Señor Peralta to Mr. Gresham.
Washington, June 17, 1893. (Received June 19.)
Sir: I have had the honor to receive your note of the 18th of May last, in reply to mine of April 12, of the current year, in which, in the name of my Government, I sought the good offices of the Government of the United States to the end that as a fraternal friend of Costa Rica and Colombia it might be pleased to recommend to the Government of Colombia the settlement of the boundary dispute pending between these two republics by means of the arbitration agreed upon by their respective governments by the treaty of December 25, 1880, and the additional one of the 20th of January, 1886.
This is the principal object of my note, which reduces itself simply to requesting of the Government of the United States a service of equal benefit to Colombia and Costa Rica.
The alternatives mentioned in my note come only second in order and apply only in the event of the Government of Colombia having declared in a direct and positive manner that it does not recognize the validity of the said conventions.
In support of this request I deemed it proper to make a succinct exposition of the facts that relate to the arbitration of this question, and in view of the serious consequences to which the state of uncertainty which marks the territorial relations of Costa Rica and Colombia may eventually give rise, it appeared to me expedient to present without [Page 290] delay to your kind consideration the alternatives to which the contending parties might have recourse without going out of legal limits.
For this reason my mention of the arbitration of the President of the Argentine Republic, prescribed by article 5 of the treaty of 1880, in case the Spanish Government declined the office of arbitrator; for this reason, in the event of nonacceptance by the President of the Argentine Republic, I indicated the advantage of a friendly arrangement between Colombia and Costa Rica, as prescribed by article 7 of said treaty, to tender the arbitration to the President of the United States, and in saying in my note of April 12 that the Government of Costa Rica would experience the greatest satisfaction in reaching an agreement with that of Colombia and with that of the United States upon the last point, I meant that before all the consent of the Government of the United States must be secured as it would not be prudent to think of the latter solution if the arbitrator desired by one of the parties declined to accept the said office.
Eliminating, then, these two last alternatives, the occasion for recourse to either of them not having arrived, what I have had the honor to request of the Government of the United States is that it be pleased to enlist its most friendly and persuasive offices with the Government of Colombia to the end that (in view of the resolve of Costa Rica to faithfully abide by what was agreed to, and of the declarations of the Spanish Government which rejects the interpretation given by Colombia to the terms of its acceptance of the office of arbitrator, and does not consider that the time set for the arbitration has lapsed) it may again appeal to the generous disposition of the Government of Her Catholic Majesty which, far from refusing said office, has manifested its willingness to reconsider the question if Colombia withdraws its declaration.
To this request you have been pleased to reply that the position of the Government of the United States as an impartial and equal friend of Colombia and Costa Rica does not allow it to manifest its wish for a harmonious settlement of the pending question between those two countries, by taking sides with either, and that as things now stand the President, although desirous to afford any service in keeping with said position, should the two governments wish it, can not advocate the contention of either of them, nor make the United States a party to the controversy, nor offer himself as an arbitrator.
Highly respectable as is the decision reached by the Government of the United States not to take part in the controversy in the premises, I regret to say that in order to reach the conclusions I have just specified, I must of necessity have either expressed myself very obscurely, failing to set forth with due clearness the intention and desires of my Government, or my note of the 12th of April was substantially altered by the translation you had before you.
In the first place I observe that you state that I have requested the mediation of the Government of the United States with that of Colombia to the end that the arbitration stipulated between Costa Rica and Colombia be revived and continued before Her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain as arbitrator, notwithstanding the acceptance by Her Majesty of the notice given by the Colombian Government to the effect that the arbitration had lapsed owing to the necessary proofs not having been submitted within the time prescribed by the conventions.
I have not asked that the arbitration be revived. We resuscitate or revive only what is dead, or has fallen, or disappeared, and the arbitration, according to the treaty of 1880, is the only means ad perpetuam stipulated by the parties to settle their boundary dispute; the arbitration [Page 291] itself is still in force and Colombia has not declared it to have lapsed, but has contented itself with alleging that the available time within which the Spanish Government could exercise its mission has expired.
The arbitration not having lapsed, the Spanish Government, which did not even accept the declaration that the period had expired within which, according to the terms of its acceptance, it should take the matter up and render its decision, could illy accept a declaration of this nature.
The Government of Her Catholic Majesty rejected the declaration of the Government of Bogota as unfounded, as contrary to the terms of the acceptance of the arbitration agreed to by the parties, and as in contradiction to the express manifestations of the minister of Colombia, and only through motives of dignity, as though it was justly offended by the imputation of negligence or want of jurisdiction involved in the declaration of Colombia, it stated that “it considered itself absolved from the engagement to fulfill its trust in view of the explicit declaration of the Colombian Government that the powers vested in it had lapsed, an opinion it respects and the consequences of which shall rule its conduct, even when, from the facts stated, it regrets not agreeing therewith.”
If you will be pleased to refer to the note of the Duke of Tetuan, of the 22d of January, 1892 (inclosure No. 8, annexed to my note of April 12), I am confident that you will agree to the accuracy of my observation expressed at length in my said note, and I refrain from repeating here the pertinent passages in order not to fatigue your attention.
You add that I base my request for the mediatory offices of the United States upon the supposition that the United States are a party to the conventions of 1880 and 1886, and that consequently they should uphold the stipulated arbitration and ask that it be held as in full force without the concluding of a new treaty of arbitration, etc.
It is true that one of the considerations upon which I relied to request the good offices of the Government of the United States is that the said Government is, in the opinion of mine, if not a signatory party of the treaties of 1880 and 1886, at least a party quasi contracting as a quasi protector and quasi ally of the Republic of Colombia, in virtue of the thirty-fifth article of the treaty of 1846, but your declaration that your Government is not a party commands too much respect for that of Costa Rica to attempt even to discuss it; but I adduced other reasons that are not less weighty when advanced to act on the mind of a Government which, like that of the United States, has always shown itself so nobly zealous for peace and harmony between the Latin Republics of this continent, and which has constituted itself the champion and promoter of arbitration as the wisest means to finally settle international disputes, and I submitted these reasons to your kind consideration as first in order of precedence.
In fact, in my said note I invoke the fraternal friendship which binds the United States to Costa Rica and Colombia, and I appeal to the interest which the Government you so worthily represent has in the prosperity and peace of these countries to seek its good offices as an equal and common favor, and as a request, but not in the imperative form attributed to me.
I did not say that the Government of the United States must uphold the arbitration and ask that it be upheld in all its vigor and force.
The subject of this phrase in my note of the 12th of April is not the Government of the United States but the Government of Costa Rica. [Page 292] This latter is the subject from the beginning of the clause, and the Government of the United States does not figure therein, except to show that by virtue of the stipulations which, out of consideration for it, were concluded in 1886, and because of the respect the parties owe each other, the Government of Costa Rica must uphold the arbitration and ask that it be upheld.
This imperative expression could not apply to the Government of the United States except through a bad translation of the sense of my note.
If I had thought that such expression, “must uphold the arbitration” was applicable to the Government of the United States I would not have contented myself with asking its good offices or its mediation, but would have entreated it to comply with an obligation, which is what the verb must implies in the phrase cited, “must uphold.”
I find myself unable to harmonize two ideas in your note. You say that I have solicited the mediation of the Government of the United States and that I have requested it to use its good offices and, notwithstanding you conclude by stating that you do not think it proper to urge the friendly settlement of the dispute by taking sides with either of the contending parties or by upholding the contention of either of them, as, apparently at least, you believe Costa Rica pretends.
I beg you will allow me to state that such has not been the intention of the Government of Costa Rica, which has addressed itself to the Government of the United States as an equal friend of Costa Rica and Colombia, invoking its fraternal friendship for both countries and its decided love for peaceful advancement without expecting it in any way to advance or support the contention of Costa Rica, nor that it shall side with the latter, but simply that it interpose its good offices or its mediation between the two parties with the object of both resorting to an arbitrator who will adjust their differences and award to each its own, in the form agreed upon by the two parties, freely and voluntarily.
To mediate (mediar) signifies in Spanish, as in English, to interpose between two or more parties, as a common friend, for the purpose of reconciling them; it would, therefore, be unjust to attribute to the Government of Costa Rica the intention even of asking the Government of the United States to espouse its cause.
Nor do I believe that by soliciting the good offices of the Government of the United States my Government has performed an unusual act, as seems to be implied by your note. Very frequently civilized nations and governments lend each other services of this kind, now requested by one of the parties, now voluntarily offered by a third, a common friend of the disputants, and in the special case of Costa Rica and Colombia, permit me to cite a precedent of the Government of the United States.
The minister of the United States in Bogota wrote to the Department of State in a dispatch of April 16, 1881:
The deep interest which you have manifested in your instructions to me that the cause of the strained relations between the governments of Colombia and Costa Rica might be removed in a friendly manner perhaps justifies me in adding that * * * it can not be otherwise than gratifying to you to learn that by the proposed treaty, now awaiting approval by the Colombian Congress, the danger of a breach of the peace in Central America has been averted, and the anxiety in the public mind connected with that subject has been allayed.*
The foregoing quotation reveals the friendly interest which in 1880 your Department took in the peaceful settlement of the boundary dispute between Costa Rica and Colombia.
[Page 293]And this interest was manifested subsequent to the concluding of the treaty of 1880, in the instructions which in May, 1881, were transmitted by your Department to Mr. Logan, U. S. minister to Costa Rica, and in which it is stated that the Government of the United States will not hold itself bound, so far as its rights, obligations, or interests may be concerned, by the decision of any arbitrator in whose appointment it has not been consulted, and in whose selection it has not concurred.*
For the very reason that the Government of the United States has to protect its interests and those of its citizens, it is of the greatest moment that it should define them and establish them with precision.
How, then, could the Government of Costa Rica have thought, when treating of this arbitration, whose results will necessarily tend to define the rights and obligations of the United States, that the Government thereof would declare that it is not interested in upholding and continuing it?
And if by reason of this question of boundary a war should break out between Costa Rica and Colombia, would not the United States believe themselves bound to exact respect for the neutrality of the undefined territory in dispute?
It could easily happen in this event that the Government of the United States, by virtue of its obligations to that of Colombia, would take part in the struggle, and Costa Rica would find itself under the painful necessity of defending its territorial integrity and its traditional rights against two nations as powerful as the United States of America and the Republic of Colombia, with whom it is anxious to maintain the closest friendship. My Government proposes to prevent such a contingency by appealing to the good offices and the high sense of equity of the United States.
The possibility of this contingency is demonstrated by the fact that the Government of Colombia asked that of the United States in 1885 to protect the safety of the Isthmus of Panama and the sovereignty of the former against enemies, domestic and foreign.
The domestic enemies of Colombia were, as is well known, the Colombian rebels who burned Colon. And the foreign? No one menaced the territory of the Isthmus. Costa Rica is friendly to Colombia, and was at perfect peace with her, and bound by the treaty of arbitration; but Colombia wished to take precautions and it is possible she thought of Costa Rica, since it is the only nation that is contiguous to her in the region comprehended under the guaranty of neutrality, property, and sovereignty stipulated in article 35 of the treaty of 1846.
Nor has my Government thought of doing an act without precedent or example among friendly nations, in suggesting a friendly agreement between Colombia and Costa Rica as possible, and desirable to request the Government of the United States to decide as arbitrator the question of boundaries.
If of three interested parties two submit themselves to the decision of the third, this does not mean that the latter offers itself as an arbitrator, but it is clear that its consent must be asked and obtained before the others submit to its judgment.
The United States being an interested party has not, then, been an obstacle to my Government’s thinking with the greatest satisfaction of asking and entreating the President, should occasion arise, to be pleased to accept the office of arbitrator.
[Page 294]This proposition demonstrates how unbounded and how firm is the confidence of my Government in the rectitude and loyalty of the Government of the United States, for, even taking it as an interested party and interested ostensibly in favor of Colombia, it respectfully submitted to its decision.
From the foregoing explanations I trust that you will be pleased to admit that in reality all that the Government of Costa Rica has requested of the Government of the United States, and all that I now have the honor to solicit in its name is that, as a common friend, it will be pleased to interpose its good offices between Colombia and Costa Rica in order that the boundary dispute pending between them may be settled by the arbitration agreed upon in 1880 and 1886, by recommending to the Government of Colombia, as in a like case it would do to that of Costa Rica, the advisability of such a settlement, in the interest of good harmony, of justice, and of security which should govern the relations of the three countries most directly interested in the preservation of peace on the Isthmus of Panama, whose boundary with Costa Rica it is important to define.
I avail, etc.,