No. 385.
Señor Montúfar to Mr. Blaine.
Mr. Secretary of State: I have had the honor to receive your excellency’s highly-esteemed note of the 31st ultimo, relative to the manifestation of appreciation and gratitude on the part of the department of state of Guatemala to the Government of the United States for having deigned to interpose its powerful mediation in the boundary question between Guatemala and Mexico.
[Page 605]The government to which I belong feels deeply grateful and now lays before your excellency, through me, some points of the question which, although they are very well known at the Department of State of the United States, require, perhaps, some evidence for their better elucidation.
In Mexico it is asserted, and even taught in the schools, that the Territory of Guatemala, previous to the conquest, was under the control of the Mexican Indians. The historian Juarros, in his compendium of the history of Guatemala, proves the contrary. The historian Garcia Pelaez proves the same thing by adducing a series of facts.
This, however, is not the subject of the question of to-day. The events of a less remote period are to be considered.
Charles V, King of Spain, and Philip II, his successor, declared the captaincy general of Guatemala to be totally distinct from the vice-regency of New Spain, as may be seen in law No. 6, Title 15, book 20 of the “Recopilacion de Indias.” The same law clearly, decidedly, and precisely says that the territory of Chiapas and Soconusco belongs to the captaincy general of Guatemala, and that it forms a part thereof.
This law did not remain written. It was nothing but the expression of what had already existed before it was promulgated, and was faithfully and punctually executed until the era of independence.
Guatemala declared itself independent of Spain, together with all the provinces which composed the captaincy general on the 15th day of September, 1821.
Mexico established an ephemeral empire, and the aristocracy and the clergy of Guatemala, disregarding the wishes of the people, united with that empire through the use of violent means, according to the manifesto of January 5, 1822. The annexationists, in order to carry out their designs, required the assistance of Mexican forces, and General Filisola, at the head of those forces, saturated the soil of Central America with blood. In Mexico, however, fortune did not favor them. The pronunciamiento of Casa Mata destroyed the empire, and General Filisola was obliged to return to his own country. His journey from Guatemala to Mexico, however, was not unproductive of advantage to him.
There was a popular junta at Chiapas, which was installed April 8, 1823. That body resolved to convoke a general junta (council) to decide what was best to be done. That junta was convoked. It was put to vote whether Chiapas belonged to Mexico or to Guatemala, and, the question not having been settled, it was resolved that the province should be provisionally separated from both Mexico and Guatemala, and that it should have a government its own until the adoption of other measures.
Such was the state of affairs when General Filisola returned to Mexico.
On passing through Chiapas, he dissolved the government of that province. This proceeding called forth remonstrances and protests which were productive of no favorable result to the aggrieved parties. Recourse was had to arms, however, and the dissolved junta was again installed.
A new revolution, promoted by the party which favored Mexico, aided directly by the latter country, obtained a triumph. The reiterated manifestation of the aggrieved people of Chiapas and the representations of the Government of Guatemala called forth a resolution which was adopted in Mexico May 26, 1824, to the effect that there should be a free expression of the popular will.
But although liberty was talked of on one hand, on the other all the violent means possible were used in order to secure a result favorable [Page 606] to Mexico. Among the means of coercion was a Mexican division stationed on the frontier, which intimidated the people of the vicinity.
The voting was to take place in presence of two commissioners, one a Mexican, and the other a Guatemalan. They did not wait until the Guatemalan commissioner arrived, but as soon as Mr. José Xavier Bustamente, the Mexican commissioner, made his appearance business commenced, and Chiapas was declared to be united to Mexico on the 12th and 14th of September, 1824.
Such is the title by which Mexico possesses Chiapas.
The party in Soconusco which had voted against annexation to Mexico solemnly declared its allegiance to Guatemala, which was then an integral part of the Central American Republic. This declaration bears date of July 24, 1824.
The national constituent assembly of Central America, on the 18th day of August of the same year, declared Soconusco to be an integral part of Central America.
In the year 1825 there was an arrangement for peace made between the Central American Republic and that of Mexico. That arrangement is called the preliminaries of the year ’25. According to it, both republics were to withdraw their forces from Soconusco, and that district was to remain under municipal government until its status should be defined by a treaty for the settlement of the boundary question.
That arrangement was faithfully observed by Guatemala, but was infringed by Mexico.
In the year 1842 General Santa Ana sent forces against Soconusco and annexed it de facto to the country which he governed. Santa Ana profited by the revolution which dissolved the Central American Federation in 1839, and made five independent states of that country, which states are now called republics. That outrage can form no legal basis.
Guatemala protested energetically, and she has ever conducted her relations with the neighboring republics on the basis of that protest, and in no other way. The other sections of Central America likewise energetically protested.
Arbitration has been proposed to Mexico since 1824, but this she has never been willing to accept.
At length she was told to appoint an arbitrator, and that Guatemala would abide by his decision.
This proposition, which was perhaps without an example in the history of the new world, was likewise rejected.
This is sufficient to enable the enlightened Government of the United States to judge of the justice of the cause of Guatemala.
What most strikes the attention in this matter, however, is that the district of Soconusco, which is Guatemala de jure, is not now, according to Mexico, what it was in the year 1842, when it was occupied by Santa Anna. It has grown, and is growing daily. Towns which were Guatemalan in 1843, and to which Mexico could then lay no claim, even admitting the annexation to be legal, are now Mexican, and to dispute this is called outraging the Mexican flag.
Soconusco is constantly increasing in extent, and it would not be surprising if it should one day extend to the palace of the old Spanish captains-general.
No treaties were concluded between Guatemala and Mexico from from 1825 until December, 1877. At the latter date, a convention was concluded in the city of Mexico which was signed by Mr. Uriarte, the [Page 607] minister of Guatemala, and by Mr. Vallarta, the secretary of state of the Mexican Republic.
It is proposed in that convention to make an examination of the frontier, and to have surveys made preparatory to the conferences with regard to limits. The examination was to be made by a mixed commission of topographers and astronomers from the bar of Ocos to the hill of Izbul, within a definite time.
This treaty met with opposition in the cabinet of Guatemala, because a hidden design was detected in it. For a mere survey of boundaries, it is not necessary that a treaty should be signed by two governments, nor is there any need of the forms required by the law of nations for permanent laws; an exchange of notes is sufficient. The real design of the Mexican Government was very clear.
That government intended that the hill of Izbul and the bar of Ocos should be declared by a treaty to be the fixed limits between the two republics.
Such, however, were the assurances given by Mr. Diaz Covarrubias to the President of Guatemala that Mexico did not wish to prejudge the question, but simply to have it examined; that that high functionary at length, for the sake of peace, and relying upon the incessant protestations that the boundary question was not to be prejudged, ratified the treaty without the intervention of the legislative body, because the constitution had not at that time been promulgated; and a previous enactment had invested the President with full powers in such cases.
The Uriarte-Vallarta treaty having been ratified on the basis that no question in relation to boundaries was to be prejudged, the mixed commission began its work, which it was unable to finish within the time fixed for that purpose.
Mexico asked for an extension of the time on the same basis, viz, that no question in relation to boundaries was to be prejudged, and her request was granted.
The time fixed again expired before the mixed commission had finished its work even on the first section.
Mexico asked for another extension, which was not granted. Instead of the requests being granted, it was declared that the treaty had become null and void, because the second extension had expired before the termination of the work on even the first section.
The Government of Mexico asked for another extension, which was likewise refused. It demanded it peremptorily, and its demand was not acceded to. It almost threatened to declare war if the Uriarte-Vallarta treaty was not declared to be still in force, and we courteously replied that that treaty no longer existed, and that we would not give it new life.
The events which took place while the surveys were going on have left very deep traces, and clearly reveal the situation in which we are. The place called “Cuilco Viejo,” which was recognized as being Guatemalan after the occupation of Soconusco by Guatemalan authorites, and where the persons who rose in 1870 against the administration of General Cerna entered as into Guatemalan territory, was declared to belong to Mexico, and to enter that place is now considered as an offense to Mexico and as a punishable aggression against Mexican territory.
A Mexican surveyor has, from time immemorial, surveyed the land in districts owned by Guatemala. A commission of the Guatemalan municipality of the town called Malacatan set out for the purpose of occupying a position on the frontier. A Mexican force which was concealed [Page 608] in a wood fired on the party, killing the first alcalde and an individual of the municipality, and wounding four other persons.
A complaint was presented, and satisfaction demanded of Mexico, but no advantage to Guatemala resulted therefrom.
The Mexican authorities based their action on a report, according to which the place, in the territory of Guatemala, where the municipal commission was, belongs to Mexico.
In virtue of that report, not only is no satisfaction given us, but satisfaction is demanded of us; we are aggrieved, and we are asked to pledge ourselves not to commit any more offenses in future.
Pánfilo Roda, the alcalde of Tacaná, a Guatemalan town, undertook, in conjunction with four other men, to take a list of the inhabitants of that place. The Mexicans arrested the enrollers, and took them to Tapachula.
The Government of Guatemala energetically demanded satisfaction; its demand, however, was attended with no favorable result. Indeed, so far from being favorable, the result was an adverse one, for, as the territory occupied by Mexico constantly increases in extent, it was asserted that the town in which it had been attempted to enroll the inhabitants was a Mexican town.
Don Carlos Gris claimed as Mexican territory a portion of land which has belonged to Guatemala from time immemorial. Complaint was made to Mexico in due form; it was, however, followed by no result favorable to Guatemala, because Mexico had determined that that land should increase her territory. Not only was justice not done us in Mexico, but it was even declared that Guatemala was violating her pledges, and was acting the part of an aggressor.
Within the territory of Mexico revolutions are constantly going on against the frontier authorities; the revolutionists seek refuge in the territory of Guatemala; the Mexican minister in Guatemala requests that they be interned (i. e., sent to the interior); his request is complied with by telegraph, the internment takes place, and the Mexican representative returns his thanks therefor.
The Mexican Government, however, instead of returning thanks, complains that the internment has not been ordered, and supposes that the failure to order it is due to the complicity of the Guatemalan authorities.
There are districts which, from time immemorial, have recognized no authority save that of Guatemala; the people of those districts are now required to pay their taxes to Mexico; the owners of the property protest, but are forcibly compelled to pay; complaint is made to Mexico, and the government declares that those districts belong to Mexico, or that their ownership is doubtful, and that, such being the case, they cannot be exempted from the payment of taxes.
The mixed commission was busy with the survey of the frontier; our engineers had the right to enter the so-called Mexican territory, as those of Mexico had the right to enter ours; but the frontier authorities outraged our engineers and threw them into prison.
The Government of Mexico very energetically demanded satisfaction of that of Guatemala, on the ground that the latter had invaded the territory of Mexico.
This is what the invasion amounted to: the place called Tonintana has, from time immemorial, belonged to Guatemala. The Government of Mexico recently declared, on its own authority, that Tonintana belonged to Mexico; consequently, to approach what is our own is invading Mexico.
Parties of men enter our territory, without having any right to do [Page 609] so, and steal cattle; our authorities attempt to recover the stolen animals, and this is considered by the Mexican frontier authorities as an insult to Mexico; recourse is had to the Federal Government, and that does not do us justice.
Acts of this kind are of constant occurrence; the offenses are repeated and the encroachments on Mexican territory still go on.
All this, and much more that I have left unmentioned in order not to make this note too voluminous, is proved by authoritative documents which I leave in the hands of Mr. Ubico, the minister of Guatemala at Washington.
Something recently occurred that is considered alarming. In the message of the President of Mexico there were expressions which were offensive to Guatemala, and wholly inexact. It was said that Guatemala seeks to defer the settlement of the questions and to avoid having them defined, whereas the truth is quite the reverse; arbitration having been constantly proposed to Mexico, and that country having been recently told that there should not be two arbitrators, but one, and that that one should be selected by the Mexican Government, which proposition it did not see fit to accept.
There has appeared in the unofficial portion of the official newspaper an article which I accept only in that part which declares that Mexico is treating us unjustly, for the article contains considerations of an historical character, with regard to events on the frontier of the United States, which I am unable to accept.
That article was considered offensive by General Loaiza, minister of Mexico in Guatemala. He requested the government to state whether the article in question reflected the views of the government. He was informed, in reply, that it expressed the views of the editor of the paper and not those of the government, but that the latter indorsed that part of it which vindicated Guatemala from the charge of being unwilling to have the questions defined, and of seeking to postpone their settlement.
General Loaiza said that he would inform his government, and that he would ask instructions from it, which proceeding was thought to embody a fresh menace.
I have deemed it my duty to inform your excellency of all this, in reply to your esteemed note of October 31, and I take pleasure in repeating that I am your excellency’s very obedient servant,