572 



MEXICO. 



ohown that the voting took place without the presence 

 <>i' Mvxu'an forces in any part of the State, and that 

 there was a large majority in favor f Mexico). 4. 

 Socomisoo, in 1821, was a partido of the Intendency 

 of Chiapas, and as such united with the Mexican 

 Empire. 6. Soconusco, in 1821, voted freely in favor 

 of union with Mexico on the 8d day of May. 6. The 

 act drawn up at Tapachula on the Mfth day of July, 

 l-^-'t. was a revolutionary and illegal procedure. 7. 

 (Yntrul America recognized tho Supreme Junta of 

 Chiapas, and agreed to respect its decision," etc. 

 \Vithut ci>|)vin,' the entire summary, the preceding 

 will convin.vtlio ro;tdorthat . tlie Mexican Government 

 has never based its ori/nul rights t" OhiapM and So- 

 conusoo upon I-.MI [iio^t. As to recent event*, the 

 f complaint against M-xici pMMBtad by the 

 Government of Guatemala to the Government of the 

 United States are four in number : 



1. That the diplomatic effort* made to reach a set- 

 tlement with Mexico have been fruitless. 



2. That there exists a preliminary and partial agree- 

 ment for tho purpose of ascertaining what are the true 

 limits; and that the Guatemalan commissions of ex- 

 ploration sent to survey the region in order to pre- 

 pare tlie basis for a definitive settlement were im- 

 prisoned by the Mexican authorities. 



3. That "the agents of Guatemala charged to take a 



the territory in question were treated in tho 



same m inner. 



4. That the Mexican Government has cautiously 

 but constantly invaded the frontier district which had 

 heretofore been in the possession of Guatemala, re- 

 placing the local authorities which were thero cxist- 

 ing by those of Mexico, thus augmenting the area of 

 tlu disputed territory. 



It will ba convenient to reply to these points in the 

 same order : 



1. Diplomatic efforts for the settlement of limits 

 with Guatemala have always and exclusively been 

 initiated by Mexico. In 1832 the Mexican Govern- 

 ment sent Don Manuel Diez do Bonilla as Envoy and 

 Minister Plenipotentiary, and in 1853 Don Juan N. 

 de Pereda with the same character, without obtaining 

 any result. Senor Pereda remained in Guatemala un- 

 til the year 1853. In the various interviews which 

 he had with Don Manuel Pavon, Minister of Foreign 

 Affairs of that republic, that gentleman constantly 

 r-fu-ied to celebrate a treaty of limits, and said that 

 Guatemala proposed, in the pending negotiations 

 with Mexico, to simply recognize the st<xtit quo of tho 

 frontier between the two countries without any alter- 

 ation. Senor Pereda had to suspend his official re- 

 lations with the Government of Guatemala on account 

 of the refusal of the latter to treat concerning limits, 

 and because the said Government, in a discourteous 

 and offensive manner, refused to grant the intern- 

 ment of several emiyrados from Mexico, who were 

 conspiring against the peace of this republic. The 

 question of limits was not again discussed until Octo- 

 ber, 1873, when Senor Lafragua, Minister of Foreign 

 Affairs, addressed a note to Senor Garcia Granados, 

 charge d'affaires of Guatemala, indicating the neces- 

 sity that the question should be concluded. For that 

 purpose he invited the Government of Guatemala to 

 appoint a plenipotentiarv to open the negotiations in 

 this capital. Senor Uriarte, the new Minister of 

 Guatemala, replied after some months, in July, 1874, 

 after Senor Lafragua had asked him by note whether 

 the said invitation was accepted, that he was pro- 

 vided with full power to enter upon negotiations. 

 On the 21st of August Senor Uriarte presented a 

 memorandum to serve as a basis for discussion. Aft- 

 er various conferences, Senor Lafragua replied to the 

 memorandum, by a note dated October 9, 1875. with 

 which he inclosed a draft of a treaty of limits be- 

 tween the two republics. This important note, al- 

 ready alluded to, has remained without reply, as has 

 also been previously remarked. In July, 1877, nego- 

 tiations were resumed between Senor Vallarta, as 

 Plenipotentiary of Mexico, and Senor Uriarte, Minis- 



ter of Guatemala. The result was the convention of 

 December 7th of that year. 



2. The note of Mr. Blaine alludes to this conven- 

 tion. By it, as already indicated, there was created 

 a mixed commission of Mexican and Guatemalan en- 

 gineers, charged with making a .survey, forming plans, 

 and fixing astronomically certain points in order to 

 advance the knowledge of the question at issue, and 

 afterward continue the discussion upon tlie limits 

 of the two republics. In Article X it was stipulated 

 that, during the suspension of negotiations upon lim- 

 its, the high contracting powers would religiously re- 

 spect and cause to be respected the actual possession, 

 not raising or allowing to be raised any question rela- 

 tive to boundary-marks, and preventing every act of 

 hostility on the part cither ot the authorities or citi- 

 zens ot the two republics. The commissioners met 

 at Tapachula, November 18, 1878, and began their 

 operations. On the 26th of January, 1880, three en- 

 gineers of the Guatemalan commission appeared in 

 the vicinity of Cuilco Viejo, a village of Soconusco, 

 accompanied by a number of Indians, and placed 

 there a cross. The local authorities believed that 

 this act was intended to advance the boundary-port 

 of Pinabete, recognized as the limit between tne two 

 republics, and situated eight leagues farther north, as 

 had been done years before by tlie inhabitants of 

 Tacana. a village belonging to Guatemala. Under 

 this belief they questioned the said engineers, and 

 not receiving satisfactory explanations ot the act, nor 

 being shown any document proving their character 

 as commissioners, the said authorities arrested them 

 and sent them to Tapachula. There they were im- 

 mediately set at liberty by the political chief, who 

 gave them the fullest reparations. This is the only 

 case of imprisonment of engineers which Guatemala 

 can cite, and as to this incident that Government 

 appeared to be satisfied. The Mexican Government 

 then believed that the local authorities had acted er- 

 roneously, but later acts of the Government of Guate- 

 mala show that it had really been intended to change 

 the landmarks. 



3. A motive similar to the foregoing occasioned 

 the arrest of the agents of Guatemala, to which allu- 

 sion has been made. In December, 1880, a commis- 

 sion, composed of the alcalde of Tacaua and four 

 other persons, proceeded to register the inhabitants of 

 some randierias, which, although a league distant 

 from the Mexican village of Cuilco Viejo, form an in- 

 tegral part thereof. They went not, as alleged, to 

 take a census in disputed territory, but to exercise 

 acts of jurisdiction in the place, in order afterward to 

 adduce them as a proof or possession by Guatemala. 

 It is to be noted that the inhabitants of Tacana, whose 

 alcalde is the present subject of discussion, were the 

 same who at a former time advanced the boundary- 

 post of Pinabete, and that the ranckerias in question 

 would have been on Guatemalan territory if the said 

 landmark had remained where it was then placed, on 

 which spot the cross was afterward raised by the 

 Guatemalan engineers. The said commissioners, who 

 thus violated the convention binding them to respect 

 the actual possession, were therefore justly arrested, 

 and turned over to the district judge, in order that 

 he misrht act in accordance with the laws of Mexico. 

 The Minister of Guatemala complained of this act, 

 alleging that those ranckerias belonged and had al- 

 ways belonged to his country. In the reply made to 

 him, under date of the 27th of January last', the inac- 

 curacy of his assertions was proved by showing that 

 those rancherias were within the provisional limits of 

 Mexico, and that they belong to this republic, even 

 according to the official map of Guatemala. In refut- 

 ing the charges made bv Senor Herrera in his note, 

 against the Mexican authorities, it was shown by re- 

 cent facts that the abuses have been on the pr.rt of the 

 Guatemalan authorities. As Senor Herrera based the 

 title of his country to the said points on the fact that 

 there were certain assistant alcaldes appointed by the 

 authority at Sibinal, a village of Guatemala, the un- 



