File No. 817.812/100.
The Minister of Costa Rica to the Secretary of State.12
Washington, August 31, 1914.
Excellency: Although informally, I know that the latest treaty with Nicaragua has been or shortly will be submitted to the consideration of the Senate. I have no knowledge of the textual wording of that important document but from the information at hand I may draw the conclusion that the rights of Costa Rica are left in the same situation of disregard in which they were placed by the original treaty that is known to us. The reasons which Costa Rica considered more than sufficient for the presentation of her resolute but respectful protest against this act—which Costa Rica considers not only violative [Page 968] of her national sovereignty but also violative of the existing treaties with the Republic of Nicaragua which have so clearly and distinctly received the official recognition of the United States—are therefore still left standing.
President Cleveland’s award first decides that the Cañas-Jérez Treaty of 1858 is valid, and Article VIII of that convention says:
Should the canal or transit contracts entered into before the Government of Nicaragua had knowledge of this convention lapse for any reason whatever, Nicaragua binds itself not to conclude any other contract for the same purpose without first hearing the opinion of the Government of Costa Rica respecting the difficulties to both countries that may attend the transaction, etc.
The views of the Government of Costa Rica were not sought at the appropriate time, as provided by the Treaty of 1858, when the Chamorro-Weitzel treaty and the present Chamorro-Bryan treaty were drawn up. There was obvious violation of the Treaty of 1858 and disregard of President Cleveland’s award: a sufficient ground to warrant a declaration of war on the part of Costa Rica had we been less peaceful by temperament and entertained no fear of gravely compromising the great interests of growing civilization achieved through so many efforts and sacrifices. There is also a lively hope resting on the sense of justice that has animated the Government of the United States whenever there was a question of invading our rights.
President Cleveland’s award further provides that “the Republic of Costa Rica can deny to the Republic of Nicaragua the right of deviating the waters of the River San Juan in case such deviation will result in the destruction or serious impairment of the navigation of the said river or any of its branches at any point where Costa Rica is entitled to navigate the same.”
“The Republic of Nicaragua,” adds the award, “remains bound not to make any grants for canal purposes across her territory without first asking the opinion of the Republic of Costa Rica, as provided in Article VIII of the Treaty of Limits of April 15, 1858.”
And in the opinion of the illustrious arbitrator that opinion ceases to be advisory only to be converted into a requisite declaration of consent when the construction of the canal involves an injury to the rights of Costa Rica. Now the award defining those natural rights of Costa Rica goes on to say: “The natural rights of the Republic of Costa Rica alluded to in the said stipulation are the rights which, in view of the boundaries fixed by the said Treaty of Limits, she possesses in the soil thereby recognized as belonging exclusively to her; the rights which she possesses in the harbors of San Juan del Norte and Salinas Bay; and the rights which she possesses in so much of the River San Juan as lies more than three English miles below Castillo Viejo, measuring from the exterior fortifications of the said castle as the same existed in the year 1858; and perhaps other rights not here particularly specified. These rights are to be deemed injured in any case where the territory belonging to the Republic of Costa Rica is occupied or flooded; where there is an encroachment upon either of said harbors injurious to Costa Rica; or where there is such an obstruction or deviation of the River San Juan as to destroy or seriously impair the navigation of the said river or any of its branches at any point where Costa Rica is entitled to navigate the same.”
[Page 969]Years thereafter, when the Government of the United States thought seriously of building the interoceanic canal and appointed that most distinguished commission styled the Isthmian Canal Commission, or Walker Commission, the commission submitted that noted report of November 16, 1908, in whose Chapter VIII dealing with “Rights, Privileges and Franchises” is found the following: “The treaties bearing on the Nicaragua route must first be considered, these including not only the treaties concluded with the Republic of Nicaragua but also those to which the Republic of Costa Rica was a contracting party, since the geographical situation requires the consent of both Governments before the canal can be built; over that route; for, however small may be the part of the territory! of the last-named Republic that will be used in any of the plans under consideration, a good deal of it will be affected.” To that eminent commission the history of the treaties concluded with a view to the opening of the Nicaragua canal made it evident that the work “could not be carried on without the consent and authority of Costa Rica:”
Lastly, the Department of State is aware of the protocol signed by the United States simultaneously with the Republics of Costa Rica and Nicaragua for the purpose of securing to itself those preliminary rights which it deemed sufficient to insure future definitive property rights over the canal. Then and at all times the United States explicitly recognized the rights of Costa Rica, and this would be the only time at which, while tacitly recognizing them as the Secretary of State has done on more than one occasion, a precedent would be established which might later cause disturbances of grave consequence to us.
It would therefore be highly expedient from the standpoint of international justice to insert in the body of the treaty with Nicaragua a clause, paragraph or sentence which would make it clear that the rights of Costa Rica are not included in the present negotiation with Nicaragua.
All the precedents of righteous behavior on the part of the United States which the Secretary of State will find in the highly authoritative report of the Isthmian Canal Commission will sanction that step which, without in the least hampering the success of the treaty, will afford just satisfaction to my country.
This occasion affords me the honor of renewing [etc.]
- Receipt acknowledged November 21, 1914.↩