Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 5, 1881

No. 469.
Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine.

Legation of the United States,
Mexico, August 11, 1881.

No. 253.]

Sir: Complying with the instructions contained in your disprtch No. 150, June 29, I addressed a note to Señor Mariscal, on the 7th instant, in which I endeavored to point out to him the importance the United States attached to their having a recognized consular agent at Santa Cruz Point.

Thinking that I might fortify my application in a personal interview, I called at the foreign office on yesterday afternoon (10th instant), where I saw him.

I do not inclose a copy of my note to him, nor shall I now give the substance of my conversation with him upon the subject. This will be done when I receive his reply to my note. I allude to the matter now merely as an introduction to a conversation which I had with him upon an entirely different subject, and to explain to you how it happened the conversation occurred.

As soon as I had concluded what I had to say upon the subject which had sent me to him, I rose to take my leave. Whereupon Señor Mariscal inquired of me whether I had forwarded to you the documents relating to Guatemala which accompanied his note to me of the 30th July, 1881. I replied that I had not. In the first place, I said, one of them was too large to send through the post. In the second place, that I supposed they were already in the library of the State Department. In the third place, that they could only be of value to you at the present moment in case Mexico should agree with Guatemala that the differences between them should be submitted to arbitration, the arbitrator to be the President of the United States, and that as Mexico did not seem inclined, I regretted to see, to do this, it was unnecessary that I should burthen my mail with so much matter.

Señor Mariscal commenced at once to speak of the conduct of Guatemala towards Mexico and the bad treatment Mexico had received at her hands, reiterating what he had said to me in our former interviews upon the subject, all of which I have reported to you. He appears to entertain a very bad opinion of the President of Guatemala, and to think that his appeal to the United States has a purpose beyond the settlement of the boundary between the two countries. He said, for instance, he had been informed that you had expressed an opinion favorable to the consolidation of the Central American republics into one government; that the President of Guatemala was favorable to such a project; that he would like, in such an event, to become the President of the new nation, and that he was endeavoring to obtain the influence of the United States to further his ambition in that direction. He seems impressed with the idea that General Barrios is Mexico’s enemy, and that it would not be well to have his power increased.

I replied that I could not speak as to what your views were upon the question of a consolidation of these republics into one; that I had been informed of a project of the kind which had been set on foot some time ago, to which the President of each of the republics were all agreed, and that nothing, I was told, had prevented its accomplishment save the fact that each of them insisted upon being named President of the country which was to be formed; I could, however, assure him that neither you nor the President had any views on the matter which were unfriendly to Mexico.

I took advantage of the occasion to again expose to him your views, as they are expressed in your dispatches to me upon the subject, of the differences between Mexico and Guatemala, and I said to him that while I felt sure there was nothing in your dispatch, of which I had furnished him a copy, which could be tortured into an expression of unfriendliness towards this country, I hoped that nothing I had said in either of the interviews I had had with him had left any such impression upon his mind. He said, certainly not. I said to him that the great interest the United States felt in the matter was that there should be peace between the republics of this continent; that it was apparent to me that Mexico and Guatemala were occupying a hostile attitude towards each other, which might at any moment result in a war, and that this should, it seemed to me, be avoided if possible, and that it was not only possible to avoid it, but easy to do so.

I repeated to him that a war between the two countries would probably result in the conquest of Guatemala, but that such an event might bring forth bitter fruit; that I understood the policy of the Government of the United States was to keep all the boundaries of the different republics on the continent intact, and that the other republics have as great an interest in the maintenance of this principle, as well as policy, as we had, and, that we hoped Mexico agreed with us upon this point, and that she would not set the example to us of conquering the territory of her neighbor who happened to be weaker than she is.

I alluded to the suggestion contained in your dispatch No. 142, June 21, 1381, to the effect that Guatemala if pushed to the wall might attempt to sell her rights to some other nation. He asked me what nation—the United States? I answered, not the United States, but to some European nation. He laughed at the idea, but when I suggested to him that there might be more in this than he seemed to think there was, he said if such a thing were to happen Mexico would defend herself, and that in case of need the United States would come to her assistance; to which I replied that I did not doubt the people of the United States would rather join Mexico in a war to prevent any European nation from obtaining a foothold on her border than to see a foot of territory added to Mexico by conquest. (I may add that on one occasion my colleague from Guatemala suggested the same possibility with regard to selling the right to Soconusco to some power—the United States or to a European government. I replied that while I was not authorized to speak upon the subject, I might, however, on my own account say that the United States did not want the territory, and that they would not be well pleased to see it attached to the possessions of a European power.)

Señor Mariscal said that he would not say that Mexico would altogether refuse the arbitration proposed, but that there were some points of difference between the two countries which could not, under any circumstances, be submitted to question. He said, for instance, that Guatemala pretended to a title to the whole of the State of Chiapas, and that as Mexico held that territory first by conquest and secondly by the expressed will of the inhabitants thereof, and had been in possession thereof for more than forty years, she would not now give it up or even admit that there was any question as to her title thereto. I at once replied that the first and most important question was that Mexico should acknowledge that there were differences between her and Guatemala, and then that she should consent to submit those differences to an arbitrator. He asked me, what would be the course to pursue in that direction? I replied that I was not authorized to make any formal proposition to him upon that point, but I thought I was able to indicate to him a mode of procedure which would accomplish the object in view and restore peace and quiet to the two countries. He asked me to do so, and I said, in substance:

1st. Mexico and Guatemala admit that there are differences between them.

2d. They agree with each other that these differences shall be submitted to arbitration.

3d. They agree that the President of the United States shall be the arbitrator.

4th. The President of the United States accepts the position.

5th. The President of the United States then notifies Guatemala and Mexico that he is prepared to listen to their complaints against and demands upon each other.

6th. Guatemala prefers hers (indeed she would occupy as it were the position of plaintiff in a suit; Mexico that of a defendant). In it she claims that she has been despoiled of her territory of Chiapas, and that it should be returned to her.

7th. Mexico answers and says that Chiapas belongs to her by conquest, by the vote of the inhabitants thereof, by an uninterrupted possession of nearly half a century, and that her title thereto cannot now be questioned; but that there is a question as to the proper boundary between the two countries, which they are willing to submit to arbitration. If these facts were as stated, there could be little danger in submitting them to the appreciation of any candid man, and that if the President of the United States were satisfied of their correctness he would probably say to Guatemala that Chiapas was out of the question, and that the inquiry would have to be reduced to the question of boundary, and, in this regard, what was in reality the southern boundary of Chiapas.

8th. That Guatemala would, of course, submit to his decision upon that point.

9th. That if the representatives of the two countries charged with the presentation of their case before him could not agree as to where the boundary should be, Mexico would appoint a commissioner, Guatemala one, and the President of the United States would appoint a third, whose duty it would be to run what they considered to be a true line, which would show what in their opinion should be the boundary between the two countries, any two of the commissioners to be competent to do the work in case the third one should fail to co-operate with them; that they might make a unanimous report, or a majority and minority report, or a separate report.

10th. That when this report was made the President of the United States would notify the parties in interest and advise them that he would hear them upon the subject at such a time as would suit their convenience.

11th. That after having heard them, the President would then determine where the boundary line between the two countries should be located, and that thus their trouble would be at an end.

In the meanwhile I said there was to be no act of hostility on either side.

Señor Mariscal appeared greatly interested in the subject. Indeed, I left him not without hope on my part if the suggestions I made him as above set forth were submitted as a proposition they would be accepted.

I had written nearly this much when I received a visit from Mr. Herrera, the minister from Guatemala. He is exceedingly anxious upon this subject. He has, he tells me, received instructions from his government to endeavor to come to an understanding with Señor Mariscal upon the subject of a commission which has been so long pending between them. I said that while I had no advice to give him, inasmuch as he did not think he would accomplish anything in the way of the appointing a commission, I should, were I in his place, wait until the question of submitting the differences between the two countries to arbitration should be finally decided before saying anything further upon the subject. He said he would. I then told him that I had had an interview with Señor Mariscal on yesterday, and, without telling him of the suggestions I had made, I told him how I thought the matter should be managed, in substance as I stated it to Señor Mariscal. Mr. Herrera agreed with me. I then said to him that I fancied the great difficulty in the way was Chiapas, and I said to him almost in these terms: “Suppose Mexico would agree to the arbitration upon the condition verbally assented to between the representatives of the two governments, although not expressed in the written proposition; that upon the question of title to Chiapas the President of the United States was to decide that Chiapas belonged to Mexico, and therefore was not to be considered in the arbitration, would Guatemala consent thereto?” He replied in the affirmative. He said that it was a question of pride with his country, that he did not believe a judgment could be rendered in her favor thereon, and still they could not, of their own accord, give it up; but that if the United States were to say that Guatemala had no title now to Chiapas, the decision would be acquiesced in.

It occurs to me, therefore, that as the principal objection on the part of Mexico to submit to an arbitration is Chiapas, if Guatemala would consent in advance that a judgment should be rendered against her upon that point, an agreement to submit the other differences which exist between the two countries to arbitration could be arrived at.

I am, sir, &c.,

P. H. MORGAN.