No. 386.
Señor Montúfar to Mr. Blaine.
Washington, November 7, 1881. (Received November 11.)
Sir: On the 2d instant I had the honor to address to your excellency a note in relation to affairs in Guatemala and Mexico. I had not at that time received the report presented to the Mexican Congress by Mr. Mariscal, the minister for foreign affairs of that country.
That document contains statements which are offensive to Guatemala, and which are not in accordance with historic truth. It is asserted [Page 610] that when the second extension expired, the mixed commission not having finished its work, the effects of the Uriarte-Vallarta convention legally ceased.
This is a juridical truth which I am glad to have admitted by Mexico.
I must, however, call your excellency’s attention to what is said with regard to Guatemala’s not having notified Mexico, as is customary in such cases.
In the report on foreign relations presented to the legislature of Guatemala in 1880, it was stated that the second extension was not sufficient for the completion of the surveys, and that, if an extension was not asked for, the Uriarte-Vallarta convention would be considered as not existing.
The report was approved by the legislature, and copies of it were sent to the minister of Mexico in Guatemala and to the department of foreign relations of the Mexican Republic. Notwithstanding this, no extension was asked for.
The extension having absolutely expired, and no fresh extension having been asked for, it was declared that the second extension had expired, in order that the convention might be considered as having ceased to exist.
This declaration, which was issued on the 10th day of December, 1880, was announced, during an interview held at the department of state of Guatemala, to Mr. Diaz Mimiaja, chargé d’affaires ad interim of the Mexican Republic.
On the 11th of December of the same year the aforesaid declaration was transmitted to Don Manuel Herrera, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Guatemala in Mexico, that he might be able to furnish such information as the case required.
The Uriarte-Vallarta treaty having become null and void, Mr. Mariscal says that Gen. Loaiza, the minister plenipotentiary of Mexico, proposed a new convention to the President of Guatemala, and that the President thought favorably of the proposal, but that the convention was not concluded.
I do not know the real facts of this matter, yet I must assure you that the President of Guatemala is now the constitutional head of the government; that the constitution requires that international treaties shall be approved by the legislative branch of the government, and that General Barrios never makes an offer fulfillment of which depends upon another power.
If what Mexico desires is that a survey of coasts and frontiers be made, she does not need the Uriarte-Vallarta treaty for such a purpose, and still less does she need a renewal of that instrument; a simple exchange of notes is all that is required.
The Government of the United States wished to have a survey of our sea-coasts made, but it did not make any treaty with Guatemala with that end in view; it simply wrote a note asking for authorization to have the survey made. A note was sent in reply, stating that the survey might be made, and it was made.
Mexico may take, whenever it sees fit, the same course that was taken by the United States.
Mr. Mariscal says that a party of ten men, under the command of Mr. Margarito Barrios, invaded the territory of Mexico via Tonintaná. This charge makes it appear as if the Guatemalan Government had committed a crime demanding expiation; such, however, is not the fact.
The district called Tonintaná has always been respected as Guatemalan [Page 611] territory. Forces of our government do, indeed, enter Tonintaná, but that is not invading Mexican territory.
The offense was committed by the Mexicans. They entered Tonintaná and compelled the inhabitants to render service as Mexican citizens. The inhabitants feeling aggrieved, addressed a complaint to the Government of Guatemala. Satisfaction was demanded of Mexico, and the Federal Government declared that Tonintaná belonged to Mexico, and that to enter it was to invade Mexico.
The Government of Guatemala said that Mexico was not an authority competent to make a declaration contrary to the evidence, and that it is customary for nations, in such cases, to submit to arbitration, and not to seize at will upon territory that does not belong to them.
This remonstrance, like all those made by us, was treated with no attention.
Mr. Mariscal states that in December, 1879, and in September, 1880, bands of Mexican and Central American filibusters invaded Mexico, committing great outrages in the territory of that country.
There are many persons in Chiapas and Soconusco who cherish personal resentment and deep hatred against some of the public functionaries. These persons are continually on the move. No treaties exist between Guatemala and Mexico. The relations between the two countries rest on the general principles of the law of nations. Guatemala is, consequently, not obliged to intern Mexican delinquents taking refuge in her territory, and still less is she obliged to do duty as a jailer for the Mexicans.
Nevertheless, for the sake of peace, and in order to show friendship to the Government of Mexico, she issued orders for all the internments that were asked of her. The orders were given by telegraph. These orders were executed, and the parties interned asked leave of the Guatemalan Government to return to their own country, stating that they had no means of subsistence. The Government of Guatemala replied that they were subject to the orders of the representative of Mexico, and that they would not be allowed to return without his consent.
This was doing more, much more, than was required by the law of nations. The telegraphic orders for internment, which were sent in the presence of the representative of Mexico, and their execution called forth a very warm expression of gratitude on the part of that representative.
It is surprising that notwithstanding all this, Mr. Mariscal should prefer charges against Guatemala for what he says took place in December, 1879, and in September, 1880.
Investigations were held by order of the Government of Guatemala, and they rendered it evident that not a single Guatemalan had taken part in the events in question; that Mexicans were the sole actors in them, and that they were influenced by personal resentments which they cherished, either rightfully or wrongfully, against Mexican officials.
The depositions taken show that mere local feelings, and nothing connected with the politics of the two countries, influenced the Mexicans thus to act against the said officials.
If charges are to be made against Guatemala on account of every revolution in Chiapas and Soconusco, the charges will be incessant, for revolutions are of constant occurrence there and it is in evidence that the revolutionists are supplied with abundant resources from their own country.
I am sorry to remark that what is said in relation to the landmarks [Page 612] of Pinabete is wholly incorrect. The districts known as Chichanar and Tonintaná have belonged to Guatemala from time immemorial, and General Santa Anna, the Dictator of Mexico, never thought that his jurisdiction extended to them when he saw fit to violate the treaty of 1825 and invade Soconusco. The Mexicans by no authority save their own, without any notification or convention, in the execution of their programme of encroaching upon our territory, placed a landmark in the district known as Pinabete.
If the placing of a landmark by Mexicans were sufficient to convert the territory of Guatemala into Mexican property, no boundary question would now exist, for the territory of Mexico would extend to Costa Rica.
Our authorities were under no obligations to suffer that mark to remain standing, since it was equivalent to a violent spoliation, without anything to justify it. The mark was consequently removed by the Guatemalan authorities of Tacaná.
This act, then, was not, as is asserted by Mr. Mariscal, an invasion of Mexico by Guatemala, but an unauthorized invasion of Guatemala by Mexico.
Mr. Mariscal says that the President of Mexico has protested energetically; but he does not say that the Government of Guatemala, in reply to his protest, furnished evidence of its right.
The secretary of state of the Mexican Republic says that Mexico can admit no question with regard to her ownership of Chiapas, including Soconusco, for those districts which now form a State have belonged to her for years.
This Mr. Secretary, is a kind of public law that cannot be accepted.
Dominion is acquired by titles which convey it, and force is not such a title. A treaty concluded in 1825 was binding upon both Mexico and Guatemala. According to that treaty, Soconusco was to remain neutral until the conclusion of a treaty defining the boundaries.
In the year 1842, General Santa Anna infringed that treaty by invading Soconusco with an armed force and annexing it to Mexico. That act was a violation of right, and cannot be a legitimate title of ownership. What would become of the world if every nation could violate solemn treaties, invade the domain of weaker nations, seize their territory, and then allege that a proper sense of dignity did not permit them to submit what was already done to arbitration?
Since the year 1842, Guatemala has constantly protested against the usurpation of General Santa Anna; she has not admitted its legality for a single day, nor is there any instrument in existence that legitimizes it.
The outrage perpetrated by Santa Anna, moreover, cannot be forgotten, for it is daily producing the saddest results. It awakened in Mexico a desire for aggrandizement, and although that Republic possesses vast territories which are neither inhabited nor cultivated, it seeks to extend its limits southward, and to have its flag float over all Central America.
Thus it is that a question between Guatemala and Mexico is never settled, and groundless accusations are piled up against us, similar to those contained in Mr. Mariscal’s report.
There is now a serious prospect of war between Guatemala and Mexico. We shall never make war, and shall never provoke it; the responsibility of shedding American blood shall not be on our hands; we shall, however, defend ourselves with energy and bravery; and so long as a hamlet or a cabin remains standing in Guatemala, the Mexican flag shall not float over it in peace.
[Page 613]The United States of America are the natural guardians of the soil of all America.
Were it not for the United States the Spanish American Republics would not now be independent. They are the natural protectors of the integrity of the continent, and history shows how nobly and worthily they have fulfilled their high mission.
The Government of Guatemala addressed your excellency in this sense in June last through Mr. Ubico. I now do so again.
The Government of Guatemala lays its question with Mexico in the hands of the United States Government. It declares that in whatever manner the United States Government may see fit to settle this matter, its decision shall be cheerfully, strictly, and faithfully executed.
I entertain the pleasing hope of receiving a favorable reply before the 20th instant, on which day a steamer sails from New York to Aspinwall.
I avail myself of this occasion to repeat that I am your excellency’s very faithful and obedient servant,