions, and the fact that they were little known, rendered 
 that clause inoperative, and the safer course was pursued of completing 
 the organization and making the exchange so soon as the survey in each 
 section was finished. 
 
 As to the time for completing the work, continuous extensions would 
 be necessary b}^ agreement of the contracting parties. 
 
 V. 
 
 The Boundary Commissions. 
 
 On the 14th of September, 1883, the treaty of the previous year having 
 been ratified and approved, there was signed in Mexico by Don Jose Fer¬ 
 nandez, Under Secretary, in charge pro tmi. of the Ministry of Foreign 
 Relations of that Republic, and by Don Manuel Herrera, Jr., Minister 
 Plenipotentiary of Guatemala, the protocol determining the details rela¬ 
 tive to the organization and work of the commissions which were to 
 locate the dividing line. These commissions were to meet at Union 
 Juarez on the first of November following, and begin work at the south¬ 
 ern end, or the Suchiate river section, and continue the same in the order 
 prescribed by the third article of the treaty of 1882. 
 
 Guatemala appointed her commissioners, who entered upon their duties 
 from the time the commissions were organized at Union Juarez. But 
 the Government of Guatemala did not stop here, but furnished the Mex¬ 
 ican commission with all it might need, in the way of men and official as¬ 
 sistance to carry out its work. 
 
 The first part of the work was performed punctually, the survey of the 
 sections as far as Santiago being concluded in the order prescribed by 
 the treaty of 1882, and the protocol of the 14th of September, 1883. In 
 1884 the conventions legalizing that part of the boundary line were made. 
 Work was prosecuted eastwardly, towards the Chixoy river, at first by the 
 chiefs of the two commissions, and later by Mr. Miles Rock, chief of the Gua¬ 
 temalan commission alone, Senor Pastrana, chief of the Mexican commis¬ 
 sion, doing nothing from the middle of 1885 to 1887. As Senor Pastrana 
 did not put in an appearance, or make any reply to Mr. Rock’s repeated 
 communications, the latter, in the interest of time, proceeded with the 
 erection of the monuments or landmarks on the western part of the 
 Santiago-Chixoy parallel, notifying Senor Pastrana, the Mexican chief, 
 thereof, and proposing to him the adoption of an average parallel to split 
 the slight difference of one hundred and eighty metres which they had 
 
14 
 
 found in their joint work. Senor Pastrana protested and declared the 
 monuments erected to be void and of no elfect, as there had been no pre¬ 
 vious agreement between the two. Mr. Rock, in view of the protest, or¬ 
 dered a susjjension of the construction of the monuments, so as to avoid 
 uncertainties. Two years were lost through the fault of Senor Pastrana. 
 
 In the year 1885 the Governments of Mexico and Guatemala extended 
 for one year the period established for the tracing of the boundary. In 
 1886 it was extended for two years more, and subsequently, in eighteen 
 hundred and eighty-eight, a further extension of two years was agreed 
 upon, as was a like one in eighteen hundred and ninety. 
 
 In the meantime difficulties of moment had arisen. The work of the 
 Mexican commission extended as far as the Ixcan river, on the parallel 
 which runs from Santiago in the direction of the Chixoy; it went no 
 further, and the Guatemalan commission had to continue alone. An in¬ 
 significant difterence, consisting of a few metres, could not serve as a 
 jDretext for Senor Pastrana to suspend his work. It was soon seen that 
 in creating obstructions other ends were had in view. 
 
 “ The second astronomer of the Mexican commission, Don Jose Tam- 
 borrel, in March, 1887, went to the Pasidn river to investigate whether 
 the parallel to which clause 4 of Article III of the treaty of September 
 27, 1882, if carried beyond the Chixoy river, would intersect the Pasifin 
 river, supposing this latter to be identical with the TJsumacinta.” He 
 had, to all appearances, orders from the Mexican Government to make 
 that investigation. The engineer, Mr. Rock, informed the Government of 
 Guatemala in May of the same year regarding the purposes of the Gov¬ 
 ernment of Mexico and its commissioners. In March, 1888, Mr. Rock 
 sent Senor Pastrana a protest against the pmqDOse to prolong the Santiago- 
 Chixoy parallel; but this did not deter him, in June, from beginning his 
 operations to the east of the said river, although he also established two 
 sections between the Ixcan and the Chixoy. 
 
 The Government of Guatemala framed an emphatic protest, and the in¬ 
 cident further furnished an opportunity for the then Minister of Foreign 
 Relations, Don Enrique Martinez Sobral, to write a pamphlet in which 
 the rights of Guatemala are demonstrated with exactness and clearness, 
 and the false interpretation and scope which the Mexican Government 
 and Commission wished to give the treaty of 1882 are refuted with an 
 abundance of reasons. 
 
 That incident appeared to have been dissipated by a note from the For¬ 
 eign Minister of Mexico, transmitted on August 30th, 1888, by the Charge 
 d’Aftaires ad interim^ Don PlatOn Roa. In that note we read: “ I beg 
 you to be pleased to communicate to the Hon. Minister of Foreign Rela¬ 
 tions of Guatemala the procedure expressed in said note, adding that the 
 Government may' rest assured that the matter will be settled with entire 
 impartiality, in accordance with the stipulations of the boundary treaty 
 between the two countries.” 
 
 The new danger was believed, perchance prematurely, to be stayed, 
 since at the bottom Senor Mariscal does not declare that it is an injustice 
 to attempt to prolong the Santiago-Chixoy parallel beyond the latter 
 river; he said that the matter would be settled with entire impartiality, 
 in accordance with the stipulations of the treaty of 1882; but if, in treating, 
 the names of rivers and districts are confounded and transposed, and the 
 interest of one party which, believing itself strong, sets itself up as a 
 judge, is pronounced an impartial method, we shall be going back to the 
 status of July, 1888. 
 
 Senor Martinez Sobral, in his strong pamphlet, which he published in 
 
15 
 
 1889, asserts that he knows from official documents that the question re¬ 
 lating to the region lying between the Chixoy and Pasibn rivers termi¬ 
 nated in a manner favorable to Guatemala, and he adds these words: 
 “We are told, however, that if Mexico expressed her assent to the right by 
 us alleged to said region, it is in the understanding that the treaty amend¬ 
 atory of the convention relating to claims should be approved by the As¬ 
 sembly.” If this is true, we note another irregularity; for, aside from the 
 two questions being entirely foreign to each other, the recognition of a 
 right is never made to depend upon the solution of another distinct de¬ 
 tail, even in matters of a similar order and kind; but admitting it to be so, 
 however unreasonable, still no excuse would hold, as the dispute concern¬ 
 ing claims had terminated. 
 
 The commissions continued the work through all these vicissitudes. 
 The last extension expired by limitation in 1892, and the Assembly in its 
 sessions of 1893, j^ressed with business, did not grant a new one, but the 
 Government of the Republic, under date of Jvily 10th, 1894, agreed to a 
 a new extension, and it is certain that the next legislature will ratify it. 
 
 The Guatemalan commission has not ceased its labors, either by reason 
 of the suspension of work on the part of the Mexican commissioners, or 
 the disagreeable incidents which have delayed the joint action of the com¬ 
 missions. This fact alone showing how arbitrary are the accusations 
 against Guatemala, supposing her to be the cause of deliberate and in¬ 
 tentional postponements. 
 
 The survey would now be concluded had not questions been raised 
 against the literal and express text of the boundary treaty. 
 
 VI. 
 
 The Santiago-Chixoy Parallel. 
 
 The contention advanced in 1887 for the purpose of extending, in the 
 interests of Mexico, the parallel beginning at Santiago, is nothing more 
 than a manoeuvre in the tactics which have been pursued since 1823, at the 
 expense of Guatemala. 
 
 We have before us the report sent to the Senate of Mexico in 1893 by 
 the Foreign Minister, Don Ignacio Mariscal, relating to the boundary dis¬ 
 pute between that Republic and Belize. Having to refer incidentally to 
 Guatemala, since it borders on Mexico and Belize on the north, Senor 
 Mariscal says : “ Suffice it for us to know that, according to the best in¬ 
 formation we possess up to date, the boundary between the two Cap- 
 tain-Generalcies (Yucatan and Campeche and Guatemala) to which I 
 refer, was (theoretically, from latest reports) the already cited parallel 
 (17° 49'), or the 18th. This is why the former was selected in our treaty 
 of 1882 with Guatemala, although parties are not wanting who believe 
 it should have been the 18th, somewhat more favorable to the Gua¬ 
 temalans, and which is designated as the southern boundary of Yucatan 
 in a map published in Merida in the year 1845. The same boundary is 
 to be found in a large number of the maj)s published at the beginning of 
 the present century, to be found in the collection of the Department of 
 Public Works, although in others of the same period parallel 17° 49 or 
 50 minutes is given.” 
 
 It may be seen that although, in all probability, the northern boundai'y 
 of the Republic should be the eighteenth parallel, Mexico chose the more 
 favorable one, 17® and 49 minutes. 
 
16 
 
 Further on in the same report he cites a historical monograph on Belize, 
 by Senor Orozco y Berra, and attaches this exhibit: “ Exhibit No. 6.—As 
 regards the extension to the west, already noted, and that claimed by Mr. 
 Stevenson to the south as far as the Sarstoon river (which extensions it 
 is evident greatly exceed the treaties by taking in all the territory be¬ 
 tween the Sibun or Gabdn and the Sarstoon, which is greater than all 
 that included in the concession of 1786), it should be said that it is doubtful 
 whether that usurpation is chargeable to Mexico or Guatemala. The so¬ 
 lution of this doubt depends upon the boundary that may be established 
 between Guatemala and Mexico. In the several plans I have before me, 
 among them that furnished me by the Ministry of Foreign Relations, 
 the dividing line between Mexico and Guatemala is fixed by a straight 
 line at 17° 50' north latitude. If this is so, all the territory between the 
 Sibun or Gabdn and the Sarstoon is very far outside of our territory, as 
 are also Peten and the territory of the Lacandones, which leaves us no 
 right to claim in this particular.” The Minister adds a note referring to 
 the treaty of 1882 with Guatemala. 
 
 In times past (and this does not mean that there are not still some 
 newspapers urging the annnexation of Peten) claims were advanced and 
 intrigues concocted with a view to turning the mind of the Mexican peo¬ 
 ple against Guatemala, and impress it with the advisability of wresting 
 from this Republic its most extensive department, and the one with, per¬ 
 haps, the greatest future. The reasons advanced were so frivolous and 
 absurd that they have not succeeded in securing proselytes. But another 
 path to the same goal is open. Peten being inaccessible, and penned up 
 by Mexico and England, the jurisdiction of Guatemala, and political and 
 economic unity, become extremely difficult. 
 
 The proceeding consists in cutting the territory of Peten with the arm 
 of another nationality, a strange appropriation which reduces Guatemala’s 
 patrimony, besides dividing what is left. For such a scheme there is no 
 reason that will stand, no possible justification in laws, treaties, or con¬ 
 ventions. Much it was, too much, to have secured all the district west 
 of the Chixoy, by which means Mexico has made a mighty advance into 
 the very heart of the country. Yet the subject of extending the Santi¬ 
 ago parallel is again mooted, and the strange part is that a right is as¬ 
 serted based upon an agreement which expressly and categorically con¬ 
 tradicts it. 
 
 The fourth clause of Article III of the boundary treaty is couched thus: 
 “ The parallel of latitude which crosses the last-named point (four kilo¬ 
 metres beyond Ixbul hill), and thence eastward until it reaches the deep¬ 
 est channel of the Usumacinta or the Chixoy rivers, in case said parallel 
 does not cross the first-named river.” But clause five makes it clearer 
 still: “5th. The middle line of the deepest channel of the Usumacinta, 
 in the one case, or of the Chixoy, and then of the Usumacinta, and follow¬ 
 ing this in the other, from where the said parallel touches one or the other 
 of these rivers, until the deepest channel of the Usumacinta meets the 
 parallel situated twenty-five kilometres to the south of Tenosique, in Ta¬ 
 basco, measured from the centre of the plaza of said town.” 
 
 One day it occurred to the Government of Mexico to send the engi¬ 
 neer, Bon Jose Tamborrel, to investigate whether the Santiago-Chixoy 
 parallel extended would strike the Pasidn river, as this was identical with 
 the Usumacinta". Senor Tamborrel asserted that the treaty confounds 
 the two, although the treaty does not even incidentally mention the Pa- 
 sidn river ; and thus the long dispute assumed a new phase. 
 
 Senor Martinez Sobral, in the pamphlet several times alluded to, proves 
 
17 
 
 that the Pasihn river never was named Usumacinta, and he proves it by 
 the testimony of numerous native and foreign writers. It is above all a 
 matter which is obvious. It is the Usumacinta from the confluence of 
 the Chixoy or Salinas river and the Pasion. The Pasion river above this 
 is called the Cankuen or Santa Isabel, and neither of these substantives, 
 so far as we know, is synonymous with Usumacinta. 
 
 Moreover, the Pasihn river lying to the east of the Chixoy, or Salinas, 
 could not be the one designated in the contract and limits, even should 
 its named be changed, such a supposition being incompatible with clauses 
 four and flve. According to clause four, the deepest channel of the 
 Chixoy must be sought in case of failure to fall in with the deejoest chan¬ 
 nel of the Usumacinta, and starting from Santiago the Chixoy would 
 never be encountered beyond the Pasihn river; on the contrary, the San¬ 
 tiago parallel crosses it before. We should find ourselves, then, in 
 the case of attempting to find a second line through the one urged in 
 substitution thereof, in the event of the river not being met with. The 
 fourth clause of AiTicle III was framed with absolute accuracy, to such a de¬ 
 gree, indeed, that should the Usumacinta river lose its name in the course 
 of time, whoever reads the treaty with common sense and some idea of 
 geography-will know that it refers to a river in front of which the Chixoy 
 cannot be. The Usumacinta, to carry out the demarcation agreed on, must 
 be in front or higher up. 
 
 The Santiago parallel cannot strike the Usumacinta river, for the reason 
 that the former is near the seventeenth degree of latitude, whereas the 
 river begins at sixteen degrees and thirty-eight or forty minutes, and 
 flows north. 
 
 The bad faith exhibited in this matter compels recourse to the puerile 
 claim that the Chixoy and Pasibn rivers are channels of the Usumacinta. 
 Ml Tiempo, of Mexico, which has dwelt more largely on the subject, al¬ 
 though with the same violence and injustice of other publications, not 
 finding in the word “ channel ” a proper term to bear out its purpose, 
 substitutes for it the word ‘"branch,” which was not employed in the treaty. 
 
 But if the Pasibn river is not a channel, neither is it a branch of the Usu¬ 
 macinta. A branch of a river is that part thereof which, separating itself, 
 flows through a different channel to its mouth or a reunion. In such case 
 we say “ mouth ” or “ branch,” but affluents are never so named, nor are 
 rivers which on joining form one with a different name. 
 
 On speaking of the deepest channel of the Usumacinta or the Chixoy 
 river, and not simply of the river, there could have been no reference save 
 to the deepest part of the stream, should it run in one bed or body, or to 
 the one with the greatest volume, should it flow, as is frequent, through 
 several streams. Had the contracting parties desired to designate rivers 
 other than the Usumacinta and the Chixoy they would have so done. 
 
 Not conceding any real weight to so many sophisms, it is easy to dissi¬ 
 pate this last trifle to which recourse has been had. The Pasion river is 
 not the deeper, but the shallower of the two which form the Usumacinta, 
 and shallower than the Lacantum which adds to the volume of the latter. 
 
 The data which the chief of the Guatemala boundary commission has 
 kindly furnished us here follows : Deepest channel of the Pasibn river, 
 eleven-and-a-half feet. Deepest channel of the Chixoy river, twenty- 
 five feet. Deepest channel of the Usumacinta, a little below the confluence 
 of the two rivers forming it, twenty two and three tenths feet. Deepest 
 channel of the Usumacinta above where the Lacantum joins it, sixteen 
 and seven-tenths feet. Deepest channel of the Lacantum, eighteen and 
 a half feet. Deepest channel of the Usumacinta, after the Lacantum joins 
 it, something over thii’ty-two feet. 
 
18 
 
 That is to say, the Pasi(3n river is the shallowest, and consequently the 
 reasons for supposing it to be preferred could not avail as proof, even 
 though the slightest doubt should exist as to the injustice with which the 
 question to extend the parallel, in opposition to the clear and conclusive 
 text of the treaty of 1882, was provoked. 
 
 Senor Martinez Sobral adduced in support of the rights of Guatemala 
 testimony which has been impeached neither in 1889 nor now. The grav¬ 
 ity with which he treated the question precludes the idea that he would 
 fling gratuitous and personal chai’ges at the engineer of the Mexican com¬ 
 mission, Senor Tamborrel, of whom he says that he (Tamborrel) asserted 
 that the Mexican Government made the claim not so much for the pur¬ 
 pose of acquiring the territory between the Chixoy and Pasi6n rivers, 
 but chiefly with the idea of opening new negotiations respecting the di¬ 
 viding line. 
 
 Those words would not have been attributed to Senor Tamborrel were 
 this merely a rumor, or the attempt to interpret an intention, since it is 
 always vexatious and disagreeable to provoke personal questions, espe¬ 
 cially when there is sufficient foundation for the belief, although it may 
 not be said, that the object of the Mexican commission, whoever may 
 have suggested or directed it, is not to conclude the dispute, in which 
 there daily spring up pretensions and more territory is demanded or 
 taken. 
 
 For if it is intended to give to the treaty an interpretation as forced as 
 it is incomprehensible by the extension of the Santiago parallel, there is 
 no right to suspect that the outrages against laws and conventions will 
 end there. That parallel would reach the Pasi6n river seventeen or eigh¬ 
 teen minutes to the east of the ninetieth degree of longitude. But a 
 little farther on it would again strike the same river where it is called the 
 Santa Isabel, which makes an almost semi-circular bend, and may have a 
 channel or course which might be exploited for another demand, until 
 from one point to another, and from one exaction to another the exten¬ 
 sion of the parallel through the whole of the Department of Peten may 
 be claimed. 
 
 The property line of Guatemala, from the Ixbul hill to the Belize fron¬ 
 tier west of Punta Gorda, was from forty-six to forty-seven geographic 
 leagues in length. Under Article III of the treaty of 1882, there were 
 lost thirty leagues of line and three thousand miles of area to the east, 
 west, and south of the Lacantum river. The Department of Peten, 
 already dwindled, was interrupted in its communications and natural 
 boundaries with Huehuetenango. 
 
 The most exacting would have been satisfled with acquisitions so easy 
 and so gratuitous. But instead of carrying out the conditions of the 
 bases, which in political good faith are non-evadable, especially in that 
 which relates to compensating the losses either party may sustain through 
 the adojotion of a certain boimdary line, what is done is to ask other bene¬ 
 fits for Mexico, and another curtailment of the Rejiublic of Guatemala. 
 
 The Chixoy river flows something more than ten leagues from south to 
 north from the plane of the Santiago parallel to where it unites with the 
 Pasi(5n, forming the Usumacinta. The Pasi(3n river, about eight leagues east 
 of the Chixoy, flows some ten leagues from south to north, and an equal dis¬ 
 tance to the west to its confluence with the Chixoy. The extended plane 
 of the Santiago-Chixoy parallel, and the two rivers, form an area of nine hun¬ 
 dred and eighty square miles, which are coveted by the Government of 
 Mexico and by the boundary commission it apjiointed. One step farther 
 and Peten, now united by a small strip of land, would be wrested from 
 Guatemala. 
 
19 
 
 From the intersection of the extended parallel with the Pasi6n river to 
 the Belize frontier there is a distance of from eleven to twelve leagues, 
 and still it would not be strange that in those frontier localities some 
 streamlet, affluent of the Santa Isabel, might appear where a channel or 
 a well is to be sought and baptized with the name of Usumacinta. 
 
 A single glance at the map will suffice to show that it was impossible 
 for the contracting parties to entertain the idea of settling on boundaries 
 so singular as to constitute the most absurd exception possible. Mexico 
 did not possess one inch to the east of the line at ninety-two degrees 
 forty minutes longitude; she enters, through the treaty, to the heart of 
 the Kepublic nearly a degree and a half, thinks it is little, and appropri¬ 
 ates eight or ten leagues more, until she almost reaches Belize. 
 
 We do not know whether those of the Mexicans who take part in the 
 discussion act through error, surprise or malice; in some, in those who 
 ■can have knowledge of the boundary dispute, the method they employ is 
 inexcusable. We do know that when these things are analyzed by right¬ 
 eous Governments and by men who love justice, this question must ex¬ 
 cite a greater scandal and greater censures than those produced in the 
 reasonable political world by the French intervention in the life and the 
 business of the Mexican people. 
 
 The pretensions of Mexico to that new district between the Chixoy and 
 Pasi(3n rivers would lead to a closing of the roads and the direct relations 
 of Peten with the rest of the Republic. A territory uninhabited and un- 
 ■cultivated is that which spreads over the paltry strip, the remains of an 
 avenue of forty-seven leagues in width, and it would only admit of long, 
 grievous, and roundabout communications, without counting that to a 
 series of dismemberments there would be added the dismemberment of a 
 hundred and nine square geographic leagues. The demand is unjust, ab¬ 
 surd, and stupid; it has but one motive, which aspires to supersede jus¬ 
 tice, reason, and ujDi’ightness,—the force of which boast is made; force in¬ 
 stead of treaties, of the written text and the form and sj)irit of the conven¬ 
 tions. 
 
 We prefer to believe that impressionability, the chief defect of our 
 race, will open the way to better reflections and more skilful calculations. 
 Above all, when people inscribe in then’ laws principles of right and ask 
 a place in civilization, they are not authorized to indulge in intemperate 
 proceedings and capricious abuses, relying on that logic which calls all 
 outcomes right and all profits and gains, however illegal and censurable, 
 just. It would be well to ask the writers and scribblers who endeavor to 
 move the Government of Mexico through vanity or passion, whether we 
 live in a continent where right and reason mean something, and which 
 emancipated itself in the name of the laws of progress, or whether we are 
 preparing ourselves to reproduce the middle ages with all their disturb¬ 
 ances and turmoils. 
 
 VII. 
 
 The Status Quo on the Frontier. 
 
 Article V of the preliminary bases signed on the 12th of August, 1882, 
 in New York, says: “ In the drawing of the dividing line actual posses¬ 
 sion shall serve as a basis, as a general rule. This, however, shall not 
 jirevent both parties from abandoning this basis, by common consent, for 
 the purpose of following natural lines, or for any other reasons, and in 
 such case the system of mutual compensations shall be adopted. Until 
 
20 
 
 the dividing line shall have been drawn each contracting party shall re¬ 
 spect the actual possession of the other^ 
 
 There is no obscurity in that article, inspired, primarily, in the idea that 
 the discussion over Chiaj)as and Soconusco being at an end, there would 
 be no other reductions and the line of possession would be respected by 
 the two Republics of Mexico and Guatemala; and afterwards in the log¬ 
 ical and equitable principle of mutual comjDensations, if for causes deemed 
 to be reasonable, other boundaries were determined on. Were a method 
 adojDted, according to the latter idea, there can be no doubt that it would 
 be incumbent to make compensation, which means to give like or similar 
 equivalents, each party, however, retaining its former jurisdiction until 
 the boundary line should be located. 
 
 The treaty of the 27th of September, 1882, established a plan and rule 
 according to general determinations, and prescribed the method and time 
 for locating the boundary. 
 
 This treaty, in its sixth article, provides: “ That within six months after 
 the meeting of the scientific commissions referred to in Article IV, they 
 shall conjointly transmit to their Governments a notice of such towns, 
 estates, and farms as will, without doubt, be located on a certain side of 
 the dividing line agreed on in Article III. Upon the receipt of such no¬ 
 tice each of the two Governments is empowered to immediately issue the 
 proper orders to the end that its authority may be established at such 
 points as are to remain within the territory of its respective nation.” 
 
 Article VI of the treaty just cited, modified in some degree the cove¬ 
 nants of the fifth basis; but this only affected the execution and not the 
 spirit, as when it treats of the time within which the commissions should 
 finish the work of surveying the boundary. And just as there were re¬ 
 peated and necessary extensions respecting this latter point, so was there 
 a change of procedure regarding the former point, the jurisdiction being 
 assumed in the order in which the engineers finished the sectional sur¬ 
 veys, as was done without any difficulty by the conventions of 1884: as 
 regards the first sections—from the starting point on the Suchiate river 
 to the vertex of Santiago—the Government of Guatemala receiving the 
 places and things in the one hundred miles added to it, and that of Mex¬ 
 ico, the places and things in the four hundred and fifty square miles it 
 gained to the north and west of the Talquian gate. 
 
 Through the fault of the Mexican commission the work was prolonged, 
 without it being possible to pursue the above course, each party continu¬ 
 ing to hold its acknowledged possessions, and no doubts arising as to the 
 status quo. On the contrary, the Mexican Government itself, directly or 
 indirectly, as the case may be, has considered the fifth base, the spirit of 
 which it is now attempted to contradict, as still in force. 
 
 The territory west of the Chixoy or Salinas river and of the Usumacinta 
 is the principal centre of the lumber camps which, according to the 
 treaty of 1882, are to belong to Mexico, but which have been Guatemala’s, 
 in whom the jurisdiction resides until the boundary line is located. The 
 Government of Guatemala, having legal possession, had the right to farm 
 out and lease its territory before 1882, and subsequent to the treaty; in 
 the latter case under civil liabilities as regards contractors, should the 
 district, through the formal boundary, pass to the jurisdiction of Mexico. 
 What Guatemala could not have done was to grant or transfer territorial 
 property to a third party, she being convinced that the district by the 
 treaties would be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Mexican Republic, 
 she only enjoying the right of temporary possession. 
 
 In 1884 it was thought that the Mexican surveyor, Don Manuel Castel- 
 
21 
 
 lanos Ruiz, had gone beyond the Yaxchih- n line, and as the Government 
 of Guatemala protested, the Department of Foreign Relations of Mexico 
 replied in satisfactory terms. And on this, as on the other occasions, 
 save recently, no objection was made to the use and possession of lands 
 which have belonged to Guatemala traditionally, even though they must 
 be later on annexed to Mexico pursuant to the treaties. 
 
 Guatemala has not withdrawn from her obligations nor does she j)ur- 
 pose going behind the conventions of 1882; what she desires is that they 
 be carried out faithfully by the two j^ai’ties, and that the eagerness to in¬ 
 terpret may not result in a series of falsified contracts and leonine pro- 
 •ceedings, always to her detriment. 
 
 The second question is as clear to us as the first. According to the 
 treaty, the boundary commission is to seek the Usumacinta on the Santi¬ 
 ago parallel, and this being impossible, the Chixoy, for so says the treaty, 
 and one of the parties cannot amend it, neither could the two divest it of 
 force without making another. 
 
 Equally manifest is the second point, as to respecting the right of pos¬ 
 session until the boundary line is drawn. Where the line was agreed 
 upon, from the Suchiate to Santiago, difficulties have ceased. Further 
 on they arose through the Mexican commission, which caused the loss of 
 some years, either by withdrawing without any reason, or endeavoring to 
 find channels in rivers not designated by the treaty and which are not 
 the subject of debate any more than would be another river or another 
 region of America. 
 
 The dispute is not as to rights created in principle, and which will be 
 determined and recognized when the boundaries are located, but as to 
 the possessory right as it was in the year 1882, and which each contract¬ 
 ing party retains, while the boundary line is being established. 
 
 Mexico never showed any urgency, as is proven by the conduct of her 
 engineers, until, pressed by some speculators in lumber who wish to 
 turn the legitimate possession of Guatemala to their own benefit, she at¬ 
 tempts to evade responsibilities and faults, charging the same against 
 those who have resigned themselves to such great losses through their 
 earnest desire for peace and respect for what was covenanted. But, 
 though illy advised virulence may crop out suddenly, were she well dis¬ 
 posed, even with irregular methods, it might be considered that Mexico 
 does not concede much by delaying the time necessary to conclude the sur¬ 
 vey, when, without what she is to have and acquire, she already has ac¬ 
 quired and possesses more than in reason and justice would have belonged 
 to her, and more than she suspected on subscribing the bases of the 12th 
 of August. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Of the Old Boundaries. 
 
 The principal comifiaint of Mexico is based on the presumption that 
 Guatemala has invaded Mexican territory by destroying some lumber 
 camps, and endeavoring to prevent tree felling in violation of the provis¬ 
 ions of the regulations, and without the proper licenses. Here there are 
 several points to take into account. The territory where the greatest 
 number of camps is situated, east and west of the Lacan turn river, will be 
 Mexico’s, it being so provided by the treaty of 1882, whenever the boun¬ 
 dary line is located and the consequent formalities demanded by annexa¬ 
 tion to one country and separation from the other are complied with. 
 Guatemala has not raised any question in this regard. 
 
22 
 
 But until this condition is complied with in accordance with the bases 
 of the 12th of August, 1882, and the universally recognized law in similar 
 cases, this Republic should retain possession of those regions, whatever 
 may iDe their ultimate disposition. The abuse committed by some tim¬ 
 ber cutters, their carelessness in using without due permission and with¬ 
 out any tribute whatever what is not theirs, means not only an injury to 
 the usufructuaries, present possessors, and the future owners, but it indi¬ 
 cates a contempt for the principle of authority which every power that in 
 the least values its dignity and prestige should prevent or rejDress. The 
 use of another’s property at one’s own will is everywhere an offence or a 
 transgression. Rather than acquiesce in this it were preferable that Gua¬ 
 temala, without act or formality, and without awaiting the completion of 
 the work of the boundary commissions, had renounced the right of posses¬ 
 sion, abandoning interests which she still has to guard, and hiding herself 
 from the audacity and unreasonableness of adventurers and trespassers. 
 
 The obligation is to transfer the property ; the present law is the right 
 of possession, and the duty of the Government is to cause it to be re¬ 
 spected. 
 
 In this understanding the formal rights of Guatemala do not differ 
 from those she had prior to binding herself to run her boundary line tO' 
 the east of the Lacantum basin. 
 
 The districts extending to the west and south of the Usumacinta and 
 Chixoy were not known to many when, fifteen years since, Messrs. Jamet 
 and Sastre contracted with the Government of Guatemala and obtained 
 permission to exploit forests. Here and there some private parties felled 
 timber on a small scale by permission of the Governor of Peten, without its- 
 ever occurring to any one to ask the consent of the Mexican authorities, 
 much less acquainted with those localities than the owners ought to be. 
 
 The natives of the country entertained no doubts on this point, and we 
 are thus enabled to record a considerable number of licenses secured dur¬ 
 ing the years 1879 and 1880 to cut timber in the territory which Mexico 
 now claims to be invaded. 
 
 On the 17th of January, 1879, Cipriano Carrascosa obtained jDermis- 
 sion from the Governor of Peten to cut two hundred trees in the “ La- 
 canja” camp, binding himself to pay the established duties. 
 
 Ismael Quesada, on the same date, was granted leave to cut four hun¬ 
 dred trees in the “Alta Gracia ” camp. 
 
 Manuel Suarez, to cut four hundred trees in the camp named “Pai’aiso.”' 
 
 Rito Zetina, two hundred trees in “Lo Veremos ” camp. 
 
 Luis G. Diaz, two hundred trees in the same camp. 
 
 Bias Jueco, twenty-five trees in the Canque. 
 
 Policarpo Valenzuela, two hundred trees in Yaxchilan and Cayo del 
 Venado. 
 
 These, and Jose Diaz Gonzalez, Manuel Perez Soler, Tranquilino Puli¬ 
 do, Ram(3n S. Sim6n, Miguel Torruco, and others, asked for and obtained 
 permits, paying duties in jDroportion to the number of trees cut, as appears 
 from the proper records and the books of the collector of taxes of Peten. 
 
 In the year 1880, Felipe Romero, of Tabasco, asked permission to cut 
 eighty trees from the camp bought of Manuel Suarez on the banks of the 
 Lacantum. 
 
 Jose Diaz Gonzalez obtained permission to cut seventy trees in camp 
 “ Rebumbio.” 
 
 Aurelio Gonzalez, thirty trees in “ El Destino ” camp. 
 
 Teodosio Ochoa, a Mexican from Michoacan, to cut eighty trees in 
 “ El Deseo ” camp. 
 
23 
 
 Cipriano Carrascosa, one hundred and twenty trees in “ La Unidn ” 
 camp. 
 
 Miguel Torruco, one hundred and thirty trees in “ San Lorenzo ” 
 camp. 
 
 Bias Jueco, fifty trees in “ La Concordia ” camp. 
 
 Jamet & Sastre, one hundred and forty trees in camp “Progreso.” 
 
 And with these several others during that and succeeding years, and 
 not only Guatemalans by birth or residence, but also Mexicans who would 
 not have asked permission of foreign authorities to cut mahogany and 
 cedar—which was the wood cut—on lands of their own country. The 
 camps named are on both sides of the Lacantum river. 
 
 The authorities of Mexico said nothing, nor was there any opposition 
 whatsoever. Did all or a part of the establishments or camps belong to 
 the Mexican Republic, the authorities could not but know of it, or be in¬ 
 formed thereof by such of their countrymen as went to Flores del Peten 
 in search of permits. The inhabitants and natives of the country unani¬ 
 mously affirm that they have not heard that the regions indicated, to the 
 west and south of the IJsumacinta and west of the Chixoy, belong to any 
 one but Guatemala. 
 
 In 1892 legal proceedings were had, intended to suspend timber-cut¬ 
 ting in Miguel Torruco’s camp, at the initiative of the representative of 
 Messrs. Jamet & Sastre. Relying on private contracts, the representa¬ 
 tive prayed that Torruco be compelled to suspend the cutting on his 
 camp, “ La Lucha ” or “ Egipto,” situated in Guatemalan territory, al ■ 
 though Torruco contended it was on Mexican. The former replied that 
 this was so far untrue that camp “ El Desempeno,” two leagues farther 
 north, still belongs to Guatemala, since the boundary on that side is the 
 Yaxchilan rivulet. 
 
 Torruco had paid, in May, 1891, one hundred and eighty of road 
 
 tax for his workmen for that and the previous year. It had not occurred 
 to him then to allege Mexican territoriality. 
 
 On the 11th of July Torruco was ordered by the Government of Peten to 
 suspend the cutting for which he had no permit and had failed to make due 
 payment, and he replied that the camp belonged to Mexico. There were 
 pending against him at the time proceedings for smuggling liquor, and 
 his imprisonment was decreed. (It should be stated that smuggling and 
 frauds form a considerable part of the disturbances on the frontier and of 
 the unfounded complaints.) 
 
 That the Yaxchilan line served as the boundary in one section of the 
 frontier does not admit of doubt, and, that nothing may be wanting, it 
 was expressly acknowledged by the Government of Mexico in the note of 
 its Foreign Minister, dated on the 10th of September, 1884. To the 
 south of that line, going up the Usumacinta, were the “ Porvenir ” and 
 “ Desempeno ” camps, considered by their owners to be in the territory 
 of Guatemala, and further to the south, that is to say, further in the in¬ 
 terior of this Republic, the camp called “ La Lucha ” or “ Egipto,” belong¬ 
 ing to Miguel Torruco. As the authorities were not to be scoffed at, a 
 squad of twenty men was sent to prevent the timber-cutting and capture 
 the offender, who was, at the same time, accused of smuggling. The 
 squad was cautioned not to cross the Yaxchilan rivulet, and to conduct 
 itself in a proper manner. 
 
 Torruco was arrested, the camp was vacated, and five hundred and fifty 
 2 )esos had to be paid, which was the amount due the Treasury for the 
 trees cut. 
 
 As it was alleged that the arrest was made outside of Guatemalan ter- 
 
24 
 
 ritory, an investigation ensued and it was proven that the locality “ El 
 Desempeno,” where the arrest was made, belonged to this Republic. This 
 was, moreover, unnecessary, as that place corresponds to a vertical south 
 of the Yaxchilan line, on the side, consequently, of Guatemala. 
 
 This incident laid bare the means employed by some parties on the fron¬ 
 tier to violate the laws and evade them. Torruco had had trouble with 
 the Mexican engineer, Don Jose Ugalde, in 1890, in his camp “Egipto;” 
 perhaps Ugalde complained, the justice of the peace of Tenosique wished 
 to intervene, and Torruco protested that his camp was in Guatemalan ter¬ 
 ritory. As that intervention was merely oflEiciousness, there were no fur¬ 
 ther results. 
 
 More recently another investigation was made to determine the owner¬ 
 ship of the territory west of the Lacantum, prior to the treaty of 1882, 
 and it appears that by permit of the Government of Peten, and comply¬ 
 ing with all legal requirements, the following had camps on the left of 
 the Lacantum, west of said river: Tranquilino Pulido, one league above 
 the Tzendales rivulet, and a camp named “El Caribe;” Ismael Quesada, 
 the “Alta Gracia ” camp; Miguel Torruco, the “ San Lorenzo; ” Manuel 
 Suarez, the “ Paraiso; ’’ the same Pulido, above named, “ El Destino,” 
 which he sold in 1879 to Miguel Torruco, and the latter transferred to 
 Amalio Gonzalez; Jose Diaz Gonzalez, “ El Rebumbio ” and afterwards 
 “ La Soledad ; ” Luis Diaz Gonzalez, “ San Rosendo ; ” Rito Retina, “ Lo 
 Veremos,” which was afterwards named “El Progreso;” Teodosio Ochoa, 
 “ El Deseo.” 
 
 From all the testimony procured, it appears that camps were estab¬ 
 lished on both banks of the Lacantum by authority of the Governor of 
 Peten. In San Lorenzo, west of the river, during the past year of 1894, 
 the assistant alcalde, named by the municipality of La Libertad, was Bue¬ 
 naventura Sierra, a tailor by trade, residing on the left bank of the Lacan¬ 
 tum ; where live also Enrique Soler, Jose Charinjan, Miguel Colmos, and 
 others, all of whom declare never to have known any authority other than 
 that of Guatemala, nor having seen any orders but hers obeyed. 
 
 IX. 
 
 An Executive Commission. 
 
 The Government of Peten had knowledge of the abuses being com¬ 
 mitted in the efforts to make use of lauds and forests in regions of which 
 Guatemala was in possession, in defiance of laws and regulations, and dis¬ 
 regard of all propriety. Back in July, 1893, a protest was lodged because 
 of a survey being made by a Mexican engineer for the house of Schind¬ 
 ler, of Tabasco, on territory traditionally recognized as Guatemalan; and 
 although the Government of Mexico raised no objection, its citizens have 
 continued invading and exploiting lands without permission from the only 
 authority having the right to grant it. 
 
 Near the Tzendales rivulet, east of the Lacantum river, two engineers 
 were surveying for the house of Romano & Co., of San Juan Bautista, and, 
 without scruple or reflection, camps were established in defiance of the 
 authorities, as though it were obligatory to tolerate the first occupant 
 who should utilize what he found in his path as though it were property 
 having no owner and under no one’s care. 
 
 The Governor appointed a commission composed of Mr. Miles Rock, 
 engineer-in-chief; Don Jose Daniel Cordero, Secretary of said Governor, 
 
25 
 
 and Don Manuel J. Otero, political commissioner of “ La Libertad,” centre 
 of the districts wherein tree-felling and abuses were taking i:)lace. The 
 commission was to be accompanied by an escort under Major Estanislao 
 Aldana. The intention was to cross to the lands adjoining the Tzendales 
 rivulet, to prevent the establishment of camps, suspend the unauthorized 
 ones, and to stop such acts as were committed without the consent of com¬ 
 petent authority. 
 
 The instructions given the commission cautioned it to avoid every hos¬ 
 tile act, and to proceed with judgment and certainty in all matters. 
 
 Of every act a minute was kept, which shows there was no precipi¬ 
 tancy, either voluntary or involuntary. Although it may demand pages, 
 it is advisable to make extracts from the report of the commissioners. 
 
 On the 21st of May, 1894, the commission and the escort reached Vic¬ 
 toria, on the banks of the Lacantum. The political commissioner of “ La 
 Libertad ” (who was among the delegates) declared that four leagues 
 above camp “El Rebumbio,’’between the mouths of the Lacanja and 
 Tzendales rivulets, Miguel Torruco had sown cornfields, and that on the 
 banks of the Usumacinta, in Guatemalan territory, he had lumber camps. 
 That on the 14th of May the said Torruco, with the Governor of Teno- 
 sique and sixteen armed men had gone U23 the Lacantum, in the direc¬ 
 tion of the Tzendales rivulet. 
 
 Don Mariano Pardo, of SjDanish nationality, declared that he was chief 
 of camp ‘ ‘ La Union.” He knew that for four months past there had been 
 gangs of laborers sowing corn and opening roads, and two engineers sur¬ 
 veying under orders of Don Navor Cfirdoba Manzanillo and Don Rafael 
 Naranjo, for the firm of Romano & Co., of San Juan Bautista, on the 
 Tzendales rivulet, three leagues from camj) “ Unionhe thought said 
 localities belonged to Guatemala. He corroborates the statement as 
 to Torruco’s cornfields and cam^^s, and adds that the latter, with armed 
 men and the Governor of Tenosique, were, on May 15, in “ El Rebum¬ 
 bio,” and on going up the river they fired shots at some rowers 'from 
 camp “ Union ” because when hailed they did not stop quickly. That he 
 saw a jDermit issued by the Government of Chiapas to Messrs. Romano 
 & Co. to cut mahogany and cedar trees in the Palenque Department, far 
 from there; but that the jjermit did not refer to other localities. (Pa¬ 
 lenque is in the interior of Chiapas.) 
 
 The same Don Mariano Pardo sent to the jDolitical commissioner, Senor 
 Otero, two letters which he had received in Ainll from Don Navor Cordoba 
 prohibiting him from cutting in camp “ Union.” 
 
 The fact of the armed expedition of Don Juan Y. Castro, Governor of 
 Tenosique, accompanied by Miguel Torruco, is fully confirmed by many 
 deji^ositions, it aj^pearing from all that those lands belonged to Guatemala. 
 The said Governor threatened to shoot Juan Gonzalez if thi’ough him 
 anything was heard uj) there, for Gonzalez, who had carried him in his 
 canoe, was forced through illness to stop on the road. 
 
 Jenaro Ortega, clerk to Miguel Torruco, in the lumber camj) “ El Que- 
 mado,” where “ EgijDto ” was formerly, says that he believes the places 
 visited by the Governor of Tenosique belong to Guatemala, because 
 Mexico never has had jurisdiction on the banks of the Usumacinta as far 
 as the Yaxchilan rivulet, nor on the banks of the Lacantum. The same 
 declaration is made by Librado Lopez, who, like the former, is a Mexican citi¬ 
 zen from Tabasco ; and Antonio Coj, of Tenosique, Ceferino Suarez, of 
 Tabasco, and his countrymen, Octaviano Jeronimo, Jose Hernandez and 
 Andres Jimenez, confirm everything relating to Guatemalan jurisdiction 
 
26 
 
 over the timber-cutting and corn-growing localities which were the object 
 of complaint on the part of the authorities of Guatemala. 
 
 The commission, fully convinced that neither Torruco’s plantings nor 
 cuttings should be respected, determined to suspend them and break up 
 the places. 
 
 On the 27th of May the commission left for the Tzendales rivulet with 
 an escort and some militiamen, and on the 31st they arrived at camp “ La 
 Constancia,” on the Colorado rivulet, finding there Don Navor Cordoba 
 Manzanillo, clerk to the firm of Romano & Co. Cbrdoba declared that 
 he had been there since February to cut two thousand mahogany and 
 cedar trees ; he exhibited the permit from the Governor of Chiapas to cut 
 timber in Palenque, and said that he was unaware as to whom the said 
 land belonged. He was notified to cease the cutting, and any other work 
 not allowed by the authorities of Guatemala, as “ Constancia ” was in the 
 jurisdiction of “ La Libertad.” He requested and was granted ten days 
 to evacuate the place. Some laborers of Cbrdoba, among them Victoriano 
 Osorio and Leon Yergo, both from Tabasco, preferred to remain at work, 
 knowing that they were in Guatemalan territory. Cdrdoba, as he himself 
 confessed, had not yet done any felling, but had employed his hands in 
 preparing the lands for crops and other purposes. 
 
 On the 3rd of June, the Mexican engineers, Don Manuel Pastor and 
 Don Felipe C. Molina, were examined, and they said that they had instruc¬ 
 tions from the general attorney of the Tabasco and Chiapas Colonizing 
 ComjDany to give no information except to the Minister of Public Works, 
 and the President of Mexico, and that they had finished their work. On 
 the same day the commission made a protest in the name of the Govern¬ 
 ment of Guatemala, as the lands surveyed belonged to the Republic, and 
 it was made known to the engineers Pastor and Molina. 
 
 On the 16th of June the champas and camps of “ La Constancia ” were 
 dismantled, and on the 19th Torruco’s coimfields. 
 
 Sebastian Torruco declared that by order of his brother Miguel the 
 camp he had on left bank of the Usumacinta, one league this side of the 
 Yaxchilan rivulet, was transferred north, eight leagues lower down, be¬ 
 cause it was said that that locality belonged to Guatemala, and he de¬ 
 sired to avoid disputes. 
 
 From all the data relating to the camps established without right or 
 authority, the commission, on June 29, prohibited Sebastian Torruco, 
 Jenaro Ortega, Jose Narniga, clerk to Don Frederico Schindler, and 
 Transito Mejenes, employee of Don Policarpo Valenzuela, from cutting 
 timber or engaging in other work on Guatemalan territory, making known 
 to them that the localities “ Agua Azul,” “ San Nicolas,” and “ Antiguo 
 Egipto ” were within the jurisdiction of this Republic. 
 
 On the 4th of July “Agua Azul ” was evacuated, and on the 7th “ San 
 Nicolas,” the camps being dismantled, the same thing happening to camp 
 “ Antiguo Egipto ” on the 8th. The timber got out by Don Miguel Torruco 
 was about two leagues from the Usumacinta. In camp “ San Nicolas,” es¬ 
 tablished in 1892, there were 313 mahogany and cedar logs, and 35 that 
 Don Policarpo Valenzuela bought of Torruco. 
 
 The commission withdrew, leaving a force of the escort to guard the 
 lumber got out by Don Policarpo Valenzuela and Don Miguel Torruco, 
 and Juan Gonzalez was charged with the care thereof. 
 
 To the certification of the report was appended a chart of the localities 
 and points referred to and of the route followed by the commissioners. 
 
 The perusal of all these facts compels full conviction of the right which 
 upheld Guatemala in enforcing her authority and putting an end to the 
 
27 
 
 abuses which were being committed to the injury and prejudice of the 
 Republic. It is not denied that the lands where the camps were estab¬ 
 lished without permission, have to pass over to other hands. But in the 
 meantime, and until that is done in a legal way, it is the bounden duty of 
 the Government of Guatemala to cause her laws to be respected within 
 her jurisdiction. Otherwise, the very contempt for the legitimate author¬ 
 ity that has been manifested by infractors and trespassers under the pre¬ 
 text that Guatemala’s rights will some day cease, would show itself armed 
 with other excuses to violate lands included in the new boundaries. To 
 yield to those invasions would be more than a weakness ; it would be the 
 abandoning of a right, particularly when with slight investigation there 
 may be distinguished throughout this whole question the marks of an in¬ 
 trigue and an inaccuracy which ought not to be expected after so many 
 considerations and after so many sacrifices. 
 
 That the camp lands are within the old boundary line is more than evi¬ 
 dent, even without adducing new proofs through the reference we shall 
 shortly make to the maps. All the witnesses agree that Guatemala has 
 possessed these lands ; there is no evidence to the contrary. A consid¬ 
 erable number of Mexicans acknowledge the rights of this Republic, and 
 the very ones interested in presenting matters in another light evince doubt 
 or maintain silence, without producing one single witness to nullify or at¬ 
 tenuate the value of the proofs. An engineer surveys lands for the house 
 of Schindler, a protest is made, and no one afterwards contests the right 
 of the Guatemalan authorities. The engineers Pastor and Molina evade 
 making any statements, limiting themselves to the declaration that they 
 have been instructed to keep silence. The Governor of Tenosique makes 
 an expedition as by stealth, from the eleventh to the sixteenth of May, 
 threatens Juan Gonzalez into keeping silence, knows that the Guatemalan 
 commission is to arrive, and refers to it in several conversations, but he 
 withdraws, leaving it to act, without evincing a single manifestation of sur¬ 
 prise. Employees of Miguel Torruco assert that their camp and corn¬ 
 fields are in territory of Guatemala, and his brother Sebastian promises 
 to withdraw one of them and establish it in the interior of Mexico. 
 
 For two months the commission is unmolested, and encounters no ob¬ 
 stacle to the discharge of its duty, although the trespassers are Mexi¬ 
 cans : undoubtedly because the latter do not feel that justice is on their 
 side. C6rdoba Manzanillo suspends preparations for cutting, an incom¬ 
 prehensible thing were he convinced that he was in the exercise of a right. 
 The permit by which he opens up a camp on the banks of the Tzendales 
 rivulet is for the Department of Palenque, and not for the banks of the 
 Lacantum, which latter could not be granted by the Governor of Chiapas. 
 There is not one single regular sign pointing to the presumption of 
 probability in the pretensions of Mexico, nor one obscure point to create 
 doubt as to the rights of Guatemala. 
 
 Miguel Torruco, principal cause of the disturbances and the abuses 
 west of Peton, had paid his taxes at a former period, as appears from the 
 books of the Peten collector, under these entries: On July 17, 1876, four 
 hundred and fifty dollars. On March 25,1878, two hundred dollars. On 
 January 1, 1879, three hundred and fifty dollars. On February 2, 1880, 
 with Tranquilino Pulido, twenty dollars, and on the 18th of the said 
 month, by himself, one hundred and fifty six dollars and twenty-five cents. 
 On February 8, 1881, eight hundred and twelve dollars and fifty cents. 
 This does not include what he had to jjay in 1892 for having been sur¬ 
 prised in felling without permission. 
 
 The jurisdiction of Guatemala has not suffered any change since those 
 
28 
 
 years, notwithstanding the prospect and the obligation of a change, as a 
 consequence of the treaty of 1882, have intervened. Very much to the 
 contrary, the strictness of the possession should be maintained most 
 scrupulously. 
 
 Those who may be surprised at a certain harshness on the part of the 
 commission must recollect that so many considerations would not have 
 been shown in other countries, for, the felling of ti’ees and trespassing on 
 property of the State constituting an offence, sti’ict justice would have 
 demanded the application of corporal punishment. Were similar lawless¬ 
 ness attempted and committed on the other side of the northern frontier, 
 if only on territory in the temporai-y possession of the United States, el¬ 
 even leased, the American authorities would not be content with merely 
 suspending the abuses and dismantling the means of continuing them. 
 
 The commission had the advantage of personally seeing and hearing 
 things, and it would not have assumed any responsibility unless fully con¬ 
 vinced that it was acting within the law. 
 
 Number 156 of El Eacional, of Mexico, under date of the 25th of De¬ 
 cember last, has on its first page a copy of the map made by the engineer, 
 Mr. Miles Rock, with the remarks and changes suited to the object it had 
 in view, and it shows in yellow ink the boundary located in 1811 by Don 
 Domingo Caballero, adding that it was the one traditionally recognized 
 prior to the treaty of 1882, that is, the boundary on the left bank of the 
 Lacantum river. Nevertheless, no indication of that tradition is to be 
 found in any other place, nor a map, nor chart; nor has Mexico made 
 any survey of any kind that she has been able to put to the proof, nor 
 can there be found in the region west of the Lacantum any one who 
 will not assert that those districts belong to Guatemala, nor does it ap¬ 
 pear even by inference that the authorities of Mexico, either in tradi¬ 
 tional or in times not so far removed, ever interfered there for anything. 
 
 However unsettled that district may be now, and however deserted be¬ 
 fore, there would be some information which would corroborate the sup¬ 
 positions of El Nacional, and there is none : no controversy or disparity 
 in the proofs has arisen. Laborers of Tabasco, employees of camps, wit¬ 
 nesses of neutral nationality, all agree that it has never been said that any 
 country other than Guatemala had jurisdiction there. Those who least 
 join in the unanimity of opinion do not know where they are, nor why 
 they surveyed, nor what rights those who ordered them to survey had; 
 or they say nothing because they doubtless know nothing, for were they 
 convinced that they were treading the soil of their country, they would 
 acknowledge it and defend it not only before an investigating commission, 
 but before the whole armed world. 
 
 X. 
 
 The Message of the Pkesident of Mexico. 
 
 In the message addressed by General Porfirio Diaz, President of the 
 Mexican Republic, on the 16th of September last, to the Congress of the 
 Union, among other things, is said: “ Nor has this been the only difficulty 
 growing out of the different interpretations given the boundary treaty by 
 each party. In the unfounded sujDposition that the Guatemalan jurisdic¬ 
 tion over the territory extending west of the Chixoy and Usumacinta 
 rivers is evident, until the whole of the boundary line is located, the Gov¬ 
 ernment of Guatemala has gone on exercising acts of sovereignty in that 
 region, destroying several establishments founded by permission of Mex- 
 
29 
 
 ican authorities for the exploiting of forests located in territory which has 
 always belonged to the State of Chiapas, and which is on this side of the 
 boundary defined by the treaty of September 27, 1882. The said Gov¬ 
 ernment has also asked satisfaction of that of Mexico, alleging on its part, 
 without proving it, that its rights have been violated (as if it had any in 
 those lands) by authorities of our Republic. The Executive of the Union 
 has protested emphatically against the violation of the national territory 
 and demanded the punishment of the invaders, as well as reparation for 
 the damages by them caused in the camps called “Egipto,” “ Agua Azul,” 
 “San Nicolas” and “La Constancia.” 
 
 In the first place, the plan adopted is the status quo until the bound¬ 
 ary line is traced; but there is no obligation that it shall be wholly fin¬ 
 ished, since another course was pursued when, at the completion of the 
 sections between the Suchiate river and Santiago, each party entered into 
 possession on the respective sides of the designated line. As no further 
 line has been laid out, this course could not be longer continued. In 
 the second place, the invasion to which the message refers has not taken 
 place, for we cannot so denominate the exercise of a right against which 
 unsupported denials alone are set up, while there is a surfeit of proofs in 
 favor of Guatemala, and no evidence or sign, great or little, that the 
 camps which are the object of the controversy ever belonged to Mexico. 
 
 The reference to the treaty of 1882, interjecting it into a different sub¬ 
 ject, proves that there is a fixed purpose to link two questions, distinct 
 by their nature, as well as to make the extraneous question lend to the 
 argument a force which it lacks. The treaty of 1882 furnishes the key 
 for the establishment of boundaries, and Guatemala does not deny that 
 districts which she now possesses, because she possessed them in 1882, 
 will belong to Mexico when the boundary line shall be drawn, or when, 
 as was done with the first sections, the sectional exchange or transfer 
 shall be made in a formal and regular manner. It is a different matter 
 to consider the ownership of the future and the possession of the pres¬ 
 ent, which, by common law and the method adopted by the contracting 
 parties, cannot be violated by individuals or authorities with the excuse 
 that an event sooner or later obligatory through a solemn contract is an¬ 
 ticipated. 
 
 The details of the expedition of Don Juan Castro, Governor of Teno- 
 sique, the methods he pursued, the threats to compel its being kept se¬ 
 cret, his swift return, the fact that he never even attempted to interrupt 
 the work of the commission, which took long depositions at several places, 
 would prove who was convinced of being on his own territory and in the 
 exercise of his right. 
 
 OwnershijD according to the treaty is something foreign to ownership 
 by tradition, and to possession thereby, until the conditions are carried 
 out; that is, until it is legally transferred, by reason of the boundary 
 line having been traced, or, if agreed, successive sections thereof. 
 
 El Nacional, defending the President’s message, formulates theories 
 of a character as new as they are singular. “ Even supposing,” it says, 
 “ that the boundaries traced by Caballero in 1811 did not exist, under the 
 treaty of 1882, whose stipulations regarding the boundaries of that re¬ 
 gion are as clear and explicit as we have already seen, the violated terri¬ 
 tory should have been sacred to her, for since that date it ceased to be¬ 
 long to her. The survey of that boundary is a formality which neither 
 adds to nor detracts from the spirit of the rights created.” 
 
 That is to say, that in conditional obligations it matters not whether the 
 
30 
 
 condition is observed or not. But then it was useless to appoint engi¬ 
 neers and make surveys and see hundreds of Guatemalan laborers*perish 
 through illness in the employ of the Mexican commission. It did not occur 
 to the Government of Mexico that immediately on the ratification of the 
 treaty it could make use of even the most indisputably ceded localities, 
 for the rights of nations are not transferred through indefinite bases but 
 through clear and categorical exj^ression. The promise to sell, grant, mort¬ 
 gage, or any similar promise, does not become binding and obligatory until 
 it is realized through the formalities which are to determine the consum¬ 
 mated act. And a transaction between nations would not be more trivial 
 than one between individuals. What is comprehended in the treaty will 
 cease to belong to Guatemala when the boundary line is established, or 
 when the sections are ended, as was done, but she does not cease to pos¬ 
 sess until then what she possessed on the 27th of September, 1882. Re¬ 
 cording is a formality, although essential, yet property not recorded is 
 not legally transferred. 
 
 But there is more; if the parties established the status quo —the con¬ 
 tinuation of things in the same condition and state as in the year 1882— 
 for a given time, more or less short, the right to disturb that status quo 
 would not be granted the first who should appear actuated by interest, or 
 with the intent to take advantage of the period of transition, or defy the 
 authority of the possessor. Descending to things less transcendental, if 
 we were to closely follow those tactics , we should say that the magistrate 
 who is soon to cease the exercise of his functions should permit every disre¬ 
 spect. Here was a right on the part of Guatemala, and violations 
 and abuse on the part of some cutters who were without permits from 
 those having the right to grant them. 
 
 Taking the question out of its proper sphere, and supposing for a sin¬ 
 gle moment that Guatemala were a trustee, she should not consent to the 
 property being used by the first one desirous to use it. But that is not 
 the case, nor was the use denied the Republic, so much so that it has 
 given permission to cut down trees in localities that will go to Mexico, and 
 there has not been made, nor is it reasonable that there should be made, 
 any charge against it. 
 
 XI. 
 
 Geogeaphical Data. 
 
 Article VI of the treaty of September 27,1882, begins thus : “ It being 
 the object of both Governments, upon adjusting this treaty, not only to 
 put an end to the difficulties existing between them, but also to terminate 
 and avoid such as may originate between neighboring populations of both 
 countries, arising out of the uncertainty respecting the present bound¬ 
 ary lines, it is stipulated,” &c. 
 
 Here is an acknowledgment that there is uncertainty respecting the 
 dividing line, and it is true that no detailed survey of the whole line was 
 made on the Mexican and Guatemalan frontier before 1882, nor have there 
 been in the past any noticeable signs that Mexico had any extraordinary 
 interest in establishing it. But the uncertainty was in a different degree. 
 Though Guatemala was unable to assert with absolute precision points of 
 longitude and latitude by seconds, in given places, she did not thereby 
 ignore that certain districts were indisputably hers, though the final 
 boundaries were undetermined, while Mexico raised no question respect¬ 
 ing those districts, nor presented demands, nor sent delegations, nor 
 
31 
 
 doubted, until in the course of executing the treaty of 1882, she has 
 gone on advancing demands and giving herself up to interpreting to the 
 end that in the resulting transactions she might obtain the lion’s share. 
 She entertained no uncertainty; she was entirely unconscious, not even 
 imagining that she w^ould one day raise a controversy regarding some¬ 
 thing so foreign to the plans and calculations that antedated the treaties. 
 She felt uneasiness about what might result in the course of time from 
 the question regarding ChiajDas and Soconusco; so much so that in the 
 bases for the treaty reference was only made to the frontier of Chiapas, 
 without the slightest idea that a monstrous extension would be attempted 
 which would almost unite Chiapas with Belize, cutting the Republic of 
 Guatemala into two sections. 
 
 When already on the way to a compromise it was desired to carry the' 
 proof of deference on the part of Guatemala to the utmost extreme, and 
 she covenanted unstintedly, although it could never be understood that 
 on signing the treaty of 1882 the right of possession or the essential 
 obligation of mutual compensations was abandoned. A trusting ten¬ 
 dency, and the unlimited confidence of the Government and Assembly of 
 Guatemala, brushed aside doubts and suspicions, and it was thought that 
 the dispute was ended forever. But the result has been that, although 
 Guatemala has acquiesced in the much she lost, in exchange for a few 
 insignificant strij)s of land, Mexico has left the door open and movable 
 that she might advance it under any passing impulse, or the spur of the 
 slightest motive, it occurring to her, against the letter and spirit of the 
 treaties, to dispute on one side the right of property remaining in Guate¬ 
 mala, and on the other the right of possession reserved until the boundary 
 lines are settled. 
 
 It has seemed, in all the proceedings subsequent to 1882, as though 
 Mexico were judge and party and arbitrator, and that she was given the 
 power to decide according to her convenience, without any one else hav¬ 
 ing any standing or part whatever. Such has been the tone of official 
 speeches, and of newsj^apers emboldened by presumptions of strength, 
 riskily invoked by those who are in turn exposed to bear the consequences 
 of those doctrines which we thought incompatible with the culture of 
 this age. 
 
 We have already adduced proofs of the traditional possession by Gua¬ 
 temala of the districts extending west of the Usumacinta, at its lowest 
 latitude, and the Chixoy rivers—testimony of the inhabitants of both 
 banks of the Lacantum river; of laborers in the camps, Mexicans and 
 Guatemalans ; of the office of the collector of taxes of Peten; of authen¬ 
 tic documents, wherein are recorded the permits granted and the taxes 
 paid; and the constant exercise of the jurisdiction of this Republic. No 
 one has found that there ever existed any controversy, continuous or peri¬ 
 odic, as to this; there is nothing but what demonstrates clearly the right 
 of possession of Guatemala to the regions and centres where the camps 
 were organized. 
 
 If it appears evident that Guatemala has exercised an immemorial 
 right, and that Mexico has never either exercised or attempted to exercise 
 it, this fact would suffice to settle the legality, not only in the ordinary 
 courts, where private actions are ventilated, but also in diplomacy and 
 in public opinion, which are called on to decide in justice the disputes of 
 countries. 
 
 We can still enlarge the data and proofs, if only to have them abound 
 here as much as they are wanting on the part of Mexico.* 
 
 ♦The accuracy of the scientific data in the text may be verified by consulting the 
 map accompanying this pamphlet. 
 
32 
 
 The Lacantum river joins the Usumacinta at ninety degrees and about 
 forty minutes Avest longitude from Greenwich, and the camps are situated 
 on the sides a little to the east, and to the west of a perpendicular line or 
 a meridian passing through that confluence, as far as longitude ninety-one 
 degrees and ten or twelve minutes, being a strijD of from thirty-two to 
 thirty-five geographic miles in width, far to the south of the Yaxchilan 
 boundary line, recognized by the Mexican Government. 
 
 Maps, charts, and surveys leave that district within territory which 
 belonged to Guatemala in 1882, includiug Caballero’s parallel, of 1811, 
 which, moreover, lacks authority, and which, even while attributing to 
 Mexico what was not hers, did not originate even the slightest semblance 
 of a territorial demand by the Mexicans. In the map published in Mex¬ 
 ico in 1890, under the aus^^ices of the Ministry of Public Works, which 
 map Avas drawn Avith reference to the boundary with Guatemala, from 
 the point of view of the authors regarding the treaty of 1882, u’regulari- 
 ties and contradictions are noticeable, Avhich alone . prove the fixed pur¬ 
 pose to create confusion in a matter intrinsically clear and simple. Nev¬ 
 ertheless that same map, which, by giving the name PasiOn to a river 
 Avhich is not the PasiOn, locates it at a distance corresponding to the 
 Chixoy, will afford us conclusive proofs, if any more are needed, regard¬ 
 ing the possession by Guatemala of the regions wherein lie the camps 
 that Avere broken up. 
 
 In 1887 the engineer, Don Eduardo Rockstroh, published a map of the 
 boundaries of the Republic showing what he believed to be the frontier 
 previous to the treaty of 1882, and that which Avould remain after exe¬ 
 cuting the treaty. The meridian passing through Santiago is approxi¬ 
 mately at ninety-one degrees thirty-eight minutes longitude Avest from 
 the meridian of Greenwich. The boundary line in the map runs 
 straight up and intersects the Lacantum river, at ninety-one degrees 
 twenty minutes longitude, and seventeen degrees seventeen minutes, 
 more or less, north latitude ; thence it rises vertically till it crosses the 
 seventeenth degree of latitude. On the east lies the district of the lum¬ 
 ber camps which have given rise to the latest question. Sehor Rockstroh 
 knew the ground, was acquainted with the antecedents, and although it is 
 possible he may have erred, through a desire to limit himself solely to ex¬ 
 pediting the Avork of the survey, what he did within a certain zone is 
 Avorthy of being considered as good evidence. Mexico did not say any¬ 
 thing in that year (1887) nor in the succeeding years, although Mr. 
 Rockstroh’s Avork Avould have claimed attention he being an engineer of 
 the Government boundary commission, had the Mexican Government or 
 engineers anything to stand on. 
 
 The chief of the commission, Mr. Miles Rock, also made a plan of the 
 boundaries which, so far as the point being elucidated is concerned, starts 
 at the Santiago vertex, and runs off obliquely till it intersects the ninety- 
 first degree of longitude before crossing the Usumacinta river, leaving on 
 the east the camps and forests situated in districts of Avhich Guatemala 
 has always been in possession. The Yaxchilan line was the boundary on 
 one side of the frontier, and Mr. Rock did nothing but extend it in a 
 direction which could not reasonably give Mexico cause for complaint, 
 because it united by a straight line the recognized point on the north 
 with that of Santiago, recognized on the south. Guatemala has possessed 
 more to the Avest; so that if there is any error or defect in Mr. Rock’s 
 demarcation it Avould prejudice Guatemala, but in no Avise Mexico. The 
 chief of the boundary commission based what he established and asserted 
 on the oldest maps and on a personal knowledge of the localities. 
 
33 
 
 The arbitrariness of which he is accused by the Mexican press in the 
 tracing of the line is an unfounded charge ; he could, without fault or 
 excess, have inclined the line a great deal to the west, relying on unani¬ 
 mous reports of the inhabitants of the neighboring localities, on the 
 record of jurisdiction exercised and maintained by Guatemala; on the 
 Rockstroh sketch ; on the maps of Maestre, Sonnenstern, Au, Gabarrete, 
 Cubas and Fernandez, and for the specific matter of the camps, on 
 the Mexican official map of 1890 itself. Well does Mr. Rock observe that 
 Guatemala had possessed territory nearer to Mexico without controversy 
 or dispute. 
 
 In Maestre’s map of 1832, the boundary line runs from west of the 
 Tacaua volcano, up to Santiago, and afterwards almost perpendicularly 
 to a higher latitude, meeting a meridian at ninety-one degrees and about 
 forty minutes west longitude, where the line inclines to the west to beyond 
 the ninety-second degree, leaving within the limits of Guatemala a very 
 wide extent of territory, including Palenque. The line then turns to the 
 east, and from Las Cruces hill goes towards the north, beyond the nine¬ 
 teenth parallel. Maestre carries the lines to a point which not only leaves 
 the camps within Guatemala, but many other more western districts. 
 
 Sonnestern, in his map of 1859, starting from the same point as 
 Maestre, draws the line to the east, leaning toward Santiago; thence it 
 goes north to Naite and the Menche ruins, follows the Usumacinta, and 
 at latitude seventeen degrees ten minutes rises perpendicularly to seven¬ 
 teen degrees and a half. The basin of the Lacantum is a long distance to 
 the east of the boundary line. 
 
 Herman Au traced the boundary line beginning at Ocos toAvards the 
 north, inclining to the w'est to ninety-two degrees thirty-six minutes 
 longitude, beyond the sixteenth parallel of north latitude ; thence north 
 to the sixteenth degree sixteen minutes latitude; thence east, on a hori¬ 
 zontal plane, to longitude ninety-one degrees thirty-six minutes, and thence 
 northwest. No doubt can enter here as to whether the line surveyed 
 leaves inside an immense territory further west than the camps. 
 
 Herman Au afterwards surveyed another line correcting the former. 
 In that he had located Ixbul hill more than thirty minutes north of its 
 proper position, it being very probable that the error would lead to ap¬ 
 preciable consequences had it not been discovered op^Dortunely. On cor¬ 
 recting, Au drops the line to parallel sixteen, continues it horizontally 
 from Santiago thirty-two or thirty-three minutes to the east, seven or 
 eight before touching the meridian ninety-one west longitude, carries it 
 north-northwest to parallel seventeen, and thence north to seventeen de¬ 
 grees fifty minutes, leaving on the Guatemalan side Tenosique and other 
 localities of Mexico. The camps lie to the east, and this line only inter¬ 
 sects the Lacantum in its highest course, before it receives the affluents 
 which give it its importance. 
 
 All’s corrected line advances to the east of the meridian which would 
 jiass through Santiago, in territory indisputably owned by Guatemala 
 prior to 1882, and therefore legally held until the survey is made, but it 
 does not reach the camps. Neither Mexico nor Guatemala can jointly ac¬ 
 cept Au’s survey as trustworthy evidence, the one for the purpose of 
 claiming to the east, or the other to assert rights in the west, because the 
 indecision and uncertainty of the author are noticeable, who, among 
 other things, had he known it personally and taken the geographical posi¬ 
 tions correctly, would not have located Ixbul hill first north and then 
 further south. 
 
 The policy of the Mexican press, of admitting whatever is favorable in 
 
34 
 
 sketches and maps and rejecting what is adverse, is as inadmissible as it 
 would be to select a phrase or a word from a speech upon which to found 
 a confession of the opposite party. And no less illogical is it to amend 
 and make over the work of others, retouching it to the taste of the 
 party interested, suppressing measurements and heights which if re¬ 
 tained would reveal contradictions and errors, through the desire to estab¬ 
 lish paradoxical arguments and sophisms of not even apparent value. 
 
 In the map of Gabarrete and Prieto, 1875, the line runs from Oc6s to 
 Santiago, thence in the same northerly direction, almost parallel to a me¬ 
 ridian at ninety-one degrees forty minutes west longitude, and continues 
 on, coming out many leagues to the west of the survey of Mr. Rockstroh 
 and Mr. Rock. 
 
 Cubas and Fernandez, in the Mexican official map of 1882, draw the old 
 line from Oc6s to Santiago, with inclinations to the w-est. They twist it to 
 the east along what has been called the Santiago-Chixoy parallel, to ninety- 
 one degi’ees seven minutes west longitude. The line afterwards obliques to 
 the west to longitude ninety-one degrees forty minutes, and latitude sev¬ 
 enteen degrees ten minutes, and going east, rises soon to latitude seven¬ 
 teen degrees fifty minutes. From its departure from the Santiago- 
 Chixoy parallel, the line of the engineers Fernandez and Cubas keeps on 
 deviating from the timber districts, all of which remain to the east, with¬ 
 out including in the territory they assign to Mexico one single point which 
 is the object of claims. 
 
 The Mexican map of 1890, having an official character, since it was 
 made by order of the Ministry of Public Works, may be, perchance, un¬ 
 answerable in part, but in so far as it refers to the boundary with Guate¬ 
 mala it appears to be a casuistic formula. Of the old boundaries, as may 
 be seen, it takes no note, limiting itself to determine the final line, ac¬ 
 cording to the convention of 1882, with a new, strange, and, it might be 
 added, captious turn. 
 
 Considering, undoubtedly, tlie thousand of miles which by the treaty of 
 1882 passed to the possession of Mexico, as little, or less than what was 
 coveted, it was attempted to extend the Santiago-Chixoy parallel until it 
 met the Caukuen or Pasi6n river. [Later on it may happen that the 
 Pasi6n river may have eastern affluents, and that it would be advisable to 
 investigate if there is a deep one which will continue lengthening the par¬ 
 allel.] Then Guatemala, in order to communicate with Peten, would be 
 compelled to use a narrow strip of from thirteen to fourteen leagues, 
 which is the distance between the Pasi6n river, at its intersection with the 
 parallel named, and the Belize frontier, west of Punta Gorda, perhaps less. 
 The Belize boundary at that place is at eighty-nine degrees and twenty 
 minutes west longitude from the meridian of Greenwich, and the point of 
 convergence of the river and the extended Santiago-Chixoy parallel at 
 eighty-nine degrees and from fifty-two to fifty-three minutes ; there is, 
 then, an entry of from thirty-two to thirty-three geographic miles, which 
 the difference in minutes of longitude amount to. 
 
 The official Mexican map of 1890 establishes the eastern boundary of 
 Mexico on that side, at a point it calls the PasiOu river, but which by its 
 geographical position is the Chixoy. And it is and must be the Chixoy, 
 although it shows no river farther to the east, as its point of starting is, 
 approximately, ninety degrees thirty minutes west longitude, distant 
 seventy minutes or seventy miles, more or less, from the Belize frontier, 
 the diference being exactly that which exists between the Chixoy and the 
 Pasion rivers. Such a sophism is so strange, that thinking that Mr. Rock 
 had erred in transferring the lines to the comparative plan which is to be 
 
35 
 
 published, we consulted the map, measured the distances by the meridi¬ 
 ans, and found Mr. Rock’s transfer correct. We had heretofore noticed 
 new things in diplomacy, and now we see them in geography, which it 
 would not be suspected would lend itself to such entanglements. The 
 fact is that the Pasion river has been carried thirty-five or thirty-six miles 
 to the west, having therefore to carry with it the Chixoy and the Avestern 
 districts. 
 
 At a distance then of one degree and ten minutes west of the Belize fron¬ 
 tier, and on the line which, whether it is the Chixoy parallel from Santiago, 
 or the Santiago parallel continued indefinitely, we do not know, begins 
 the demarcation in the map of 1890, and runs north. It describes an arc 
 of eighteen minutes at its highest point; it descends in a curve of seven 
 minutes to the eighteenth degree of latitude, leaving on the north, in Gua¬ 
 temalan territory, the camps of “ Constancia Nueva,” “ San Nicolas,” 
 Egipto,” “ Agua Azul,” aud nearly all the others established, remotely or 
 recently, in those localities. 
 
 At ninety-one degrees fifteen minutes west longitude, on the said map 
 of 1890, the line goes towards the north Avith a slight dip to the west, 
 passing beyond degree ninety-one and a half over the seventeenth parallel, 
 north latitude. So that the camps in question lie to the north and east 
 of the boundary line traced in the Mexican official plan. Camp “ San 
 Nicolas,” of PolicaiqAO Valenzuela, at longitude ninety degrees fifty min¬ 
 utes, or fifteen or sixteen leagues east of the said line ; camp “ Constancia,” 
 from four to five leagues; camp “ Egipto,” from thirteen to fourteen 
 leagues, and camp “Agua Azul,” near to that of “Egipto,” is, more or less, 
 about the same distance from the line. All of them are, therefore, far in 
 the interior of this Republic, according to that map and the others that 
 have been cited. 
 
 On these points the official Mexican map corroborates the testimony 
 we have been adducing, and which compels full conviction of the justice 
 of Guatemala. If a false self-esteem does not step in, and insistence in 
 erring convert itself into obstinacy, it may be clearly seen, Avithout the 
 necessity of investigating, what kind of intrigues have hallucinated the 
 minds and given support to the disordered covetousness of speculators 
 as disregardful of the truth as of the rights of others. Up to the present 
 we have noticed only pride and intemperance where reason should hold 
 sway. 
 
 XII. 
 
 Sloavness of Procedure. 
 
 Before the convention of September 27, 1882, Avas ratified, the impossi¬ 
 bility to follow all the stages in the execution, and to designate the exact 
 points of such an extensive frontier in the brief term allowed the scien¬ 
 tific commissions of Mexico and Guatemala, was recognized. Some ob¬ 
 servations Avere made, but the clause in interest Avas allowed to go Avith¬ 
 out amendment, in the understanding that the term was not peremptory 
 and could be extended, if the engineers did not finish in time, until the 
 objects and ends the contracting parties had in view should be realized. 
 
 Besides the difficulties common to this class of work, there Avere to be 
 considered the most special circumstances of locality, climate, dearth of 
 jAopulation, the hardships of the Avork in the rainy season, and the diseases 
 in marshy districts. During the original term the engineers of both com¬ 
 missions did their duty, and nevertheless did not succeed in locating the 
 
36 
 
 line save in the sections between the Suchiate river and Santiago. In the 
 middle of the Santiago-Chixoy parallel the Mexican commission ceased 
 surveying, and for two years, from 1885 to 1887, did not return to its 
 task except to raise difficulties and new demands respecting the extension 
 of the pai-allel. 
 
 The Guatemalan commission during all that time remained at its post, 
 establishing the line between Santiago and the Chixoy river, even when the 
 Mexican engineers did not cooperate. Mr. Rock, the chief of the commis¬ 
 sion, wished to erect the monuments or landmarks at the places where the 
 two commissions had worked, and the chief of the Mexican commission, 
 Senor Pastrana, sent his protest because the locating of such monuments 
 or landmarks was not by joint agreement. Mr. Rock urged Senor 
 Pastrana repeatedly during two years to hold interviews or conferences, 
 and Senor Pastrana either evaded them or refused bluntly. 
 
 After losing two years, during which the Mexican commission neither 
 worked nor ceased to produce dela 3 "s, one of its engineers appeared on the 
 scene, as he said, by order of his Government, seeking whether, b}’^ extending 
 the Santiago parallel to the east of the boundaries previously established 
 in 1882, he would find the Pasion river, so as to give to clause four. Article 
 III of the said treaty of 1882 a forced, violent and absurd interpreta¬ 
 tion, for the Pasion river is neither named therein, nor can it be con¬ 
 founded with the Usumacinta, nor had it entered into the plans of the 
 parties on contracting to split the Republic into two pieces, leaving to 
 Mexico the ownershij) of the central region. 
 
 Mr. Rock protested and the Government of Guatemala emphatically 
 seconded the jn’otest, securing from Senor Mariscal, Minister of Foreign 
 Relations of Mexico, a reply which, although it might have recognized 
 in more explicit and categorical terms the justice of the objections inter¬ 
 posed, nevertheless, declared that the Government of Mexico was not set 
 upon making that new demand, nor on violating the compacts subscribed, 
 the execution of which had been entered upon. 
 
 As the notes of Senor Martinez Sobral referred to the concrete point 
 of the Santiago-Chixoy parallel, the Minister accepted Senor Mariscal’s 
 I’eply in the sense of at least a tacit affirmation, and declared in another 
 despatch the pleasure caused by the termination of the incident in a man¬ 
 ner so reasonable and equitable. The Minister of Mexico having prom¬ 
 ised that the matter would be settled in accordance with the stipulations 
 of the boundary treaty, Senor Martinez Sobral said in reply: “ I take 
 jileasure in declaring to your excellency that it was impossible to expect 
 of Mexico any other attitude in the premises, considering the equity 
 which supported the observations submitted by Guatemala.” 
 
 There was no further reply, nor was the subject returned to for some 
 time. Senor Martinez Sobral published the pamphlet in which he had 
 marshalled proofs and reasons in opposition to the extension of the San¬ 
 tiago-Chixoy parallel, and recorded therein that he had known from offi¬ 
 cial documents that the matter relative to the region comprised between 
 the Chixoy and Pasibn I’ivers had been concluded in a manner favorable 
 to Guatemala. And although it was open to doubt whether the Mexican 
 Government made the desistance dependent on the question of reciprocal 
 claims, the matter was not cleared up, j’et there ought to be no obstacle 
 whatever in this case, nor in the more disadvantageous and stranger one 
 of confusing different matters, since the incident relating to the said 
 claims had been considered and concluded. 
 
 Rut the point, although apparently settled, was not, undoubtedly, in real¬ 
 ity, or it would have been resuscitated in a different way than it was when 
 
37 
 
 the Minister of Guatemala acoredited to Mexico, Senor Don Manuel Dieguez, 
 in an interview held with Senor Mariscal on the 22nd of December, 1800, 
 suggested to him that, having to return to his country soon, he desired to 
 carry to the Government he represented a concrete and categorical set¬ 
 tlement of the difficulty which had arisen with regard to the interpreta¬ 
 tion of the fourth clause. Article III of the treaty of 1882. Minister 
 Mariscal did not give an explicit reply and proposed that the two Govern¬ 
 ments agree upon the points following ; 
 
 1st. That without at present extending the Santiago-Chixoy parallel, 
 the commissions continue their work from the point where the Chixoy 
 joins the Usumacinta, and continue the tracing of the boundary line to its 
 termination : 2d. That if after said suspension no diffi culty should arise 
 regarding the dividing line between the two countries because the Gov¬ 
 ernments and their agents should agree on the interpretation of the treaty 
 and its application, Mexico, in consideration of this fact, will not insist fur¬ 
 ther on the extension of the Santiago-Chixoy pai’allel and it will be under¬ 
 stood that the eastern extremity of the parallel shall be the Chixoy river; 
 3d. That if said difficulties should arise, the question would remain on the 
 same footing, regarding the different interpretation of the treaty, as it 
 then was. 
 
 Senor Dieguez, without agreeing to anything, lacking, as he did, instruc¬ 
 tions, wrote a memorandum which was transmitted to the Government of 
 Guatemala. 
 
 There is noticeable in the points submitted by Senor Mariscal, Minister 
 of Mexico, an uncertain method for the regular advance of the boundary 
 dispute, and a systematic tendency to revert to the obstacles which it was 
 pretended to put aside. So serious a thing as putting in issue undisputed 
 territory when no right to question it exists, cannot depend on extraneous 
 conditions, nor on incidents or delays easy to stir up. 
 
 Besides, the single fact of insisting on a claim in every conception un¬ 
 just, caiised embarrassments and uneasiness, and must have impressed 
 the mind with the idea that a prompt and logical settlement was being- 
 evaded. 
 
 Notwithstanding, the survejdng operations continued, and no new ob¬ 
 stacles presented themselves to bi ing them to an end. 
 
 The last extension ended in 1892, not because there was any jjurpose 
 to suspend the survey, nor to perpetuate an anomalous state, but because 
 the Assembly lacked time to act. Meantime the Guatemalan commission 
 was not dissolved, nor did it abandon the purposes for which it w-as 
 created. On the 10th of July, 1894, a new extension of time was agreed 
 upon, which will undoubtedly be aj)proved by the legislative body at its 
 coming session. 
 
 Guatemala has not lost time. Of the whole work done, two-thirds w-as 
 executed by the Guatemalan commission. The Mexican engineers, after 
 two years of rest, dedicated part of their activity to measuring and sur¬ 
 veying east of the Chixoy, in a region foreign to all the questions, outside 
 of the treaties, and not included in any of the demands prior to the year 
 1887, nor questioned in either the maps of Mexico or of Guatemala. 
 
 In everything there is noticeable an eagerness to switch the question 
 off and take it out of its natural orbit. If it is proposed to split the dif¬ 
 ference in any measurement—a difference which only amounts to a few 
 metres—it is contended that the object is to gain extensive districts gra¬ 
 tuitously, or through arbitration. If, through the failure of the Mexican 
 engineers to be present, the Guatemalan commission endeavors to gain 
 time and begins to locate the land marks onthe line jointly agreed on. 
 
38 
 
 a protest is made because Senor Pastrana is not present to approve, and 
 because be objects to monuments being erected in bis absence. A long 
 and inexplicable suspension for two years is succeeded by a search for tbe 
 Pasi(3n river, and another hundred square leagues of territory which were 
 not even incidentally included in the plan, nor in the letter or spirit of the 
 treaties. 
 
 And now, when if Mexico would eliminate that point as being indefen¬ 
 sible, the survey could be completed in another j^eriod or term, interests 
 and intrigues combine to attack the covenanted right of possession ; ear 
 is given to smugglers and trespassers, and a new incident surges up as 
 though to prevent the settlement of the dispute. The second question 
 is no less clear than the first. It might even be pertinent to question the 
 ownership of unknown territories like the viceroyalties of Peru and Santa 
 Fe. It is incomprehensible how one who has no knowledge of a district can 
 dispute the possession thereof with him who exercises and has exercised 
 permanent and undisputed jurisdiction. 
 
 These are the true postponements, the causeless delays, the irrita¬ 
 tions which interrupt the carrying on of an effective and peaceful 
 work. And although there should be at any time a step less rapid than 
 it ought to be, deliberation could never be presumed, since slowness 
 prejudices Guatemala and not Mexico. It is right and more than right, 
 we repeat, that the one that is to gain so much should appreciate the pro¬ 
 priety of awaiting the observance of the formalities that he himself has 
 covenanted. Had not the Mexican Government and engineers transcended 
 the provisions of the boundary treaty in 1887, the authorities of Chiapas 
 and Tabasco could by this time be granting within the new limits the 
 permits they illegally issued in forests unknown to them, and the Com¬ 
 mandant of Tenosique could peacefully scour the localities he overran as 
 a trespasser at the instance of one of the promoters of the frontier 
 abuses. 
 
 Guatemala has done her duty, and will continue to do it. It cannot be 
 demanded that she become enthusiastic when duty is a sacrifice, but she 
 will not evade it, being able to say with deeper meaning than in any other 
 circumstance that what is covenanted is law, although it be a harsh and 
 bitter law. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 The Mexican Press. 
 
 The press has assumed something like a moral obligation to respect 
 the refinement and susceptibilities of nations, even when it is desired ta 
 censure official acts, the practices of Governments, and the laws and in¬ 
 stitutions which rule them. Very seldom are insults and diatribes hurled 
 at a nationality save in writings which assume the form and character of 
 libels. 
 
 Guatemala has been the object of an exception to this accepted rule, 
 unless the detractors are to be considered as excepted from that circle 
 subject to good behavior, and the obligation to observe considerations, 
 discretion, and prudence. All, or nearly all, the invectives which a cer¬ 
 tain writer, as violent as he is unjust, published in the pamphlet entitled, 
 jVo vayais d Mexico (Go ye not to Mexico), have been addressed by 
 some Mexican newspajiers to Guatemala, alleging false wrongs and imag¬ 
 inary injuries with an ill-humor which because of its captiousness does 
 not wound, and a vanity which because of its excessive impertinence does 
 
39 
 
 not humiliate. The magisterial tone employed by those papers would be 
 improper and stupid, even were it aimed by an insuperable wisdom against 
 an organic and stubborn littleness. 
 
 Leaving those frivolous recriminations to one side, we will limit our¬ 
 selves to the two papers in which we have seen the question treated, even 
 though they do it with all the warmth and partiality of one who is dis¬ 
 posed to deny whatever does not conform to his prejudices. 
 
 El Nacional prints one of Mr. Rock’s maps changed and added to by 
 Sehor Garcia Cubas for the pmqDOse of including the camps in a district 
 which he asserts Guatemala invaded. It shows neither longitudes nor 
 latitudes, doubtless because they matter little for the locating of the 
 places. It then explains the antecedents, gives no weight to the fact of 
 the exercise of jurisdiction, accuses Mr. Rock, and without mentioning the 
 clauses of the treaty excejDt in so far as Mexico is interested, jumps over 
 the right of possession, and says it ought not to be considered when the 
 method for tracing the boundary is once agreed on. The foregoing mat¬ 
 ters are treated arbitrarily, there being in truth nothing worthy of con¬ 
 tradiction save the error of supposing that the obligation of 1882 in¬ 
 curred an immediate transfer and instant abandonment of the territories 
 which, after belonging to Guatemala, would pass to the jurisdiction of 
 Mexico. The duty to transfer will be carried out in time, and not at the 
 moment of assuming the obligation, as it was thus agreed upon, and no 
 assertions, which are unsupported (save by the wish of those who are en¬ 
 deavoring at every cost to alter compacts and distort facts), can prevail 
 against the express text. 
 
 The long exposition of El Tiempo, and the war-like summons which 
 serves as its ejDilogue, might be termed a call “ to arms.” Events are re¬ 
 hearsed uttering or suppressing notes as best subserves its interest. A 
 consi^iracy between Guatemala and Mr. Blaine is spoken of, and either 
 through error or design the meaning of the negotiations is distorted, until 
 the treaty of 1882 is reached, in which it cannot but admit that Mexico 
 obtained advantages. 
 
 El Tiempo explains in its own way the incident of the extension of the 
 Santiago-Chixoj^ parallel, and deliberately confuses terms, for it is in¬ 
 comprehensible that it ignores what are the branches of a river and what 
 is its deepest course, or channel, or part. And besides, the treaty does not 
 speak of branches, neither does it mention the Pasicin rivei-, nor do the 
 citations El Tiempo makes tend to prove anything but the opposite 
 of what it intends. But it is the belief of El Tiempo that the claim, prin¬ 
 cipal object of the dispute, is abandoned by Mexico, although in rather 
 inexplict terms, as may be inferred from these lines: “It is not many 
 days since the ministerial press of this city said that Mexico had aban¬ 
 doned her claims to the Chixoy and Pasi(3n district, for reasons of equity 
 towards Guatemala.” 
 
 The Minister, Senor Mariscal, receives some censure in the article for 
 real or supposed vacillations. But if it were actuated by a spirit of 
 justice, it would have censured the whole course that Mexico has been 
 pursuing since 1882. The bases of the 12th of August established as a 
 necessary principle, that the demarcation should be determined by the 
 line of the territory possessed by both States, and should another be estab¬ 
 lished, either through the following of natural boundaries or otherwise, 
 there should be mutual compensations. That is to say, that neither party 
 should lose territory. 
 
 Boundaries are established in the treaty through which Guatemala loses 
 thousands of miles, and, if withal, in order to conclude the matter at once. 
 
40 
 
 these subtractions and diminutions were passed over, it was incumbent 
 on the party benefited—not so much in need of space as of population to 
 profit by it—to give a return, investigatiug where and how the compensa¬ 
 tion and exchange should be offered. That was the right thing, and that 
 would have been counselled by a press anxious to do justice, yet instead 
 of repressing covetous tendencies, it supports and encourages them, and 
 rejects every idea of duty and clamors for an increase of property and 
 rights, even though to obtain them recourse must be had to any kind 
 of artifices and of interpretations. 
 
 On the subject of lumber camps El Tiempo again goes over the same 
 ground without adding proofs or reasons : The invading by Guatemala 
 of lands positively unknown to the invaded; of lands where political 
 commissioners and alcaldes of Guatemala resided, and where almost all 
 the exploiters of forests work or had worked by permission of Guatemalan 
 authorities. 
 
 The law laid down ex cathedra, El Tiempo proclaims war against Gua¬ 
 temala, as disturber of the isthmus and the frontier. It proclaims war 
 in the name of Mexico, which, considering her peaceful traditions, is, 
 doubtless, scandalized at our passing disturbances and our brief discords. 
 It compares the condition of Guatemala with that of Paraguay in 1866, 
 as it might have compared it with the condition of Holland or of Taranto, 
 and says that it will not be the first case that has arisen of a struggle in 
 which the strength of the belligerents is disproportionate. “ There is,” 
 it adds, “ the war of Algiers in 1830; that of Austria and Prussia against 
 Denmark over the duchies of the Elba; that of Chile against Bolivia.” 
 
 But apart from boastings—empty ever and foolish when inopportune, 
 and unnecessary when reason and conviction exist—the Algerian war, 
 even before 1830, was a French war of conquest; that of the duchies was 
 an intervention provoked by the pressing of a right in favor of the said 
 duchies; that of Chile with Peru and Bolivia did not reveal dispropor¬ 
 tions save in the outcome. 
 
 The newspapers of Mexico, which by their false teachings have distorted 
 public opinion, have not been able to give, nor at the bottom give, but 
 one single reason—“ that of being stronger ; ” that of being able to im¬ 
 pose their judgment and make pretensions, clearly and evidently unjust, 
 prevail. 
 
 Strength:—there is the principal argument. But theory is dangerous 
 for every one. In 1876 many newspapers in the South of the United 
 States urged the annexation of Mexico to the American Confederation, 
 and there are factions who do not abandon the gulf, nor the expectation 
 of a considerable dominion to the south. In 1871, the incorporation of 
 Holland with the new German Empire was desired, and on a hundred oc¬ 
 casions the union of Belgium with France. In former times the plan 
 would have assumed greater proportions. Nowadays something more 
 than the wish is necessary. Countries live also by law. Civilization has 
 something to say to the will. Omnipotencies do not exist; for even for 
 the strongest there is a pitfall, an obstacle, a risk. 
 
 To every one there comes a day for rejoicing, but another for sorrow¬ 
 ing; and to him who has been just, there remains under adversity the 
 loftiness of his dignity to shield him against misfortune. 
 
 Not because we are small or great, but for love of the discreet, the up¬ 
 right, and the exemplary, have we seen, with an ardor which consoles us 
 for so many absurdities committed in full civilization, how Prance gave 
 way to the rights of hospitable Switzerland, and victorious Germany gave 
 guarantees to Holland, and the Iron Chancellor, proud of the victory. 
 
41 
 
 at the head of fifty millions of men, withdrew, because a brave people 
 would not abandon a few rocks in Oceanica. Civilization, we thought, 
 is not a word ; it is a dictate ; it is a law, which although not universally 
 obeyed, has its influence in the actions of countries and governments. 
 
 To hear proclaimed in an American newspaper the necessity of blood 
 to determine points of law, produces in us a feeling of sorrow for the com¬ 
 mon interests and the common necessities. And if, when others have lost 
 confidence and circumspection, a word could be uttered, we should say 
 to them that, reserving untimely ferocity for possible cases, we ought all 
 (the boastful and the silent) to learn the solid ways of progress, and turn 
 well-dii-ected efforts towards liberty and science, without illy using time 
 in bravado, and the dictionary in vulgar blatter. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Recapitulation. 
 
 It being advantageous to compromise and settle the boundary dispute 
 between Mexico and Guatemala, the National Assembly, in April, 1882, 
 gave General Don Justo Rufino Barrios, President of the Republic, the 
 most ample powers to make the arrangement with the Government or the 
 representatives of the United Mexican States. 
 
 On August 12, of the same year, the bases upon which a treaty should 
 rest to terminate the pending difficulties and establish the boundary line 
 were signed in New York. The principal point as regards Mexico was the 
 renouncing or abandoning by Guatemala of her rights to Chiapas and 
 Soconusco, provinces of the former Captain-Generalcy, and the necessary 
 points were declared to be, the principle of arbitration in the event of any 
 differences arising not settled by agreement of the parties ; the obligation 
 that in the survey possession should serve as the rule, or to give mutual 
 compensations, if for admissible reasons that rule were changed ; and the 
 obligation to respect what each contracting party then possessed until 
 the boundary line should be located. 
 
 The basis of a treaty or of any obligation whatsoever is the principal 
 foundation or support upon which the obligation or treaty is to rest, and 
 the parties should not and cannot withdraw from it, unless they so declare 
 expressly in a competent manner; so that, although the subsequent act, 
 which details and establishes all the conditions of the arrangement, may 
 omit some one of the essential covenants in the bases, the couenant must 
 be considered as in force, whether it imposes obligations or recognizes 
 rights. The bases and the treaty constitute one body, and it is under¬ 
 stood that they complete each other, save in the case of explicit and cate¬ 
 goric waiver. There would not be, were this not so, any reason to trouble 
 oneself to lay down conditions, if in the act which succeeds or follows 
 they are abandoned ; nor would there be logic in a treaty that departed 
 from the source whence it originated. In such cases the treaty is noth¬ 
 ing but the development and shaping of the rules first laid down. The 
 bases of August, 1882, are the foundations laid for the treaty of the 27th 
 of September of the same year. 
 
 The treaty does not speak of any of the essential points of the bases, 
 such as arbitration and mutual compensations ; it records the renouncing 
 of Guatemala’s rights to Chiapas and Soconusco, and recognizes the au¬ 
 thority to retain what was possessed, until the legal requisites are ful¬ 
 filled. But this omission does not inply a denial of what was agreed 
 
42 
 
 and determined on as forming the subject of the transaction. In case of 
 disagreement one of the parties could not decide, nor could the decision 
 of a strictly legal point be left to the chances of war. It has been said 
 that on discussing the treaty the Mexican Foreign Minister refused to 
 carry out the obligation to invite the President of the United States to 
 act as umpire or arb^itrator should disagreement occur; but the principle 
 of arbitration and the rule and basis in its essential aspect was not there¬ 
 by denied. 
 
 And, nevertheless, there is no moral authority better fitted than that of 
 the United States to decide as an arbitrator a question of right, and to 
 secure harmony between American countries, since it has so often watched 
 over the common interests and the common security. It could not be feared 
 of the great Re]3ublic of the North, constituted as a court, that jealousy 
 or hopes would incline it to partiality or injustice. The skill and pru¬ 
 dence with which it has acted in similar cases is a guaranty in favor of 
 right, which the parties should aspire to if actuated by good faith and 
 the desire for what is just. 
 
 The obligation to arbitrate was tacitly established in the treaty, as a 
 consequence of the bases, and with greater reason was that of mutual 
 compensations. The third article of the treaty, by virtue of the authority 
 of the fifth article of the bases, establishes the boundaries along a line 
 which is not that of the then possession; therefore the duty to compen¬ 
 sate is non-evadable, and is a necessary consequence. Supposing that in 
 the treaty of September 27 no mention had been made of the renouncing 
 of the rights over Chiapas and Soconusco, they would still be considered 
 as renounced, because the condition of the final treaty was the aggregate 
 of the bases which were to serve as the essence of the boundary compact. 
 The bases and treaty are not two documents which repel one another; 
 on the contrary, they permeate and perfect each other. 
 
 A very grave error was fallen into, growing out of the selection of a 
 point, undoubtedly not well known, and which was supposed to be in a 
 different geographical locality. 
 
 Au, in his first delineation, and with him others, located Ixbul hill at a 
 higher latitude. That hill, which has gained importance since, had none 
 in 1882. Under a mistaken impression, a parallel was established which, 
 starting four kilometers beyond the summit of Ixbul hill, should cross the 
 the Usumacinta river, or, if this was not encountered, the Chixoy. 
 
 Au located the said hill at sixteen degrees and thirty-four or thirty-five 
 minutes north latitude, while its true position was at sixteen degrees; 
 and at longitude ninety-two degrees fourteen minutes, Greenwich me¬ 
 ridian, when it is at ninety-one degrees forty minutes. On studying 
 the points well, a grievous fact is discovered: giving value to names, 
 against every rational presumption that it was intended to express the 
 idea of a considerable grant, the Ixbul hill appears as the beginning of 
 the parallel, instead of Santiago, a place four kilometers in advance. Gua¬ 
 temala lost in latitude from thirty-four to thirty-five miles, and the same 
 in longitude. 
 
 Were Ixbul where it was supposed to be, a parallel starting therefrom 
 would strike the Usumacinta, and, although there would be a slight error 
 of a few minutes, the Chixoy, because the Usumacinta is formed by the 
 confluence of the Chixoy and the Pasibn rivers near the sixteenth-and-a- 
 half degree, and consequently lower in latitude than the line of the place 
 where it ought to have been supposed Ixbul hill was. 
 
 In case the location of Ixbul hill had been known then, as it is now, 
 there was no necessity for naming the Usumacinta, which it is impossible 
 
43 
 
 to find on a parallel thirty minutes below the head of the river. It had 
 to cross the Chixoy, and the damage would be consummated. 
 
 Nevertheless, it became necessary not to raise obstacles to prevent other 
 alterations and complaints. Guatemala would lose an extensive district 
 west of the Chixoy, in the angle formed by that river and the Santiago 
 parallel. But no suspicion could exist that more would be claimed, nor 
 did Guatemala think in what places it would be jDossible to compensate 
 such losses. All the basin of the Lacantum, with the forests of the nu¬ 
 merous affluents, would pass into the possession of Mexico on the tracing 
 of the boundary line, according to the cou.i8S agreed on. 
 
 A short time was given the engineers, and extension after extension 
 was agreed upon, it being resolved that as the sections were surveyed the 
 jurisdiction of the party in whom the ownership should vest should be 
 established in each. This was done in the section from the Suchiate 
 river to Santiago. The commissions worked in harmony. But about 
 the middle of the year 1885 the Mexican commission suspended its work, 
 and in 1887 the engineer Don Jose Tamborrel appeared in order to in¬ 
 vestigate whether the Santiago-Chixoy parallel would meet the Pasifin 
 river, which it pleased him to baptize the IJsumacinta ; and it was alleged 
 that the former was its deepest channel. That is to say, that neither 
 renunciation of rights nor cessions of territory sufficing, it became neces¬ 
 sary to obtain another hundred square leagues, and reach out towards 
 the west, like an arm placed in the middle of the Republic, almost to the 
 Belize frontier. 
 
 The incident being taken up, the Government of Mexico could not sus¬ 
 tain its contention, and, evading the issue, it was thought to have desisted ; 
 but it soon brought it up again, advancing no other reasons than those 
 given by Sehor Tamborrel in 1887. Later recourse was had to changing 
 terms, by calling branches what are not branches, either in geography or 
 grammar, and to other sophisms of no better stamp, disproven by all the 
 evidences of tradition, language, and nature. Even in the official map of 
 Mexico, of 1890, the authors who changed names could not upset longi¬ 
 tudes nor suppress distances. 
 
 Wrong or right, Guatemala has admitted what was covenanted in 1882 
 to be res judicata. She recognizes the boundaries drawn and wishes to con¬ 
 clude. All to the west of the lines previously established will go to Mexico, 
 reserving only the right of retaining the possession, in accordance with the 
 compacts, until the lines are finally determined. To put an end to these 
 details we have the indolence or the opposition of the Mexican commis¬ 
 sioners, who neither appeared to erect the landmarks beyond Santiago, 
 nor consented that they should be located by the engineers of Guatemala 
 on the line jointly surveyed, and in the meanwhile the subject of the ex¬ 
 tension of the Santiago-Chixoy parallel again springs up, when it was 
 thought to be ended. It is laid aside, surveying and tracing go on, 
 hardly are a few details wanting, when once more the unfounded preten¬ 
 sion bobs up as though a protest against any final disentanglement. 
 
 To justify delays, blaming the other party is a worn-out expedient; but, 
 worn out or not, it is employed, feigning the necessity of more or less de¬ 
 lays in the replies, and more or less formalities in details of slight signifi¬ 
 cance alongside the principal question. 
 
 In one thought Mexico endeavors to extend her rights of property; in 
 another, later on, she raises a controversy regarding the possession which 
 she covenanted to reserve temporarily. It is fifteen years since the Gov¬ 
 ernment of Guatemala authorized the Mexican firm of Jamet and Sastre 
 to take out timber from the districts which it is said are invaded by Gua- 
 
44 
 
 temalan authority. Miguel Torruco and many others cut for that firm, 
 without protest from it, nor from Mexico, nor from anybody. The con- 
 ti’act with the house of Jamet and Sastre ending, the unauthorized felling 
 is ordered to be stopped, and some who see profits in the work surmise 
 that they can avail themselves of Mexico to their personal advantage. 
 
 Mexico had no possible pretext, nor written testimony, nor use, nor ju¬ 
 risdiction, nor precedents. Neither her authorities nor her engineers give 
 any reason for anything. The Giovernor of Tenosique goes up the Lacan- 
 tum like a fugitive, he knows that a commission from Guatemala is com¬ 
 ing, and he departs, allowing it to perform its work and its duty for two 
 months. Of the engineers arriving there some have no certainty of any¬ 
 thing, and others maintain silence, feigning instructions. Witnesses, 
 maps, the exercise of jurisdiction, everything bears out that Guatemala 
 has always possessed the region on the banks of the Lacantum river, 
 and neither the Mexican Government, nor the press, nor the authorities 
 adduce a single argument of weight to give rise to a formal discussion. 
 
 Guatemalan authority, in the exercise of its rights, has the cutting sus¬ 
 pended, dismantles unauthorized camps, and then comes the talk of inva¬ 
 sion, and complaints are lodged as though treating of a territory subject 
 in fact and in law to Mexico. Proofs, none. Through lack of these it is ex¬ 
 pected that Guatemala shall now give up the possession of what will later 
 on belong to Mexico in fee. But it was covenanted that the possession 
 which existed in 1882 should continue until the boundary line should be 
 located; and one of two things: either it should have been delivered over 
 at that date, as a whole, without surveys or formalities, or while awaiting 
 necessary formalities, the jjossessor’s strict duty is to cause the posses¬ 
 sion to be respected. It would be more than strange—inconceivable— 
 that when a nation (Mexico) has bound herself to respect what is possessed 
 by Guatemala, four or six private individuals may violate the jDOSsession 
 with impunity, and laugh at the rights of the Republic. Before tolerating 
 that it were j^referable to renounce the possession as a whole, from a sup¬ 
 posed line, although Mexico may go on claiming new regions and seeking 
 river channels through the whole Republic, to adjust them to gratuitous 
 and sophistical interpretations of the treaty of 1882. 
 
 It is said, and on this stress is laid, that some timber-cutters obtained 
 permission from Mexican authorities to exploit forests. They may have 
 granted it, but they did so without right. Had they the right, fifteen 
 years ago the first cutters, some of whom were Mexicans, would have re¬ 
 quested permission of them. Just as Guatemala has had officials there, 
 Mexico would have at least planned to send some of hers, and she did not 
 attempt it, nor did she notice the matter of the camps until a more influ¬ 
 ential ambition has moved her to create doubts where they never existed. 
 
 What the Government of Mexico has called an invasion of its territory, 
 is simply an exercise, recognized from time immemorial, of Guatemalan 
 jurisdiction, and in one way or another acknowledged by the Mexican 
 Government. Of an entirely different character is the invasion of terri¬ 
 tory of Guatemala in months passed. 
 
 We have said that by agreement of the parties, on the completion of the 
 tracing of the boundary line in each section, and the erecting of the 
 monuments or landmarks, the proper exchanges would be made and the 
 proper authority established. In 1884 the survey as far as Santiago was 
 completed, the exchanges were made with all due formality, and Guate¬ 
 mala entered into possession of an insignificant region, part of the beg¬ 
 garly compensation to which up to the present she is entitled in ex¬ 
 change for enormous losses. The town of Ayutla is included in said re- 
 
45 
 
 gion, and it became in fact and in law a part of the Republic. In No¬ 
 vember last a party of armed men, of Mexican nationality, crossed the 
 frontier, entered Ayutla, extracted the image of the tutelary saint of the 
 church, with all the jewels, and transferred it to the house of Calixto 
 Farfcin, in Mexican territory. And neither has what was stolen been re¬ 
 turned, nor has satisfaction been given for the complaint presented by 
 the Mmister of Guatemala. This was a positive invasion of territory of 
 undoubted ownership, as have been invasions those of Miguel Torruco, 
 Policarpo Valenzuela, the house of Romano & Co., and of all who have cut 
 and felled forest trees of which they could not dispose without author¬ 
 ity of the Government of Guatemala or its officers, and in the present 
 use of which forests no Mexican authority may interfere, until the j)osses- 
 sion of what is to belong to Mexico according to the treaty is transferred 
 with due formalities. 
 
 As regards delays and procrastination, the fault at the bottom does not 
 proceed from Guatemala. Yielding to the treaty, she has not proposed 
 nor does she propose to turn back, but neither can she go on acceding 
 to unjustifiable demands and vicious interpretations to the prejudice of 
 rights against which there is, at best, but one reason advanced; the rea¬ 
 son that Mexico, being stronger, all paths are open to her, including that 
 of making injustice prevail. 
 
 We do not know if even those Mexicans who wish to see things 
 without the desire to distort them, will need to have more proofs ad¬ 
 duced regarding the possession by Guatemala of the districts west of the 
 Chixoy river. Should they need them, let them examine all the traditions 
 of their country in search of some ground to defend their right, let them 
 consult all the maps, examine all the inhabitants of the Lacantum basin, 
 see if there is an antecedent in the Mexican frontier departments which 
 does not uphold Guatemala, and then ask themselves how Mexico could 
 have enjoyed or exercised rights in territories which neither her authori¬ 
 ties nor her engineers knew, while Guatemala had alcaldes and officials 
 there, and authorized cuttings and exacted duties. Mexico had not even 
 given this a thought until some timber-cutters came with the design of 
 investigating how, with the aid of their country, they could succeed in ex¬ 
 acting scandalous indemnities for the insult of having invaded foreign 
 territory. Two or three trees had been cut for account of Romano & Co., 
 by their agent, Cfirdoba Manzanillo, according to his own declaration, 
 and undoubtedly he will demand a big indemnity. 
 
 Aside from the fact that the district between the Chixoy and the Pa- 
 sidn rivers in no wise entered into the agreements of 1882, and that it is 
 as foreign to the treaties as the basin of the Michatoya or the La Paz 
 river, it is only necessary to examine a map to understand the rational 
 and moral impossibility of a country covenanting to be broken in pieces 
 by the incrustation of territory of another, almost across the entire width 
 of the nation. Never, since people first laid out their frontiers, has a 
 similar ex abrupto been seen. 
 
 Let Mexico subject herself to what she contracted and covenanted, with¬ 
 out transcending the letter and spirit of the treaties, and upon abandoning 
 her pretensions to new j^i'operties, and respecting the right of j)ossession 
 until it is legally transferred to her, and the delays and entanglements of 
 which she complains will cease, that Republic being in reality the one 
 which promotes and keeps them alive. The art of instituting actions for 
 slight causes, while a deliberate interest gives the positive origin to dis¬ 
 turbances and creates the difficulties we appear to censure, is well known. 
 
46 
 
 The method may, perhaps, surprise those who do not reflect, but not such 
 as examine the question and discover on which side justice lies. 
 
 The most excitable press of Mexico, after a few arbitrary sketches, only 
 presents one plausible argument: “ that of being stronger.” In ex¬ 
 change, Guatemala has another of greater weight in the eye of truth and 
 law—that of right, as clear and indisputable as the most unquestioned 
 and exact theorem. And in the treaties the number of muskets each 
 country counted on was not discussed, but what rights attached to each, 
 and what course should be pursued to establish these rights in a formal 
 and decisive manner. 
 
NOTE; 
 
 It is seen that the straight lines >^ hich unite 
 the frontier points recognized and respected until 
 t S»)4 by both nations, (which points arc the San¬ 
 tiago Vertex [near Ticrra Blanca], the mouth of 
 Vaxchilan creek in the river Usumacinta, the 
 Hill of the Crosses in the Sacluc-Tenosique 
 Rv-^d. the Rapids of Mactun in the river San 
 I'cdro Martir and the boundary mark of Thubu- 
 sti), all remain quite far within all the old lines of 
 the various authorities, including those of a!) the 
 Mcxic;.n maps. 
 
 The operations of Romano, Torruco, Valen¬ 
 zuela. tile Mexican official engineers, and the 
 Governor of Tenosique with his armed force, 
 were unlawful, threatening the territorial integrity 
 and \iolatiag the sovereignty of Guatemala; 
 by ha\’ing crossed the frontier that is legal and 
 in force, whether it is the one show'n by Rock, 
 or by any other engineer or author, notably the 
 old line as represented in 1882 by Cubas and 
 
 Fernwi'oz, the Mexican official engineers, and 
 even th • new line of the treaty as falsely repre¬ 
 sented by the same Cabas in the Mexican official 
 map of 1890; by cutting precious woods wnlhin 
 the *ori prohibited by law; by cutting them 
 without license from any Guatemalan authority 
 and hid enly; by taking possession of lands for 
 which jtiie Jamet House had already paid the 
 Governi ent of Guatemala, and in lands where 
 various Mexican and other concessionaries have 
 paid Uctisc fees to Guatemala to cut precious 
 woods daring more than twenty years past, and 
 in territ w’here Mexico has never questioned 
 the jurif liction of Guatemala until now. 
 
 M yV r* 
 
 a/ thf bcundaty lints al varimis tfoths 
 between Guatemala anti Afexieo, projected by 
 
 Guatemala Commission, of the Boundary 
 with Mexico, Guatemala City, January is, 
 t 895 
 
 Ih/ores. Ta nr/tt\ 
 
 ^rinrn 
 
 
 iinrn/tt r 
 
 
 \San 
 
 <i ftncepriott 
 
 /■./ jfirtido tic Sim Antonto r/eaiH’ sc 
 
 '‘tJ f isodti 
 
 dMcxicu cn //;<?? fiorfurr^a nulitar 
 
 .'itlll Juun lUlUftsitI 
 
 S ///1 Tct/m. 
 
 /.men Jet Tnitcti 
 
 Cn bus tHti.9 
 
 iMefunitfi 
 
 
 uifieifi 
 
 
 BrliCi 
 
 .^'I'cnos 
 
 Julobilu 
 
 >1,1111 't 
 
 PturnA liiifii 
 
 Jose lU’Surrerctot 
 
 0 
 
 
 ■r/kfU 
 
 
 TrfsC7uLrnji\\ 
 
 Mifft/el 
 
 0 / hi/on- 
 
 /as Cruises 
 
 inAioIicdM. 
 
 yiurrs liiiiiu'oni^ i^l'onteluL 
 '. 'v Sun Jose 
 
 HeaJo ^ 
 
 >eu(jui 
 
 ^J/alore:> 
 
 .1 
 
 -I-_ 
 
 j •‘JsnhJirntto 
 
 I 1 \SiiiiUt Ana 
 
 -®‘-. ifunter 
 
 .tpayar 
 
 /li/Utlf" 
 
 Sar/lpfJiA 
 
 Oct/rintfo 
 
 Xaifi/ 
 
 
 Sacluc 
 
 a J.a Lil>erta)t^- 
 
 ^ - '»('hipfic 
 
 Jit/muKenJ 
 PnrtileLo ci d: Cahullero /8 /J 
 
 'rro IjcAul^Auj 
 
 "hts-Vaciojies 
 *\>nntet Host/ 
 
 Je In {PasoMral 
 
 ■San /.Orrmi 
 
 O San frisjo/utl 
 
 ■ San I'erfro 
 
 ^SfiitJi/itn 
 ^ J,a Torft ti 
 
 J'etr.fy fibiiriL- 
 
 xtlaSuiierres o 
 
 S'ilta 
 
 \yhtislu\ 
 
 \)fj/ov)'A nos 
 
 SartJoiJ^fitTi 
 
 fatso Hi 
 
 ou on 
 
 J 1 ^Jfartjt/rrfas 
 Ofanii'lurL Sfutyltdou^ 
 
 '.Knit Pi 1} 
 
 Xenton Au 
 
 
 \£/ Can k 
 
 'auttaSaJaliet Aii\ 
 
 
 (ouconlnt 
 
 Sa/i/tt K/r 
 
 'ri'rrra /i/ittn'n. 
 
 o Tifun/ti 
 
 iaAintf/ai:. 
 
 CniftnttL 
 
 fariti ' 
 
 vntsts 
 
 
 <>Canlpttmitr- 
 
 .imon 
 
Uf 
 
 \ulSis 
 
 ^Ornipt’rnnc 
 
 ffa 
 
 pjt/vsf/f fjrrtn'i/sii- Dio: 
 
 
 ^fhisPc 
 
 ' Daftta littn 
 
 
 SoTtio Tomas 
 
 l inuh 'iiOliijO .In 
 
 {o(!liuin/^‘k Au 
 
 OJfue/iue/e.rhjTii 
 
 Jfii/’.lueif’nL // 
 
 I qI\iiUI,IIi1 
 
 Si)hsen'o/un 
 \ .//• 
 
 tie 7'nrAi^Ji 
 de Tulguiou- 
 
 ^Zurapu 
 P An 
 
 niail 
 
 Santij Cru % pi'h'. 
 
 
 TafjarhuL'C'Xi^ 
 
 
 Detjilliuferp' 
 
 .lineaAnDf 
 
 AmatLtlaTP 
 
 Aliscuirmltt 
 O A u)y 
 
 ('hcunperieo 
 
 Uapa. 
 
 .Cupf-ATuak 
 
 
 / Thnt^/ 
 
 EXPLANATIONS: 
 
 The data along the frontier line are tliosc obtained bj^the 
 Boundarj' Commission of Guatemala; those of the adjacent 
 Mexican States, from the Mexican official map of iSpaby 
 Antonio Garcia Cubas; those of Guatemala beyond Ithe 
 boundary are from the map of Guatem?Ja, by Tbeop rc 
 Paschke of 1889 ; the data shown in red ink are from thelfr ^p 
 of Herman Au of 1875, thus clearly showing its erront*-« 
 and imaginary character; those of the old lines are taken fr m 
 the maps of their respective names. ' 
 
 ^ -ft Are the places astronomically determined by the obser a- 
 tions of Miles Rock in the years 1883 to 1889. The precis n 
 of the locations is that shown by probable errors of two to 
 forty-five metres. 
 
 ^ New line of the Treaty of 1882 agreed to in 1884 and in 
 
 force to the Santiago Vertex, The dots indicate the me a- 
 ments already constructed. 
 
 New line ahead of the Santiago Vertex by way of the 
 rivers Chixoy and Usumacinta, according to'the terms of the 
 ^ Treaty, but not agreed to yet, nor proclaimed, nor in force. 
 
 The open dots represent places for proposed monuments. 
 
 - 4—-f- The line formed by joining with straight lines the poiits 
 
 recognized and respected as the old frontier and in force until 
 now. I 
 
 ■-New line of the Treaty according to a wrong interpretston 
 
 tl by Mexico since 1887. represented in its true place. ’ 1 ^ - 
 
 I7-The same misrepresented in the “General Chart ot the 
 
 Mexican Republic,” by Antonio Garcia Cubas, 1889. 
 
 The same again as it is misrepresented in another way 
 -f in the official map of the Ministry of Public Works of Mexico 
 in 1890. 
 
 ^ ^ ^ Old boundary between Guatemala and Mexico before their 
 
 Independence in 1821. 
 
 ———— The same according to the map of Au, 1875, including the 
 parallel of Caballero, 1811. 
 
 •' The same according to Arrowsmith, 1826, and Maestre, 
 
 1832. 
 
 -The same according to Sonnenstem, 1859. 
 
 +The same according to Gavarrete and Prieto (1880?). 
 
 ■ The same according to Cubas and Fernandez, 1882. 
 
 Thp same according to Rockstroh, 1887. 
 
 . _ •^The boundaries between the neighboring States. 
 
 Afofoin'ntlAAfi ^ 
 
 I 4 , \ \ 
 
 M'/ 
 
 I(„rstrf /S 32 ---L—7^ ,, 
 
 Jiotoci nbljif 
 
 □ Collin Bioni’ont.^ 
 
 \p%'{'infynpaii 
 
 Q An^ 'j 
 opi^^iu/le riiijnlh \ 
 
 O Au 
 
 Chi'ifiiinin-lit 
 
 MAP 
 
 TERRITORY OF GUATEMALA 
 violated and unlawfully occupied by:— 
 
 Romano and Company and official Engineers 
 of the Government of Mexico in 1894. 
 
 Miguel Torruco in 1892, and after expulsion, 
 ^ again in 1894. 
 
 ^ Policarpo Valenzuela in 1893 and 1894. 
 
 'Ok Territory of which Mexico took unlawful 
 ^ possession in 1889. 
 
 _ Guatemalan territory, a thousand square miles, 
 
 i which Mexico claims since 1887 by a wrong 
 interpretation of the Treaty of 1882, and which 
 was unlawfully invaded by the Mexican Boundary 
 Commission in 1S88. 
 
 Territory of Guatemala invaded by the Gov¬ 
 ernor of Tenosique with an armed force in May, 
 1894. 
 
 O An,' 
 
 o 1 7/ rm npo ^ClLCi 7'EAL 
 
 SJ^ 
 
 Republic of QuATEriALA, 
 
 the adjacent Mexican States of CHIAPAS, TABASCO, CAMPEACHY 
 and YUCATAN and BRITISH HONDURAS or BELIZE; projected 
 to show the frontier line in force between GUATEMALA and MEXICO, 
 the same being the New Line of the Treaty of 1882 from the Pacific 
 Coast to the Santiago Verte< according to the agreements of May and 
 June, 1884; and beyond tht Santiago Vertex there still remains in force 
 the old line, whichever it ni. y be, for want of a legaj agreement upon the 
 corresponding new line of the Treaty caused by Mexico refusing to 
 accept the whole line as defcned by the Treaty. 
 
 This map also showi'various old boundary Unes between the two 
 K.epublics-rn their several! Us by their respective authors of maps and 
 official engineers, thus pro! ^g. that not only the territory that Mexico is 
 at present claiming belongs to Guatemala, but also as much more besides, 
 by all the lines shown, equally by those of Mexican authors as by those 
 of Guatemala. 
 
 Fscala es. I ^ Af66'6'lj6'^ 
 Kilor/f f fros 
 
 Tf y-- 
 
 
 ■^popie^ 
 
 AfiUciS de S. 
 
 A H MUELLER. LITM. PHUA PA 
 
 
) 
 
 i