III

The Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Relations replied ,October 28, 1871 (Doc . No. 330), stating that his govern-ment could recognize no other limits than those fixe dby the Treaty of Bogota, of March 15, 1825 ; and aftervarious notes in which the plenipotentiary of Colombia .insisted upon his demands—relying also for support onthis treaty which he considered as in force—the Ministe rof Foreign Relations of Costa Rica ended by saying, i nhis communication of December 9, 1871 (Doc . No . 333)that

'* * * if the incidents of Sixaola and Changui-nola are to lead us to the examination of the docu-ments which justify the right and the possession ;and if these documents can be no others than thosewhich accredit the best right to the property acquire dand co-existing at the time independence was secured ,it would be most natural to put aside the questio npresented and enter at once upon the principal on eof boundaries . "

To this Señor Pradilla replied, on the 13th of the samemonth (Doc. No. 332), that in view of this statement h ewould forward the document to his government, so thatit might decide whether these claims were to be pursue dor disregarded, and whether the boundary question was t obe taken up .

(3) TREATY OF 1873 ; THE" MONTÚFAR-CORREOSO LINE.Señor Pradilla having been retired, the Government o f

Colombia accredited General Don Buenaventura Correoso,ex-President of the State of Panama, to San José asMinister Plenipotentiary . Thereupon, Señor Correosoand Señor Montúfar, the Minister of Foreign Relationsof Costa Rica, succeeded in coming to an understanding ,and in April, 1873, they concluded the boundary treaty

112

(Doc No . 334), by Art . 1 of which the following divis-ional line was established, a lin e

"* * * which, starting from the coast of thePacific Ocean at Punta Burica * * * proceedsin a straight line by the peaks of the range from th esaid point, until reaching the source of the RiverSan Bartolomé ; from there, also a straight line, acrossthe Cordillera, until reaching toward the north th esource of the River Bananos; and from that point ,following the course of said river, to its outlet in theBay of Almirante . "

This line was less favorable to Costa Rica than the on eof 1865, but she still kept, with the Gulf of Dulce, a partof her dominion over the bay of Almirante . '

The Senate of Colombia rejected this treaty and SeñorMontúfar was criticised very severely in Costa Rica ,because it was believed that in an excess of a spirit o fharmony he had yielded t00 much .

'Because of its special importance, a Memorandum is printed ,written by General Correoso and dated August 30, 1873 (Doc .No. 336), concerning the various questions discussed betwee nhim and the Costa Rican diplomat, Doctor ?Montúfar .

CHAPTER VI.

AGREEMENTS FOR INTERNATIONA LARBITRATION .

ARBITRAL CONVENTION OF 1880 .

(I) THE QUESTION OF THE BURICA COCOANUTGROVES .

(2) CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE MINISTERS OrFOREIGN RELATIONS OF COLOMBIA AND COSTARICA CONCERNING THE STATUS QUO ANDINTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION .

(3) CONCLUSIONS OF THE COLOMBIAN SENATE AN DPROCLAMATION BY PRESIDENT NÚÑEZ .

(4) THE CASTRO-HOLGUÍ N CONFERENCES AND NOTEOF DR . CASTRO, MINISTER OF FOREIGNRELATIONS OF COSTA RICA.

(5) CELEBRATION OF THE AGREEMENT OF 1880 .ONLY ONE QUESTION AT ISSUE THAT RELATIN GTO BOUNDARIES .

IL ADDITIONAL CONVENTION OF 1886 .

(I) CONFIRMATION OF THE SPANISH ARBITRATION .(2) OPPOSING CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES .

l . ARBITRAL CONVENTION OF 1880 .

The republics of Costa Rica and Colombia, having beenpersuaded that they could not come to an agreement inregard to the location of their boundary lines, desiste dfrom further efforts to establish them directly by means oftreaties, and undertook to secure that end by arbitratio nagreements, beginning with that of 1880 .

=548-8

(113)

114

(I) THE, QUESTION Or THE BURICA COCOANUT GROVES .

The question of making use of the groves or planta-tions of cocoanut trees at Burica led to serious disturb-ances in the relations between the two governments, oneof which brought them to the brink of war and was th eoccasion of the Arbitration Agreement of 1880 .

On June 11, 1875 (Doc . No . 339), the Minister ofForeign Relations of Costa Rica laid before the ForeignOffice of Colombia the fact that the Cabildo (Town Council )of Alanje had leased the cocoanut groves of Burica, situ-

ated between the point of that name and Dulce Gulf, had

imposed taxes upon the residents of a place called Corredor

and had also leased pastures belonging to the same neigh-

borhood, and he protested against such acts as indicatin g

a disregard for the jurisdictional limits of Costa Rica .The Secretary of Foreign Relations of Colombia replied ,

on May 16, 1876 (Doc . No. 341), transmitting the repor tof the Secretary of State of Panama, in which the latte rdeclared that the Cabildo of Alanje bad the right to leas ethe cocoanut groves of Burica, belonging to the State o fPanama, and that the little hamlet of Corredor had beenestablished by former residents of Alanje .

On July 2 5 of the same year (Doe . No. 342), the CostaRican Minister of Foreign Relations, passing over these

explanations, rejoined that, as the boundary treaty ha d

not been approved, the status quo as to the divisional line ,that is to say, a straight line between Punta Burica and

the Escudo de Veragua continued unchanged ; and that in

order to settle definitively the question as to boundaries ,he proposed its submission to the arbitration of a friendlynation such as the Republic of Chile .

In July, 1879 (Doc . No.344), the Government of Panamacommunicated to the governments of Colombia and Costa

115

Rica the fact that the Costa Rican official of Dulce Gulfhad occupied Colombian territory where the cocoanutgroves of Burica were situated and had sent away thefunctionary stationed there by the Alcalde (Mayor) o fAlanje, establishing another in its stead . The Secretaryof Foreign Relations, on August 19, following, forwarde dthis notice, with his protest (Doc . No. 345) to the Secretaryof Foreign Relations of Costa Rica, who responded, on the27th of October (Doc. No. 346), to the effect that hi sgovernment had not occupied any portion of the territoryof Colombia, and that if any misunderstanding had arisenbetween the officials of Dulce Gulf and Chiriqui, it ha dbeen occasioned through the lack of a physical demarca-tion of the frontier . During the first six days of November(Doc. No. 348) a full investigation was held at Dulce Gulfwherein various witnesses were examined; the resultshowed that the occurrences had grown out of the factthat the Prefect of Chiriqui had sent a squad of tr00psacross the frontier to protect the lease of the cocoanutgroves made by the Alcalde of Alanje, with orders t o siézeand bind all gatherers of cocoanuts and any person actin gas commissioner for that locality on behalf of Costa Rica .

(2) CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE MINISTERS O FFOREIGN RELATIONS OE COLOMBIA AND COSTA RICACONCERNING THE " STATUS QUO " AND INTERNA-TIONAL ARBITRATION .

In the despatch of August 19, 1879 (Doc . No. 345) ,referred to, Don Luis Carlos Rico, Secretary of ForeignRelations of Colombia stated that in the correspondenc eexchanged between the two governments during 1876 theprinciple of respect for the status quo as to the questionof boundaries had been established, and that Colombia

116

had accepted willingly the idea of submitting that questio nto the decision of an arbitrator, trusting that the inciden twhich had occurred on the frontier would not give ris eto the fatal situation which it was feared might developbetween the two nations .

The Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Relations, in th edespatch cited of October 27 (Doc . No. 346), replied tha this government had given its officials orders to respec tthe status quo, and had instructed him to suggest asarbitrators, the President of the United States, the Din gof the Belgians, or some other satisfactory person ; to thisSeñor Rico, in his communication of December i 8 (Doc .No. 347), agreed, intimating, however, that for the desig-nation of an arbitrator it would be necessary to have theconsent of the National Congress of Colombia, to which ,he said, the matter would be submitted as soon as thatbody should convene.

Although both governments were in accord as to the

status quo and the settlement of the boundary questionby arbitration, nevertheless jurisdictional conflicts ensued ,as shown by the complaints presented by Costa Ric ain the despatches of March 1 2 (Doc. No. 350), May 1 5(Doc. No. 353), June 15 (Doc . No. 357) and July 1 6

(Doc.' No . 355), í880 .The trouble arose from the different interpretations of

the status quo .In his note of April 20, í88o (Doc . No . 352), Señor Rico

informed the Minister of Foreign Relations of Costa Ric athat

" * ' * the demarcation of the boundary betwee nyour Republic and that of Colombia, whic

h Your Excellency setsupin the note mentioned of July 25 ,1876 [Doc. No . 342], that is to say, following astraight line from the Punta de Burica, upon thePacific, to the Escudo de Veragua, in the Atlantic ,is not, nor can it be, the divisional line between the

J1 7

two Republics, and much less can it serve as a basi sfor the preservation of the status quo . In view of thefact that Your Excellency has not yet been giventhe answer promised in this Department's note ofSeptember 25, 1877, touching upon the status quo o fthe pending questions relating to the boundariesbetween the two countries—a, status quo which hasnot been altered by the negotiations entered upon atdifferent times, and which the two governments are inaccord in not altering—I should say to Your Excel-lency that on that date the Government of Colombi adid not find it convenient to protest against tha tdemarcation of territory which Your Excellencyproposed in your above mentioned note, for thereason that it was not imagined that the governmen tof that republic, in fixing upon the boundaries men-tioned between the two nations, could have had i nmind anything more than the prompt formulationof its claims, with no thought, however, of attemptin gin any way to enforce them as it has succeeded indoing, in flagrant violation of the rights of this coun-try and without awaiting the reply of this govern-ment. By virtue of the uti possidetis of 1810, andfirmly based upon authentic and irrefutable docu-ments, the boundaries of Colombia extend on tha tside as far as Cape Gracias a Dios, embracing allof the Mosquito Coast on the Atlantic, and as far a sthe Golfito River on the Pacific ; but for the preserva-tion of the status quo, which both governments hav eagreed not to alter pending the arbitral decision, mygovernment maintains and insists that the boundaryline that should separate the two republics duringthe period in which the boundary questions remai npending is the following, on the Atlantic side : Themain course of the Culebras River as far up as itssources, following a line along the summits of th eLas Cruces range to the mouth of the Golfito Rive rin the Gulf of Dulce on the Pacific . This govern -ment looks upon any act of jurisdiction by Costa Ricaon the farther side of that boundary as an act ofusurpation."

118

Dr . Castro, Minister of Foreign Relations of Costa

Rica, answered the foregoing on June 10, 1 88o (Doc No .

358), as follows :

"If the question of ownership, reserved for thearbitration, were to be discussed now, it would beeasy for me, Mr . Minister, to produce in evidencethe invincible titles which support Costa Rica in th edispute ; but the proprietorship is not under discus-sion ; the question is simply one of possession, andas the possession is a fact, Your Excellency will permitmy expression of surprise that the status quo, havingbeen already accepted for more than a half century ,pending the obtaining of definitive dominion by a narbitral decision, Your Excellency now traces fancifuldemarcations, having no basis in history, nor in posses-sion, immemorial or even consented to * * * . "

He explained that, before the Royal order of 1803 ;there could have been no doubt concerning the limits of

both Spanish possessions ; that that Royal order was

transitory in character and without legal effect ; that the

independence of Costa Rica was recognized by Spain i n

the Treaty of 185o, with the limits she had when she wa s

a Spanish province, that is, from sea to sea ; and he added :

" The line which determines the status quo has beentraced, not only by Costa Rica, but also by Colombia ;for from the moment that the latter did not claim theimmediate and provisional possession of the territor y(to which this Royal order of 1803 referred) * * *it impliedly accepted as the status quo the regulationof the boundaries as they were prior to 1803, an dwhich we consider as the only one in existence befor eand after that date. And it did very well to acceptit, because it would have been excessive to claim thata territory which had never ceased to be an integra lportion of Central America, should be considered a shaving been in the possession of Colombia in 1825,

11 9

when both countries agreed to respect the state o fthings then existing . "

Dr . Castro then goes on to cite various cases to demon-strate that during the course of many years Costa Ric ahad performed numerous acts of possession against which,however, no protest had been made, and in closin gdeclared :

"* * * but it does not come within my purviewto give to these facts an importance and value equalto the weighty considerations to which I have re-ferred and which consecrate the possession of CostaRica, nor does it come within it to admit, for instance ,that the occupation of Bocas del Toro carried outby Colombia, and tolerated by Central America ,could change what in legal terms should be calle dthe state of things . Not by acts, but by reasons ofjustice that are invincible, my government maintainsand asserts that the line of the status quo is the onewhich, starting from Punta Burica, goes straight tothe Escudo de Veragua ; and that any act of jurisdic-tion exercised by Colombia on the side beyond thos elimits, must be considered as an act of usurpation . "

(3) CONCLUSIONS OF THE COLOMBIAN SENATE AND PROC -LAMATION BY PRESIDENT NÚÑEZ .

On July 13, 188o (Doc . No . 356), the Senate of Pleni-potentiaries of the United States of Colombia adopte dthe following conclusions :

" I . Colombia has, under titles emanating from th eSpanish Government and the uti possidetis of 181o ,a perfect right of dominion to, and is in possession of ,the territory which extends toward the north, betweenthe Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, to the following line :From the mouth of the River Culebras upon the Atlantic ,going upstream to its source ; thence a line along the

120

crest of the range of Las Cruces to the origin of th eRiver Golfito; thence the natural course of the latte rriver to its outlet into the Gulf of Dulce in the Pacific . "

The description of this frontier line was evidentl yinspired by the proposal that General Codazzi had madefor the frontier between Costa Rica and Colombia in hi snote written on the original of the map of the State o fPanama, which was prepared by that engineer in 185q, theonly variation being the suppression in the copy of themention made by Codazzi of the summit of the Andes ,which must of course, be crossed, since the range of LasCruces belongs on the Pacific watershed . In any event ,whether that omission be supplied or not, the line pro-ceeds from the headwaters of the Culebras River to thesources of the Golfito River by a straight course, therebeing no data given for connecting the two extremitiesby a curved line .

It is well to note that, according to the map ofCodazzi, the Culebras River, which has at least eigh ttributaries on its left bank, takes a south to north directionand flows directly away from the northern edge of theCordillera de las Cruces, which range being confused withthe Main Cordillera on that edge, runs from north to south,with an inclination to the west at the separation of th ewaters of the Golfito and Coto Rivers, which are affluents tothe Gulf of Dulce .

Turning again to the Conclusions adopted by th eColombian Senate :

" 2 . Colombia holds titles which accredit its right ,emanating from the King of Spain, to the ATLANTICLITTORAL embraced between the mouth of the Rive rCulebras and Cape Gracias a Dios."

121

This Conclusion was disregarded entirely by the Presi-dent of Colombia, Dr. Rafael Núñez, in his proclamation

(Doe. No. 361) to the nation, which will be spoken o f

later .

" 3. Colombia has been in the uninterrupted possessionof the territory embraced within the limits indicated i nConclusion I . "

This Third Conclusion indirectly but no less conclu-sive because indirect—establishes the exceedingly im-portant fact that the Culebras River, to which the First andSecond Conclusions above quoted refer, is not the Tarire o rSixaola River—at least not in its entirety, for this Thir dConclusion clearly states that Colombia had been in theuninterrupted possession of the territory extending from the

mouth of the Culebras River on the Atlantic, upstream, to it ssource. And since it is an incontestable fact (agains t

which Colombia never has raised the least question )

that Costa Rica has had full, peaceful and uninterrupte dpossession over the vast territory known under the name ofthe "Central Valley of Talamanca " , and its dependencies, thevalley of San José de Cabécar, the valley of the Upper Telire ,and others, situated on either bank of the Tarire—valley swhich have been scientifically explored by the commissionheaded by the learned William M . Gabb, provided withofficials acting in obedience to Costa Rica, and endowedwith parishes laid out by the Bishop of the diocese—valley sin which Costa Rica has often maintained a public militaryforce and a police force constantly, in which every attri-bute of national sovereignty has been drawn into servic eby documents published in the official journal of theRepublic and carried out in a most open manner and with -out objection by anyone—it is evident that such territor y

of the Central Valley of Talamanca and its dependencies,

122

as far as the Yorquín River, is not and cannot be the sameas that referred to in the Third Conclusion of the Congres sof Plenipotentiaries of Colombia as being in the unin-terrupted possession of that Republic and bounded by theCulebras River from its mouth to its sources .

The demonstration may be reduced to the followin gsyllogistic form : The territory bounded by the CulebrasRiver, from its sources to its outlet in the ocean, was heldwithout interruption by Colombia; it is also true that alongthe greater portion of the Tarire and SixaolaRivers the statethat unquestionably had possession of the territory bor-dering on that stream, on either of its banks, was CostRica ; therefore, the Culebras River is not and cannot bethe Tarire and Sixaola Rivers .

In other words, it is not desired to raise any question her econcerning Colombia's official assertion of her possession a tthat time to the Culebras ; nor is it possible to question th efact of the peaceful possession by Costa Rica of the grea

t valley of Talamanca . The only thing, therefore, that can rec-oncile this conflict is to differentiate between the Tarire (orSixaola) and the Culebras River ; and the differentiatio ngoes to the extent of admitting that the Tarire (or Sixaola) ,in part, or, rather, in its lower reaches, may be identifie dwith the Culebras (in the opinion of Colombian writers) ,and that the Yorquín River is the natural continuation ofthe said Culebras as far up as its source . Such a solutionwould accord with the Colombian claims to peaceful

possession or, more accurately speaking, unauthorize doccupation—of the lands bounded by the Culebras fromits outlet to its headwaters ; it would respect the veryevident and uncontradicted fact of the Costa Rica npossession of Talamanca ; it would harmonize with thecourse that the Colombian maps; without a single excep-

123

tion, give to the stream discussed, which stream flows fro nsouth to north, and with the nomenclature of some map sthat are not Colombian, such as that of Bovallius (MapXXXV) on which the Yorquín River is named Culebrasor Dorados .

When the engineers of the Panama Canal Company,headed by Monsieur Gaston Crozes, engaged in the surveyof the vacant lands granted by Colombia to that corpora-tion, after following the right bank of the Sixaola untilthey came to the junction of the Yorquín, they undert00 kto cross this latter stream in order to proceed with th esurvey up the stream Hof the Tarire ; but on being pre-vented by a Costan Rican military guard, the crossing ofthe Yorquín was abandoned and the survey was continue dalong the right bank of this last named river as far as i twas navigable. From that point they ran a straight lin etoward the peak of Rôvalo . Costa Rica's indisputablepossession in Talamanca was thus respected up streamalong the Yorquín ; and in the correspondence exchange dbetween the two governments growing out of these event sit was expressly stated that the land survey did not entai lany recognition of sovereignty in favor of Colombia, sinc ethe character of the lands in dispute was preserved . It isworth noting that in their correspondence Colombia di dnot make any protest against Costa Rica for having, b ymeans of a military force, prevented the invasion of th eterritory of Talamanca, by way of the Yorquín River t othe west .

It appears by the correspondence of the Minister ofCosta Rica at Paris, addressed on October 5, 1888 (Doc .No . 375) ; to the Minister of Foreign Relations of CostaRica, that the Minister of Colombia in that capital ,General Posada, advised of the foregoing, had stated o nseveral occasions to the Minister of Costa Rica that his

124

government respected the status quo, and that, conse-quently, the Colombian engineers, Arango and Bravo(who were the ones that made the said survey), as soon a sthey were notified by a Costa Rican officer that that place(the mouth of the Yorquín) was the territory of Cost aRica, yielded and did not go forward . The factshould be recalled that Monsieur Crozes called o n SeñorAycardi, Governor of Panama, and gave him an accountof the encounter he had had with the Costa Rican guar dat the junction of the Yorquín and the Sixaola . At firstthe governor paid no attention to the matter, but after -wards he sent a messenger on board of the French steamerin which Monsieur Crozes was sailing for Europe an d askedhim to delay his voyage; as he wanted to secure informa-tion in regard to this encounter . Monsieur Crozes, however ,could not wait ; but from La Guaira, in Venezuela, he wrot eat length to the governor in regard to the occurrence .Moreover, both Arango and Bravo were able to furnis hhim with the most minute details and doubtless this wasdone by them, so that the Colombian authorities musthave been well informed about the affair .

The Fourth and Fifth Conclusions read :

" 4 . In 1874 the Prefect of Dulce Gulf claimed tha tthe cocoanut groves of Burica belonged to Costa Rica.* * * Such a pretension was rejected in an officia lmanner by the Prefect of Chiriqui * * * "

"g . With the previous approval of the Senate ofPlenipotentiaries, the Government of Colombia ha srequired of that of Costa Rica that the jurisdictionalstatus quo to which reference is made in Conclusion zbe respected until the boundary question is decided b yarbitration or in some other friendly method, and statedthat it would consider any administrative act, beyondthat demarcation, as a violation of its rights, or in othe rwords as a usurpation ."

125

This Fifth Conclusion comes as a corroboration of th eobservations made in considering the Third Conclusion.From the minutes of the conferences preliminary to th eArbitration Treaty of í88o, it will be seen that the personcharged by the Colombian Government with the settle-ment of the differences between it and the Govern-ment of Costa Rica, did not utter a single word thatcould be interpreted to mean that the Colombian Gov-ernment had any reason for complaint against that ofCosta Rica for the effective and active occupation, mani -fest and solemnly maintained—of the territory o

f Talamanca. Doctor Holguin suggested to the Minister o fForeign Relations of Costa Rica, Doctor Castro, a formulafor an arrangement, the important portion of which i scontained in the following terms :

"The Government of San José to notify officiallythe political superior official of Dulce Gulf, in a notewhich shall be published in the Gaceta (the officialjournal) that the said government, being about t oenter into a definitive arrangement with the Govern-ment of Colombia concerning boundaries, the twocountries, in the meantime and until such time as th edesired conclusion might be reached, had agreed topreserve the jurisdictional status quo in the regionsas to which there should be any controversy. Thatin virtue thereof the said government notifies hi mthat he is to restore things in the territory of PuntaBurica to the condition in which they were beforeJuly, 1879, withdrawing to Isola' any public officialor public functionary who may have been establishe dduring the past year beyond that settlement andplacing no obstruction in the way of the execution o fthe public sale of the right to take cocoanuts from

'The point known as Isola is situated at a considerable dis-tance to the east of the Golfito River .

126

the cocoanut groves of Punta Burica, undertaken b ythe municipal corporation of the district of Alanje ,belonging to the State of Panama . "

NOT ONE WORD APPEARS IN THAT FORMUL AWITH REFERENCE TO TALAMANCA. The in-structions given to Dr. Holguin by the Secretary o fForeign Relations of Colombia on July 1 6, 188o (Doc .No . 36o), were published ; but therein also, NOT A

SINGLE WORD IS TO BE FOUND WHICH SIGNI-FIES A COMPLAINT OR DEMAND BY COLOMBI AAGAINST THE POSSESSION BY COSTA RICA OFTALAMANCA. Looking, for instance, at the summar yor ending of those instructions, there is found the state-ment that

"The Government of Colombia being desirous o fgiving to the matter such a shape that it may leadto a fraternal solution, has determined that you ,instead of going directly to England, will first go t oSan José de Costa Rica, and, after first making th eexplanations which give rise to this statement, willshow to the government of that country that, as amatter antecedent to any discussion and any actio nthat can bring this disagreeable question to a friendlytermination, the Government of Colombia proposesthat both countries respect the jurisdictional statusquo, and that in consequence the Costa Rican authori -ties placed iii the cocoanut groves of Burica must beimmediately withdrawn and the exploitation of th eplantations in that region restored to the individualto whom they belong in virtue of the public sale mad eby Colombia officials in the district of Alanje .

` Respecting the settlement of Isola, you will no tmake such a requirement, because there was no pro -test made at the time against the establishment ofCosta Rican authorities in that place ; and although

127

this government does not accept the territorial modi-fication which that act implies, it leaves its arrange-ment for a definitive agreement, since it considers thatthis tolerated occupation would not now be voluntarilychanged by Costa Rica, except by virtue of agreementswhich shall end the discussion in all its parts ; and abreak over an act consented to for six years would notbe very well justified . "

NEITHER WILL ANYTHING WHATSOEVER B EFOUND in the warlike manifesto of President Nunez ,dated the 6th of September in the year cited, FRO M

WHICH ANY OBJECTION MAY BE INFERRE D

BY THE COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT AGAINS T

THE AFORESAID POSSESSION OF TALAMANCA

BY COSTA RICA. It is stated very clearly in the follow-

ing paragraphs of that proclamation (Doc . No.361) that

"The Nation is advised that at the session of July

13 last, on account of the occupation having cometo its knowledge by Costa Rican authorities of aportion of the Colombian border territory calle dPunta de Burica, the Senate of Plenipotentiaries, aftermature examination, approved, among other things ,the following five conclusions :

"Almost immediately afterwards, and with thislast conclusion in view [Conclusion 8], my govern-ment sent its distinguished representative to CostaRica, charged with the request to the Governmen tof that Republic that the jurisdictional status quo berespected and consequently the withdrawal of theCosta Rican officials actually located at Punta deBurica at the close of the year previous ."

Finally, by the order of September ro, 1880 (Doc. No .362), communicated by the Minister of Foreign Relation sof Costa Rica to the Colombian foreign office in a note of

128

the same date, it was sought exclusively to provide tha tthe jurisdictional status quo be preserved in the regionswhere differences might arise IN THE TERRITORY O FPUNTA BURICA, in the same state as before July, 1879 ,AND NOT EVEN THE MOST REMOTE ALLUSIO NWAS MADE TO TERRITORIES SITUATED ON THEATLANTIC SLOPE. This was not due to inadvertence ;it was the result of reflection, for, as has been seen, if theColombian Government instructed its Minister not torequire from the Costa Rica Government the withdrawalof the official it had stationed in the little hamlet of Isol alying to the east of the Golfito River—because of the fac tthat having been there six years Costa Rica would no tconsent to his being sent away, and that a break wouldnot be justified on the part of Colombia, it is clear thatin discussing the possession of Talamanca, which was nota matter of recent date, but a right sustained by histor yfrom the time of the conquest, this could hardly be asubject for demands on the part of Colombia, who had a tall times respected that possession .

The final Conclusion of the Colombian Senate was :

"8 . Any further step to put an end to the controversyas to boundaries with Costa Rica must be preceded by theevacuation of any portion of, territory in which tha tnation may have established its authorities beyond th elimits marked out in Conclusion z . "

In harmony with what was said in discussing the FifthConclusion, the Colombian Government did not demand ,nor could it demand, Costa Rica's abandonment of theterritory of Talamanca, and therefore the Tarire River,which crosses that territory, is not the Culebras, which ,according to the First Conclusion, bounds the territory ove rwhich Colombia claims to have a perfect right of possessionand ownership .

129

(¢) THE CASTRO -HOLGUÍN CONFERENCES AND NOTE OFDOCTOR CASTRO, MINISTER OF FOREIGN RELA-TIONS OF COSTA RICA .

The Conclusions of the Senate having been communi-cated to the Secretary of Foreign Relations of Colombia,,

the latter confided to Don Carlos Holguin the confidentialmission of seeking to reach an understanding with th eGovernment of Costa Rica, under the instructionssigned on July 16, 1880 . In these instructions he wascharged to demand, as a condition precedent to anyfriendly arrangement, the immediate withdrawal of th eCosta Rican official stationed at the cocoanut groves ofBurica, and the restoration of the use of those plantationsto the District of Alanje ; and he was further charged tha tif this was secured, he should promise to at once take upthe definitive settlement of the boundary question, eitherdirectly or by arbitration .

It would be absurd and impossible to explain why th ePresident of Colombia should have appealed to the natio nand hastened with his Ministers of War and Foreign Rela-tions to the neighborhood of the frontier so as to betterattend to the defense of the national territory, and con -tented himself with securing the withdrawal of the Cost aRican authority then recently stationed at Burica, andleaving in their places the established authorities in Tala -manca, if this latter region could have been understood a sincluded in what was possessed by Colombia "from themouth of the River Culebras upon the Atlantic, goin g

upstream to its sources . "Señor Holguin and Dr . Castro, the Minister of ForeignRelations of Costa Rica, held a conference in San José, onAugust 23, í88o, at which (as appears from the protocolof that conference), after the former had set forth the clai m

1548-9

lao

of Colombia, the latter defended the Costa Rican juris-diction as far as Punta Burica, relying upon the status quoestablished by the Treaty of 1 825 ; nevertheless he statedhis desire to avoid any cause for misunderstanding thatmight delay arbitration. This response was forwarded

by Señor Holguin to his Government, and, although it was .animated by a conciliatory spirit it did not seem to b e

very satisfactory to the latter .

However, after the publication of the warlike mani-festo by the President of Colombia, on September 6, 1 88o ,Doctor Castro, on the 10th of the same month, 'addresseda note to the Minister of Foreign Relations of that Repub-lic (Doc. No. 362), in which he said :

"In accordance with the understanding betweenthe Government of this Republic and the ConfidentialAgent of your Government, Doctor Don Carlos Hol-guin, I have addressed to the Political Chief (JefePolitico) of the Gulf of Dulce, under date of yesterday,the order of which the text is as follows :

"` The Government of this Republic, being abou tto enter into a definitive settlement concerningboundaries with that of Colombia, and both havingagreed until the desired conclusion is reached tha tthe jurisdictional status quo shall be preserved in theregions where differences may arise, I provide tha tyou may restore things in the territory of Punta Buricato the state they were before July z879, . without itsimplying, however, any recognition of rights upon thepart of either of the two nations . " '

As will be 1ioted, this direction by Dr . Castro wa saddressed solely to the Political Chief of the Gulf of Dulce ,

and not in any way to the corresponding officer in Tala -

manca, or to any other Costa Rican official ; for it was onlyin the region of Burica, on the Pacific, that any jurisdic-

13 1

tional differences had arisen . On the other hand, thestatus of things directed to be re-established on Dulce Gulfwas that corresponding to the period prior to 1879 .Inthat crisis Costa Rica's possession in Talamanca was respecte dby Colombia, as it had been before and as it continued to beafter that time . It is evident, therefore, that the saidterritory of Talamanca formed no part of the territory t owhich the First, Third and Fifth Conclusions of the Colom-bian Senate referred with so much emphasis .

In corroboration of this reference is made to anotherproclamation addressed to the nation by President Núñez ,dated December 10, 188o, in which the following viewswere expressed : '

"The Government of Costa Rica, in a spirit offraternity and justice, certainly very worthy of prais eand even of gratitude on our part, hastened to makeamends for the momentary offense, as soon as it coul dbe convinced that the indiscreet action of its sub-ordinate agents was so considered .

"The temporal and confidential mission, so skil-fully carried out, with which he [Dr . Holguin] wascharged, that of asking for the evacuation of our terri-tory, has been superseded by another which must b eundertaken by diplomatic discussion, that of the fina lsettlement of the general question of boundaries ,which will eventually be submitted to arbitration, i naccord with the resolution of the Senate of Colombiaat its last session . * * * The warlike prepara-tions demanded of us by that care for exterior securityof the Republic which could not be disregarded ,having now no object, it has been ordered, in conse-quence, that the army be reduced within a limit tha tseems for the present indispensable for the strictmaintenance of domestic peace, without which al lconstitutional liberties are endangered and no devel-opment is possible however modest it may be . "

'Foreign Relations of the United States, 1881, pp . 343, 344-

132

The views above expressed are absolutely irreconcil -able with an improper possession in Talamanca by CostaRica, for that nation was in the actual exercise of ,suc hpossession, as is shown by many documents which arereviewed herein elsewhere ; and such possession, perfectlywell known by Colombia, was scrupulously respected .

A most eloquent demonstration of this fact is the singu -lar manifestation of cordiality and g00d understandin gbetween Costa Rica and Colombia, and their respectivegovernments, which appears in the protocol of the confer-ences held for the conclusion of the Treaty of Decembe r25, 1880. In this connection the protocol states :

"The Minister of Colombia said that before begin-ning the conferences and in view of the events that ledup to them he desired to state to the Government o fCosta Rica, so worthily represented in the person ofits honorable plenipotentiary, how much Colombiahad appreciated, as a token of friendship and goodwill, the order issued on September 9, as a result ofwhat occurred IN THE TERRITORY OF THEPUNTA DE BURICA, which had inspired a fearthat the fraternal relations were interrupted tha tought to subsist between the two peoples . He addedthat his Government, desirous of giving a proof of th esame good will, which it deeply felt, had not hesitate dto send a Legation, with a view to bringing the contestto an end, AVOIDING IN THE FUTURE ANYREASON WHATEVER FOR DISAGREEMENT .

The Minister of Costa Rica said :

" My government has appreciated the sending o fYour Excellency as a proof of the cordial friendshi pthat unites the two nations ; and in what they bothmay do, in order to come to an understanding for thepurpose of putting an end to troublesome questions ,as an example worthy of imitation ; since in the

133

contest, if such a peaceable and rational discussio nmay be so called, there is no room for any otherweapons than those of right and justice .

"The Minister of Colombia desired to note tha tsuch weapons were the only ones that his govern-ment wished to employ in the debate, while even it sstrict right might be modified, as regards territory ,by sentiments of fraternal g00d feeling . "

Between the two countries and their respective govern-ments, therefore, there existed the most friendly relationsat the time the arbitration treaty was signed—a situationquite incompatible with an unauthorized occupation byCosta Rica of such an extensive and valuable territoryas that of the Canton of Talamanca . Costa Rica wasthen and for many years had been in possession ; and thatpossession she has continued to enjoy down to this veryday, with Colombia's full knowledge and tacit sanction ,and the latter has never made the slightest manifestationto the contrary .

(j) CELEBRATION OF THE AGREEMENT OF 1880 : ONLY

ONE QUESTION AT ISSUE-THAT RELATING T OBOUNDARIES .

With such antecedents no difficulty was experienced i nconcluding an arbitration treaty looking to a final settle-ment of the boundary question : the treaty was signed a tSan Jose on December 25, 188o (Doc . No. 364), by DonJosé Maria Castro, Secretary of Foreign Relations o fCosta Rica and Don José Maria Quijano Otero, Chargéd'Affaires of Colombia, who were thereunto duty authorized .

In the preamble to that treaty the statement is mad ethat the contracting republics being--

"' * * equally inspired by the sincere desire t omaintain and consolidate their friendly relations, and

134

believing that in order to obtain this benefit, soimportant for their prosperity and good name, it i snecessary to close up the only source of the differenceswhich arise between them, WHICH IS NONEOTHER THAN THE QUESTION OF BOUND -ARIES, foreseen in Articles 7 and 8 of the Conven-tion of March 15, f825, between Central Americaand Colombia, which has recently been the subject ofvarious treaties between Costa Rica and Colombia, noneof which were ratified ; and both nations understand-ing that this antecedent fact shows the need for th eadoption at once of some more expeditious means forthe designation in perpetuity of a division line, clearand incontrovertible, for the whole extent along whichtheir respective territories are contiguous ; therefore* * * have agreed, etc . "

The question which was the subject of the Treaty o f1880 has been very concisely presented ; this was noneother than the boundary question foreseen in Articles 7 and 8of the Convention of 1825, and the same that was subse-quently the object of various treaties, none of which ,

however, were ever ratified ; so that by referring to the

texts of the Convention of 1825 and the treaties concluded

later, but not ratified between Costa Rica and Colombia ,

this question—the only one involved in the Conventionof 1880—will be understood in all its details .

As to the Treaty of 1825 (Doc . No. 257), there is noneed of consulting any but the two articles specificall ycited in the 188o Treaty .

Article 7 provides in substance that both nations obli -

gate themselves formally to respect the limits of each other

as they now exist, and reserve to themselves the amicabledemarcation by special convention of a divisional lin ebetween the two states, at such time as is indicated in thetext. Two things are embraced in this stipulation of

13 5

Article q ; one, something actual and present and designedto take immediate effect, to wit, mutual respect for th eexisting limits, as they were found to be at the moment whenthe treaty was signed; the other, something in the futureand to a certain extent contingent, to take effect as circum-stances might permit or when the parties, at the instanc eof either, should take up the negotiation therefor . The

two, while closely connected, are still independent a sbetween themselves, since the obligation imposed by the

first, and which begins to take effect as soon as the treatygoes into force—that of respect for the existing limits ,"as they now exist"—cannot be subordinated to the factas to whether or not the special convention for the demar-

cation of the divisional line between the two states ma ybe undertaken or carried out at some time in the more orless remote future . There might be a delay of a centuryin securing a special boundary convention ; but in themeantime, and during that interval, there was a full an deffective guaranty of respect for and the subsistence of thelimits of the two republics, AS THEY EXISTED ONTHE 15TH OF MARCH,. 1825 .

Therefore, in 188o, when it was impossible for th eparties to get together in a special convention such a swas contemplated, they agreed to settle the questio nby means differing from those agreed upon in 2825 ; andthey took good care to state, in clear, positive and eve nemphatic language, that the only source of the difference sthat arose between them, and which they desired to close up ,was none other than the question of boundaries, which, fore -seen in the articles contained in the Convention of 1825, hadbeen made subsequently the subject of various treaties tha t

Jailed of ratification . Both nations, having been persuadedby these antecedents that some other more expeditious

las

means were needed, whereby the controversy might bepromptly and surely settled, they submitted this questionto arbitration ; that is to say, instead of trying to concludethe "special convention" for fixing the divisional linebetween the two States provided for by Article 7, theyundertook by means of arbitration to secure that result ,which was none other than THE DEMARCATION O FTHE DIVISIONAL LINE INDICATED . But thisagreement, undertaken for the specific purpose mentioned ,in no way destroyed the fundamental basis which, as has ,been said, was established in that Article q, independentl yof the stipulation concerning the laying out of the frontier .That basis consisted of the formal and solemn obligation,contracted by the parties TO RESPECT THE LIMIT SAS THEY EXISTED IN 1825, with the reservation con-cerning their alteration by mutual agreement .

Article 8 authorized the contracting parties to appointcommissioners to go over the points and places along th efrontiers and prepare such charts thereof as they might .deem convenient and necessary IN ORDER TO ESTAB-LISH THE DIVISIONAL LINE, and this without moles-tation by the local authorities ; indeed these authorities .were to afford them every protection and assistance fo rthe execution of their duty . This article confirmed veryexplicitly the compact for the respect to be accorded th elimits then existing between the two states, since th esurvey and drawing of maps must take place on the frontierswith the protection and assistance of the local authoritiesestablished along them, who were directed not to molest thecommissioners in any way.' The existence, then, offrontiers and of authorities along those frontiers, was atthat time a real fact, acknowledged and sanctioned by th eConvention of 1825 ; whereas the survey and the drawing

137

of maps was a future and contingent act for which dueprovision was made .

From the foregoing it appears that the question pro-vided and arranged for by Articles 7 and 8 of the Conven-tion of 1825 was properly and correctly a question ofboundaries contemplating the location of a divisional lin ebetween the territories of the contracting states, and nothin gmore . Each of them was in the possession of its respectiv eterritory as a whole and as heirs of the sovereignty ofSpain ; and the corresponding authorities were exercisin gtheir jurisdiction . Those territories were mutually recog-nized as the property of the respective contracting parties ;they had stipulated for the reciprocal respect of thei rcorresponding boundaries ; and they undertook only to runthe definitive line of demarcation on the ground. It isevident, therefore, that any territorial question that di dnot consist merely in the marking out of the recognized andcontiguous territories of the contracting parties WAS NOTAN OBJECT OF THE CONVENTION OF 1825 ; andthis because such question had been either definitivel ywithdrawn from the discussion, or left to be treate dseparately . The Treaty of 1825 embraced only a boundaryquestion, that is, a question of marking out lines an derecting monuments ; it was in no way a question of sover-eignty or one of territorial recovery put forward by a partywho, under a claim of title to possess and enjoy, sought todeprive another of his possession and enjoyment . Actualpossession and not a claim of title to territory in thepossession of the other government was the test adopte dby that treaty for determining the location of the boundary.

Inasmuch as by the Convention of 188o a perfectequation was established between the question foreseenin Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention of 1825 and the

lab

question that the Convention of 1880 submitted to arbi-tration, it follows that the latter is a single question, nota complex one ; and that single question is reduced to thesettlement by arbitration of the controversy which, b y

means of a special convention, was to trace the divisionalline of the territories of the two contracting parties on thefirm and immovable basis of mutual respect for the limitsexisting in 1825, except as changed by mutual agreement .

A convincing proof that the question submitted to arbi-tration by the Convention of 188o was, as has been stated ,

a single and simple act involving solely the delimitation ormarking out of the boundaries of the adjoining territories inthe possession of the two states, is to be found in that Con-vention of 188o itself . According to it there is a clear andperfect identity--a mathematic equation—between thequestion at issue between them and the controversy solve dby the treaties the contracting parties had concluded subse-quently to 1825, although those treaties did not reach th estage of ratification. These were three in number : theCalvo-Herrán Treaty of 1856 (Doc No . 307), the Castro -Valenzuela Treaty of 1865 (Doc . No. 323), and the

Montúfar-Correoso Treaty of 1873 (Doc No . 334) . Whatwas the thing agreed to in all of those compacts? The

agreement was to trace the divisional line between the terri-tories of Costa Rica and Colombia, starting from a givenpoint on one of the oceans, crossing over the Main Cor-dillera and ending at another given point on the othe r

ocean .In the first of those agreements, the frontier began at

the mouth of the Doraces (Changuinola) River ; it 'thenfollowed the course of this river upward to its source ;thence it proceeded to the Main Cordillera and afterintersecting, but not following it, sought out the Cordillera

139

of Las Cruces, along which range it descended to Puntade Burica .

In the second agreement the frontier started from Puntade Burica, reached the Main Cordillera and ran along thatrange until the source of the Cañaveral River was reached ;it then followed the course of that river to its mouth, whic hlay to the east of the Chiriqui .Lagoon .

By the third agreement a start was also made at Puntade Burica, the Main Cordillera was crossed and a descen tmade to the Bay of Almirante along the Bananos River .

None of these treaties did more than to mark out the terri-

tories in possession of the two contracting republics from sea to

sea, crossing the Cordillera that separate the waters of the

two oceans. Therefore, the question at tissue was none

other than the laying out the boundary and setting land -

marks, which the three Conventions of 1 856, 1 865 and

x873 did not succeed in settling . If any territorial

question of a different nature did exist in 1880, such

question remained latent, or its presentation and consid-eration was deferred to a later period ; and in support o f

this view, the fact is well worth noting that in the procla-mation of Dr . Núñez, the President of Colombia (Doc .

No . 361), which was one of the causes leading up t o

the Treaty of 1880, he omitted, as already stated,

to publish the Second Conclusion of the Senate ofColombia, relating to the Mosquito Coast . That Con-clusion had special reference to such other questions ,extraneous to that of boundaries properly speaking, which

latter was the only one submitted to arbitral decision .That Conclusion, separate and distinct from the boundar ycontroversy„ not only was directed against Costa Rica, bu tagainst two other Central American states—Nicaragu a

and Honduras ; and as President Núñez had taken a standthat might at any moment be converted into one of actual

140

warfare, it is to be presumed he thought it more pruden tand discreet to confine his action and his demands to th emain question pending between Costa Rica and Colombiaalone, leaving any others for a more opportune moment ,for in this way Costa Rica would be isolated ; whereas theagitation of the other questions would lead to the unio nof the three republics and perhaps bring in two more of theneighboring states through sympathy and for commondefence .

In corroboration of the view that the only questionplaced in issue by the Treaty of í88o was that of thedemarcation of the frontier between the contiguous terri-tories of the two republics, it may be said that whenSeñor Peralta, Minister of Costa Rica, requested thePresident of France to serve as Arbitrator, he trace dbetween the two states the divisional line which corre-sponded to Costa Rica's understanding of what that lineshould be, in view of the titles invoked in her behalf ; healso traced another divisional line to represent the onewhich, according to Colombia's allegations, that govern-ment had maintained during the controversy . Both ofthese lines were marked out on the map which SeñorPeralta submitted with the note he addressed on June 9 ,1897 (Doc . No. 404), to the Minister of Foreign Affair sof the French Government (Map A) . These linesstarted on the Pacific Ocean that of Costa Rica from th emouth of the Chiriqui Viejo River, and that of Colombi afrom the mouth of the Golfito River, and they both endedupon the Atlantic Ocean—that of Costa Rica at the mouth o fthe Chiriqui or Calobébora River and the Escudo d eVeragua, and that of Colombia at the mouth of the Sixaola .

It will thus be seen that the question narrowed itself dow nexclusively to the marking out of the contiguous territoryof the two adjoining republics .

14 1

The territory contested was embraced within a peri-meter, the extreme points of which were indicated oneither ocean ; and in the frontier demarcations indicate dby Señor Peralta all territory was excluded which waslocated to the north of the Sixaola and to the west of theYorquín River .

Other articles of the Treaty of 1825 may have referre dto territorial questions other than the special question o fboundaries set out in Articles 7 and 8, or they may havecontained the germ of such questions, but, inasmuch a sthe Treaty of 188o limited its reference and confined itsel fto the single question mentioned in those Articles 7 and 8 ,and entirely omitted all the other provisions of the Treatyof 1825, it is quite useless, for the purpose of fixing th equestion at issue, to consider anything that is not specif-ically provided for in the only two articles of this Treatythat are cited in the Arbitration Convention of i 880 .

In conformity with the basis stated, the Treaty of 188o ,in Article 1 thereof, stipulates :

"The Republic of Costa Rica and the Unite dStates of Colombia agree upon the arbitration of th equestion of boundaries existing between them, an dthe designation of a line which shall divide for al ltime and with entire dearness the territory of th eformer from the territory of the latter, each oneremaining in the full, quiet and peaceful dominion ,so far as respects the same between themselves, of al lthe land which is left on its side of the aforesaid line ,upon which there is not to remain any charge orspecial servitude in favor of the other . "

In Article 5 the parties indicated as their choice fo rArbitrator either the King of the Belgians, the King ofSpain or the President of the Argentine Republic, in theorder given, in all of whom they had, without any dis-tinction whatever, the most unlimited confidence .

142

Under that agreement the arbitration was confided to ,H. M ., the King of Spain, at that time Don Alfonso XII .

If . ADDITIONAL CONVENTION OF 1886 .

(1) CONFIRMATION OF THE SPANISH ARBITRATION .

Don Alfonso XII having died, the Ministers Plenipo-tentiary of Costa Rica and Colombia, Don Leon Fernándezand Don Carlos Holguin, made a second agreement, whic hthey signed in Paris on January 20, 1886 (Doc . No . 369) ,under the designation of an "Additional Convention" t othe one subscribed in 188o, for the settlement of theboundary question . Article I of that convention stipulated :

"The Republic of Costa Rica and the Unite dStates of Colombia recognize and declare that, not-withstanding the death of His Majesty, Don Alfons oXII, the Government of Spain is competent to con-tinue acting in the arbitration proposed by the tworepublics, and to deliver a definitive award, of a nirrevocable and in appealable character, in the pendinglitigation concerning territorial boundaries between thetwo high contracting parties . "

(2) OPPOSING CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES .

That additional convention contained four other articlesof which the 2nd and 3rd, setting forth the opposing claim sof the parties, require consideration and are as follows :

"ART . 2. The territorial boundary which the Re-public of Costa Rica claims, on the Atlantic side ,reaches as far as the Island of the Escudo de Veragu aand River Chiriqui (Calobébora), inclusive ; and onthe Pacific side as far as the River Chiriqui Viejo ,inclusive, to the east of Punta Burica . The terri-torial boundary which the United States of Colombi aclaims, reaches, on the Atlantic side, as far as the

143

Cape Gracias a Dios, inclusive, and on the Pacific side ,as far as the mouth of the River Golfito, in the Gulfof Dulce .

"ART . 3 . The arbitral award must be confined t othe territory disputed which lies within the extremeboundaries already stated, and it cannot in any wayaffect the rights which a third party, who has notintervened in the arbitration, may allege to the owner-ship of the territory included within the boundariesindicated . "

The best exposition that could be given here of thereasons for the Convention of 1886, may be found in th eReport of the Department of Foreign Relations of Colom-bia, for the year 1888 (Doc . No . 399), from which the follow -ing extracts are copied, pages 2 8–30 :

"The deplorable death of H . M ., Don Alfonso XII,King of Spain, the Arbitrator designated by Colombi aand Costa Rica to fix the divisional boundary betwee nthe two republics, was the occasion for raising doubt sas to the extent of the jurisdiction conferred upon th eArbitrator by the Convention signed in San Josh o nDecember 25, 1880. Although from this compact,considered in conformity with the interpretation oftreaties, it may be inferred without violence that th edelegation was not personal to Don Alfonso XII, butto whomsoever might be exercising the Governmentof Spain, nevertheless, in order to assure the validit yof the decision and remove every reason for litigatio nin the future, the interested parties were persuadedof the necessity for an explanation of the origina lConvention, adding thereto a new one, which wa ssigned in Paris on January 20, 1886, by the plenipo-tentiaries of Colombia and Costa Rica in Spain .

Such was the reason for the Convention approvedby Law 9 of the same year, and formulated in theterms following :

144

(Here follows the text of the convention . )

"You know, Honorable Senators and Representa-tives, that upon the occasion of the Agreement for anarbitration juris, to which I have just referred, bywhich Colombia and Costa Rica entered into a com-pact for the delimitation of their frontiers, the Gov-ernment of the United States raised objections tothe acceptance of the arbitration by the Governmen tthat was to deliver the Award . The objections ofthe United States did not arise from any idea oppose dto the sovereignty of the contracting republics, no rdid they argue any pretension of a protectorate exer-cised by that nation over Colombia or Costa Rica .They were intended purely and simply to preven tthe decision, whatever might be its terms, in changingthe ownership of any portion of the disputed territory ,from being understood as annulling the prior right swhich a third party could show over such territoryor over any portion of it. As the Treaty of 1846,between New Granada and the United States [Doc .No . 281] conceded to this latter nation certain rightsand prerogatives in relation to transit across theIsthmus of Panama, the Government at Washingtonsought to make them secure by requiring that Colom -bia, as well as Costa Rica, should declare that suchrights would remain intact notwithstanding the de-cision, which could hardly be more than to change th eownership as regards the contracting parties, but tha tthe territory which might be transferred by the mshould remain affected by the rights which the Unite dStates might have in it .

"Without prejudicing the right alleged by theGovernment of the American Union, and considerin gthe case merely as an abstract one, it is obvious tha tthe arbitration, under the circumstances which le dup to it, could have no other purpose than that ofvarying the dominion, possession and property rightof the territory as regards Colombia and Costa Rica ;

145

but that it could not in any way affect third parties ,who were not represented in the suit and who bad notdelegated any jurisdiction to decide as to their rights .

"It would, therefore, seem to be unnecessary an dsuperfluous to make any declaration in such a case .Nevertheless, as a token of good-will and courtesytoward the Government and the people of the Unite dStates, the Governments of Colombia and Costa Ricaagreed in formally declaring, through their representa-tives in Washington, that the arbitration could no thave any affect over any rights which the Unite dStates might have, by virtue of prior titles, in anyportion of the territory, the dominion or ownershi pof which might be changed by the arbitration . Thedeclaration in this form did not recognize the existenc eof such rights, but merely excepted them in case theywere proved to exist . "

As may be seen from this statement made to the Con-gress of Colombia in 1888 ; by the Minister of ForeignRelations, Don Vicente Restrepo, it was not the purposeof that Convention of 1886 to enlarge, or to restrict, th echaracter of the question at issue in the year 188o, or t ochange it in the slightest degree, but simply to smooth th eway for arbitration by removing the difficulty that ha darisen with regard to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator an dthe objection that had been offered by the Government ofthe United States .

The Spanish Government accepted the arbitration con-ditionally ; that is to say, it declared that its work coul dnot be begun until after the termination of the arbitratio nthat was pending between Colombia and Venezuela, a sappears by the notes written by the Ministers of State ,Don Segismundo Moret and the Marquis de la Vega d eArmijo, in 1887 and 1888, respectively (Does . Nos . 373, 377)

1548—10

CHAPTER VII .

AGREEMENT FOR INTERNATIONALARBITRATION .

CONVENTION OF 1896.

(I) ARBITRAL CONVENTION OF 1896, IN PART REVALI-

DATING AND MODIFYING THOSE ON 1880 AND 1886 .

(2) ARBITRATION BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF TH E

FRENCH REPUBLIC . ALLEGATIONS OF COST A

RICA ; GEOGRAPHICAL MAP OF THE DISPUTED

TERRITORY PRESENTED BY SEÑOR PERALTA .

(3) EXAMINING COMMISSION PRESIDED OVER BY AMBAS-

SADOR ROUSTAN .

(4) DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY COSTA RICA .

(5) DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY COLOMBIA .

(6) FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE TO COSTA RICA MANY

DOCUMENTS OF THE ADVERSE PARTY . COMPLAINTS

BY SEÑOR PERALTA REGARDING THIS OMISSION .

(7) FRONTIER ASKED FOR BY COSTA RICA .

(8) FRONTIER ASKED FOR BY COLOMBIA . THE SILVEL A

DINE .

(9) AWARD RENDERED BY PRESIDENT LOUBET .

(I0) GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LOUBET AWARD .

(11) NOTES BY SEÑOR PERALTA .

(I2) RESPONSE GIVEN BY THE MINISTER OF FOREIG N

AFFAIRS, M. DELCASSÉ, AND AN ANALYSIS THEREOF .(146)

147

(I) ARBITRAL CONVENTION OF 1896, IN PART REVALIDAT-

ING AND MODIFYING THOSE OF 1880 AND 1886 .

The Republics of Colombia and Costa Rica entered int o

a third arbitral convention, signed at Bogotá on the 4th

of November, 1896 (Doc . No. 403), Article 1 of whichconfirms the two preceding conventions, with, however ,the modifications specified below .

In Article 2 the high contracting parties name thePresident of the French Republic as Arbitrator, makin gthe explanation that the Government of Spain, whichhad previously accepted the charge, has not been desig-nated, because of Colombia's disinclination to exact fromthat government such continued sacrifices, for, only ashort time before it had subscribed with Ecuador an dPeru to a boundary treaty in which His CatholicMajesty was named as Arbitrator, which followed closeupon the laborious Colombia-Venezuelan boundary ar-

bitration .Articles 3 and 4 contain rules of procedure, and Articl e

5 annuls Articles 2 to 6, inclusive, of the Convention of188o and the first and fourth of that of 1886 . It follows,

therefore, that the first Article of the first-mentione dconvention and the second and third Articles of theadditional convention, which were quoted in speaking o f

those conventions, remain in force .

(2) ARBITRATION BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH

REPUBLIC . ALLEGATIONS OF COSTA RICA ; GEO -

GRAPHICAL MAP OF THE DISPUTED TERRITORY PRE-SENTED BY SEÑOR PERALTA.

On the 9th of June, 1897 (Doc . No. 404), the CostaRican Minister at Paris addressed to the French Ministe rof Foreign Affairs a communication in which he brought

149

to the latter 's attention the treaty signed at Bogotá on the4th of November, 1896, and besought His Excellency th ePresident of the French Republic, to accept the offic eof Arbitrator of the question of boundaries between Cost a

Rica and Colombia, to which office he was called in tha ttreaty. This was accompanied by a copy of the treaty ,in Spanish, with a translation thereof into French ; als oan extract of all the articles then in force of the variousarbitral conventions concluded by the two republics .The Minister of Costa Rica likewise transmitted with th ecommunication mentioned a geographical chart of th eterritory in litigation on which was traced the boundarie sclaimed by each of the high contracting parties (Map A) .

On the geographical chart referred to there is traced, inyellow ink, the line of Costa Rica's extreme claim, and ,in red ink, the line of Colombia ' s extreme claim . At thepresent moment the description of the first of those line sis not of special interest, but the description of the secon dis of immediate interest . This line is traced in conformitywith all the antecedents of the question, as follows : Itspoint of departure lies at the disemboguement of th eGolfito River in the Gulf of Dulce on the Pacific Ocean ;it follows the course of that river to its source ; it then runsup the Main Cordillera that divides the waters of the twooceans and crosses approximately at the ninth degree o fnorth latitude; thence it descends, in an approximatelysouth-north direction, toward the source of th e YorquínRiver (which some call the Doraces or Culebras), andfollows the course of this river to its confluence with th eSixaola, along the bed of which river the line continuesto its disemboguement in the Atlantic Ocean . The saidline limits the territory in dispute between the two repub-lics' to that which lies to the eastern or right-hand side

149

of it. The terr itory indisputedly pertaining to Costa Ricais situated to the west of that line, or on its left . TheRiver Coto de Terraba was wholly comprised withinundisputed Costa Rican territory, as also were Pico Blancoand other heights of the Main Cordillera, which is know nalso by the name of Cordillera de Talamanca . Includedalso in Costa Rican territory free from dispute, from thei rsources to their mouths, were the rivers Urén, Lari and

Coén, affluents to the Telire or Tarire River on its right

bank; also the settlement of Sipurio, the capital ofTalamanca, its dependency San José de Cabécar, and otherinhabited points of the interior valley of Talamanca .By a glance at the map transmitted by the Ministe rof Costa Rica to the Arbitrator, on the 9th of June, 189 7

(Doc. No. 404), the accuracy of these statements wil l

be demonstrated (Map A) . The said line, which for

convenience will be called theGolfato-Yorquín-Sixaola-Line ,

enclosed on the west the territory involved in the contro-versy between the two republics relating to the disputedfrontier of the contiguous colonies of Costa Rica an dVeragua .

(3) EXAMINING COMMISSION PRESIDED OUR BY AMBAS -SADOR ROUSTAN .

After the acceptance of the office of Arbitrator byHis Excellency the President of the French Republic on

the 16th of June, 1897 (Doc No . 405), the Minister o f

Foreign Affairs, M . Hanotaux, in a note dated the 19th

of the following October (Doc. No. 4o6), informed theparties of the creation of a special commission charge dwith the duty of examining the documents presented bythe contending governments in support of their claim sfor recovery . Composing this commission were His

150

Excellency, Monsieur Roustan, late Ambassador of France ,as president, and Messieurs Delavaud, Secretary of Em-bassy and Chief of the American Section in the Divisionof Consulates, Fouques Dupare, Secretary of Embassyattached to the Division of Political Affairs, and GabrielMarcel, Custodian of Maps in the National Library . Allof these commissioners assembled, on the 2d of thatmonth, at the Department of Foreign Affairs to agreeupon the order of their proceedings . In the same noteMonsieur Hanotaux requested that the documents men-tioned be sent as s00n as convenient to the president o fthe said commission .

The commission was created in conformity with th efourth paragraph of Article 4 of the Treaty of Bogota ,which authorized the Arbitrator to delegate his functionsprovided he participated directly in the Award .

On the i6th of December, 1898, the term expired withi nwhich the briefs of the parties were to be presented, andprior to that date both complied with the requirement .On the 16th of the following March, the briefs of eac h

were delivered by the Arbitrator to the respective opposin grepresentatives ; and on September 16, 1899, both fulfilled

the duty of presenting their respective rebuttals .

(4) DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY COSTA RICA .

Long before the presentation of the first brief, th eRepresentative of Costa Rica was required by the Presi-dent of the Examining Commission to submit theret oall the documents on which Costa Rica relied in connec-tion with the question of boundaries ; and in obedience to

this requirement, Señor Peralta delivered to Ambassado rRoustan, on the dates indicated, the following documents :

151

MAY 17, 1898Peralta (M .M . de) Costa Rica, Nicaragua y Panamá en

el Siglo XVI ; Madrid, 1882 .Ibid Costa Rica y Colombia de 1573 á

1881 ; Madrid, 1886 .Ibid Límites de Costa Rica y Colombia ;

nuevos documentos, etc . ; Madrid ,1890 .

Ibid Atlas Histôrico-Geográfico de CostaRica, Veragua y Costa de Mos -quitos ; Madrid, 18gó.

Ibid Two maps of Costa Rica.Fernández (León) . . Documentos especiales sobre límites,

Vols . IV and V ; Paris, 1886 .MAY 18, 1898 .

Peralta Historia de la jurisdicciôn territorialde Costa Rica ; Madrid, 1891 .

Later on Señor Peralta delivered to the Chairman o fthe Commission the following documents and at the sametime delivered copies thereof to the Representative ofColumbia

DECEMBER 5, 1898 .Peralta . .Exposé des Droits territoriaux de l a

République de Costa-Rica soumisà S. E . le Président de la Répu -blique francaise ; Paris, 1898 .

Ibid Costa Rica y Costa de Mosquitos ;Paris, 1898 .

SEPTEMBER 16, 1899 .Peralta Réplique á l' Exposé de la Répu-

blique de Colombie, Paris, 1899 .Ibid Juridiction territoriale de la Repu -

blique de Costa-Rica .

Titres etdocuments justificatifs ; Paris, 1899 .

JULY 24, 1900 .Peralta La

Géographie

historique

et

lesDroits territoriaux de -la Répu -blique

de

Costa-Rica . Apercucritique avec documents á l' appui,etc., Paris, 1900.

'DOC. N0. 409,

152

(g) DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY COLOMBIA .

At the same time that the Minister of Costa Rica de-

livered to the Commission the books specified--whic h

books comprised all the briefs of Costa Rica, and all o f

the documentation adduced in their support—he earnestl y

besought the President of the Commission to furnish hi m

with such documents and briefs as were being presented

on behalf of Colombia .The Minister of Foreign Affairs thereupon delivere d

direct to Señor Peralta, on the dates indicated, th efollowing :

MARCH 16, 1899 .

Colombia ' s brief, signed by Señor Silvela .

SEPTEMBER 16, 1899 .

Colombia 's reply to the brief of Costa Rica ; that is ,

the memorandum signed by Monsieur Poincaré on the

8th of September, 1899 .Outside of those two documents, Señor Peralta has never

received, either officially or privately, from the Minister

of Foreign Affairs, or the Examining Commission, or from

the Representative of Colombia, a single paper in exchange

for those he had presented in obedience to the require-ment of the Commission as above stated .

(6) FAILURÊ TO COMMUNICATE TO COSTA RICA MAN Y

DOCUMENTS OF THE ADVERSE PARTY . COMPLAINT S

BY SEÑOR PERALTA REGARDING THIS OMISSION .

There were, however, on file in the tribunalpresente d

by Colombia—as appears from the text of the Award (Doc .

Nos. 413, 414), the following memoranda, opinions, an dother documents in support of her case, in addition to the

153

brief and reply which had been transmitted in due cours eto the Representative of Costa Rica :

(a) A third memorandum by Colombia signed by MonsieurPoincaré on the 19th of April, 1900 .

(b) An opinion by Señor Don Antonio Maura, signedat Madrid on the 25th óf March, 1900 .

(e) An opinion by Dr . Don Simón de In Rosa y Lopezand his collaborators, signed on the 23d of January, 1900 .

(d) A chronological résumé of the territorial titles ofColombia (Résumé chronologique des Titres territoriaux deIn République de Colombie), published at Paris in íS99 .

(e) Numerous geographical charts, with their texts, bothin the original and in translation, and annotated trans-mitted to the Arbitrator by the Representative of Colombia .

It would appear that there were also filed in the tribunal ,without notice to Costa Rica—although not cited in th eAward—the following opinions :

(f) An opinion by the Illustrious College of Lawyers ofSeville, signed by the Señores Federico de Castro, AntonioMetías and Francisco Pagés, authorized by its Dean,Nicolas Gomez de Orozco, and bearing date the 13th of April ,1900 .

(g) A fourth memorandum by Monsieur Poincaré, en -titled "Résumé des Conclusions de la Colombie," dated th e20th of July, 1900 .

(h) A memorandum by Dr . Don Francisco de PaulaBorda on the question of boundaries between Costa Rica an dColombia .

The first two memoranda (f and g) are to be found i nthe same printed volume which contains the memorandumby Dr. Rosa y Lopez, cited in the Award ; the last (b) ,it is reasonable to suppose, is the study of the case pre-pared expressly by order of the Colombian Government, as

154

appears from the footnote on page 483 of the notabl estudy which under the title above mentioned was printedat Bogotá in the year 1896 .

This same memorandum by Señor Borda is alluded t oby Don Jorge Holguin, Minister of Foreign Relations forColombia, in his report presented to the Congress in June ,1896, in the following terms :

"In speaking of those labors mention should bemade of the book which, by order of our government ,was written by Señor Don Francisco de P . Borda,and of which, from the few chapters I have read, Ihave formed the highest opinion. It appears to methat we have in this b00k a new and abundant sourc eof historical data of great value, and it is to be notedthat his simple and elegant style is admirably main-tained throughout the work. To give a sample o fthis, I have thought it well to publish the followin gchapter, which forms a part of the preliminarystatement * * * . "

The Minister of Foreign Relations, Don Antonio GomezRestrepo, likewise refers to the same memorandum in hisreport to the Colombian Congress, as appears from th epassage here quoted.

"* ' * On its part the government, desirous o fadopting all means available to substantiate our right ,entrusted several years ago, to the Senor Dr. DonFrancisco de Paula Borda who is so distinguished asa specialist in this class of studies, the preparatio nof a memorandum that should contain the fruits of hi syears of investigation . This Memorandum, whic hhas achieved the proportions of an extensive work ,is now in print, and, from the abundance of historicaldocuments it contains, illuminated by importan tobservations, it will be a source of information to b econsulted by all who have to participate in the examina-tion and decision of this delicate matter ."

155

This was written by Señor Gomez Restrepo in July of1898 (Doc. No . 408) .

When were all these memoranda, opinions, maps andother documents in support of the case filed? It is abso-lutely impossible to determine, for the reason that th eRepresentative of Costa Rica received no notice thereof—

notwithstanding they were presented to the tribunal i nprinted form until he found some of them cited in theAward .

Neglect on the part of Costa Rica's Representativ ecannot be assigned as the cause of thls ignorance when thefollowing facts are taken into consideration :

(a) He constantly and repeatedly requested, both ver-

bally and in writing, to be furnished with the briefs anddocumentation of his opponent .

(b) He addressed a communication to the Governmentof Costa Rica, under date of December 16, 1898 (Doc .No. 618), in which he alluded to the delivery of variou smanuscripts and maps made to Monsieur Roustan, inhis private residence, by the Colombia Representative ,which delivery was unaccompanied by any note or inven-tory whatsoever . Note the following words in that com-munication : ` * * The former [M. Roustan] addedthat Señor Betancourt had confined himself to leaving athis private residence a large quantity of manuscripts andmaps, unaccompanied by a note of transmittal or evenby an inventory--a circumstance that caused him muc hconfusion . "

(c) In communication of December 3o, 1898 (Doc .No . 619), to his government, he informed it of the pres-entation to the Arbitrator of various documents on thepart of Colombia relating to the question of boundaries ;among them was A MEMORANDUM BY SEÑOR BORDA .

156

Referring to this, Señor Peralta said

"Although this Memorandum is in print and bearsin its title the words, `Colombia's Defense Againstthe Claims of Costa Rica,' neither here (Paris) no rin Madrid have I been able to secure a single copy ;and it may be supposed that Señor Betancourt hasa keen interest in not placing it at my disposal, judg-ing from the objections he has interposed with th epurpose of preventing the Arbitrator from communi-cating these documents to this Legation before th eexpiration of the three months within which suchtransmission must be made according to the stipula-tions in the Convention of Bogota. "

(d) Having failed to secure the communication of docu -

ments so frequently alluded to, the Representative ofCosta Rica, on the 18th of September, 1899 (Doc No .¢09), addressed a note to His Excellency, Ministe rDelcassé of which the following is an exact copy :

' `Monsieur le Ministre, J ' ai eu I'honneur de recevoirla lettre de Votre Excellence en date du 16 Septembr ecourant par laquelle Elle vent bien m ' informerqu'Elle a remis á Monsieur Betancourt, Ministré d eColombia, la Réplique de la République de Costa -Rica á I'Expose de la Colombie et je m'empressed'accuser réception à Votre Excellence d e l'exemplairedu Mémoire présenté par M . Betancourt á I'appui desprétentious de son Gouvernement, qu'Elle a bienvoulu me faire parvenir en échange .

" Je serail tres obligé à Votre Excellence de com-muniquer an Ministre de Colombie le volume dedocuments joint á la Réplique, COMME CELA S ' ESTFAIT POUR TOUTES LES PIECES, SANS EXCEPTION, OUTONT ÉTÉ PRESENTÉES PAR COSTA-RICA A L ' ARBITRE .

"Par cette même occasion je crois devoir informerVotre Excellence que des le 16 Décembre dernier ,Costa-Rica a fait parvenir an Représentant de la

157

partie adverse, duement imprimés, TOUS LE SDOCUMENTS ETLESCARTES GÉOGRAPHIQUESSU RLESQUELS

ELLE APPUIE SUS REVENDICATIONS OU QUI PEUVEN TCONTRIBUER A L ' ÉCLAIRCISSEMENT DE LA QUESTION .

" PAR CONTRE ELLE N'A RECU DE LA COLOMBIE QUEL' EXPOSÉ SIGNÉ PAR M. SILVELA ET N ' A PU OBTENIRJUSQU' ICI RIUN DE PLUS, pas même un inventaire de spi ces manuscrites soumises à l 'Arbitre par la Colombie .

" Votre Excellence, dans sa haut e impartialité, peutse rendre compte facilement de la SITUATION INÉGAL EDANS LAQUELLE COSTA-RICA EST PLACÉE DANS CE SCONDITIONS et je Lui será bien obligé d ' interposerses bons offices pour obtenir de Monsieur Betancourtqu'iI ME SOIT REMIS AU MOINS UN EXEMPLAIRE D ETOUS LES DOCUMENTS PRÉSENTÉS Á L'ARBITRE PA RLA COLOMBIE, ou pour qu'iI soit procedé à un échange

réciproque d'un certain nombre d'exemplaires de cesdocuments . "

The foregoing note, in its turn also, failed to produceany favorable result .

(e) The Representative of Costa Rica, in view of th eabove circumstances, made a further effort, addressing t o

Ambassador Roustan, on the 24th of July, 1900 (Doc. No .410), a despatch in which he says :

" Je saisis également cette occasion pour faireobserver á Votre Excellence que jusqu'à cette date ,la République de Costa-Rica N'A RECU AUCUNE COM-MUNICATION OFFICIELLE OU AUTRE, D U VOLUMEIMPRIMÉ DE DOCUMENTS TRADUITS UT COMMENTÉS PA RCOLOMBIA, NI DU L ' INVENTAIRE DE CES DOCUMENTS ,PAS PLUS QUE DES EXPERTISES DE DOCUMENT SORDONAES PAR LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE COLOMBIE e tconséquemment interessées . "

That note was answered by Monsieur Roustan onAugust 2, 1900 (Doc. No . 41I), stating that, at its session

of July 31, ultimo, the Commission had unanimously

15 8

agreed that the documents presented by the interestedparties AMPLY SUFFICED TO MAKE CLEAR THEI

R CONTENTIONS, and that, consequently, the Commission was o fopinion that NO FURTHER BRIEFS OR VERBAL ARGUMENT SWERE NECESSARY. Concerning the transmission of docu-ments presented by Colombia, and so anxiously besoughtby Costa Rica for examination, THE NOTE OF MONSIEU RROUSTAN IS ABSOLUTELY SILENT .For this reason, in a despatch of September 14, 1900(Doc. No. 415), Señor Peralta reported to his government :

"* * * I ought to add that, contrary to thespirit of Article 4 of the Treaty of Bogota the Arbi-tration Commission received a third Memorandu mfrom Monsieur Poincaré and two others, CAREFULL YHIDING THEIR EXISTENCE FROM THIS LEGATION ,NOTWITHSTANDING MY REITERATED DEMANDS . TheTreaty of Bogota did not provide for any mor ememoranda than those that should be presente dsix months after the delivery of the first allegations ,and equity demands that, in case of the presentatio nof any Memorandum later, it should be turned overor reasonable information of it given to the otherside . NOTHING OF THIS KIND HAS BEEN DONE, nor ,notwithstanding my constant offers for that purpose ,have I been called upon by the Commission to giv eexplanations of our case ."

In that despatch Señor Peralta complains of the failureto communicate three arguments, one by MonsieurPoincaré and two anonymous . He did not then kno wthat the memoranda presented and secretly guarded fro mCosta Rica were much more numerous ; he did not kno wthat accompanying them were numerous geographicalcharts and maps with annotated texts--originals as wellas translations—and, finally, he was ignorant of the factthat a great many documents were filed in the arbitral

159

tribunal to the prejudice of the case of Costa Rica, as t o

which it is not known, even to this hour, in what languagethey were written, or whether they were in manuscriptor print .

It is significant in this connection to note the statemen tmade by the neo-Granadian Minister of Foreign Rela-tions in his report to the Congress in the year 1855 (Doc .No . 305) :

" Up to the present time," he said, "it has beenimpossible [in the boundary dispute with Costa Rica ]to do any more than assemble the data and document snecessary to sustain the rights of New Granada i nthis weighty question, endeavoring at the same tim eto secure the requisite documents for a proper dis-cussion of that question from the point of view of theadvantage to both countries ; and to-day I flattermyself that I hold in my office the best documents o fvarious import authorized or presented by distin-guished citizens who are possessed of valuable knowl-edge and important information in regard to thematter, and that, animated by patriotic zeal the yhave promptly responded to the invitation sent ou tby this Department to come to its aid with any ligh tthey might be able to throw upon this delicatesubject ."

Forty-five years of persistent reserve before litigation ;and afterwards, a secrecy even more guarded and im-penetrable !

Further commentary upon the facts above set forthwould be idle ; they have been brought into the case solelywith the object of making entirely clear the unequal positio nforced upon Costa Rica in the controversy, or rather, he rdefenselessness_

160

(7) FRONTIER ASKED FOR BY COSTA RICA .

Señor Peralta, in his demand, entitled " Exposé desDroits territoriaux de la République de Costa-Rica,"asked for the following frontier : '

"A line which, starting from the island of th eEscudo de Veragua, runs in a southerly direction tothe mouth of the Chiriqui, Calobébora, or CulebraRiver,and thence follows into the upper waters of that riverto its source in Santiago hill, and from that hill, alongthe summit of the Cordillera that separates the water sof the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, passes by the hil lof the Hornito the peak known as La Playita and thehill of the Horqueta to the eastern and principal head -waters of the Chiriqui Viejo River, in the immediatevicinity of the Chiriqui volcano, and which from tha tpoint continues along the bed of that river, dow nstream, as far as its mouth in the Pacific Ocea nnear the mouth of the Piedra River, to the east of th eBurica Peninsula and Burica Point . "

In his reply to Colombia's brief, under the title "Juridiction territoriale de Costa-Rica," Señor Peralta repeatsand confirms his demand for this same line . '

He based his request for this line (which bears his name )on the fact that it is the one that always separated th eSpanish Province of Costa Rica from the Veragua province sever since the Royal cédula of 1573 and the Compilationof the Indies down to the moment of the independenc eof both provinces ; and the fact that it was the same tha tconstituted, in fact and law, the uti possidetis of 1810 and1821, and was the one referred to by the Treaty of Bogotá

'Manuel M. de Peralta, Exposé des Droits territoriaux de laRépublique de Costa-Rica, pp . 199, 200 .

'Peralta, Juridiction territoriale de Costa-Rica . Réplique kl ' Exposé de la République de Colombia, pp . 57, 58 .

161

Of 1825, at the establishment of the frontier between th etwo states when they mutually recognized each other .

The line of demarcation demanded by Costa Rica wa sfound to be exactly in accord with all the precedents in thediplomatic controversy between the two countries and i nharmony with the stipulations of the Convention of ISM ,and with the bases established in the geographical chartaccompanying the communication of June 9, 1899, t owhich reference is hereinbefore made .

(8) FRONTIER ASKED FOR BY COLOMBIA . THE SILVELALINE .

Colombia's special diplomatic representative at Parispresented to the Arbitrator in the nature of a claim amemorandum by Don Francisco Silvela (the lawyer forthe Legation of that Republic in Spain), which was signedby him at Madrid, December 8, 1898, and in