Boundary Between Nicaragua and Costa Rica 23 



at San Juan del Norte, as formerly, fol- 

 lowed another course to the ocean, known 

 as the Colorado River, while the lower 

 San Juan, which was formerly the main 

 stream, became a subordinate distribu- 

 tary. This led to a new dispute, Nicara- 

 gua claiming that the main stream, or 

 Colorado River, was the true boundary, 

 and calling in question in general the 

 validity of the provisions of the treaty of 

 1858. This dispute was submitted to the 

 arbitration of President Cleveland, who 

 made an award on March 22, 1888, de- 

 claring the treaty to be valid, and the old 

 or San Juan River to be the line. This 

 decision was accepted by both republics, 

 and at their request an umpire was ap- 

 pointed by President Cleveland to decide 

 doubtful points during the survey of the 

 boundary line. General E. P. Alexander, 

 of North Carolina, was appointed to fill 

 this position, and the boundary line has 

 recently been surveyed. 



During the progress of this survey sev- 

 eral interesting points of difference arose 

 between the representatives of Nicaragua 

 and Costa Rica, which were decided by 

 the arbitrator to the satisfaction of both 

 parties. The first point, and a very impor- 

 tant one, related to the point of beginning, 

 called in the treaty " Punta de Castilla." 

 The lower San Juan, after separating 

 from the Colorado, flows toward Grey- 

 town for a considerable distance and then 

 sends a small distributary to the ocean 

 called the Tauro. The main river reaches 

 the Caribbean near Greytown, through 

 two mouths with an insular delta between 

 them. 



Nicaragua claimed that the mouth of 

 the Tauro should be considered as the 

 mouth of the San Juan, and that the point 

 of beginning was at the right bank of the 

 mouth of this distributary, but there 

 seems to have been little basis for this 

 claim. 



Costa Rica claimed as the starting point 

 the western extremity of the deltaic isl- 

 and, the base of this claim being that this 

 was the risfht bank of the mouth of the 



main San Juan and that it had been called 

 Punta de Castilla by three authorities 

 cited, one of them being a prominent 

 Nicaraguan politician, Mr. J. A. Gamez. 



The arbitrator pointed out, however, 

 that a large array of authority, including 

 nearly all public maps, called this Punta 

 Arenas, and that if such an important con- 

 cession had been made by Nicaragua the 

 representatives of Costa Rica would cer- 

 tainly have insisted upon mentioning the 

 name " Punta Arenas " in the treaty, and 

 similarly, if the Tauro had been intended, 

 the representative of Nicaragua would 

 certainly have insisted upon the insertion 

 of that name ; but neither of these names 

 occur in the treaty. The point which was 

 the extremity of the headland of Punta 

 de Castilla in 1858 has now long been 

 swept over by the Caribbean Sea, and so 

 many changes have occurred in the shore 

 outline that it is not now possible to lo- 

 cate the exact spot. The arbitrator there- 

 fore decided that " under these circum- 

 stances it best fulfils the demands of the 

 treaty and of President Cleveland's award 

 to adopt what is properly the Headland 

 of to-day ; or the northwestern extremity 

 of what seems to be the solid land on the 

 east side of Harbour Head Lagoon; and 

 the initial line of the boundary to run as 

 follows, to-wit: 



" Its direction shall be due northeast 

 and southwest, across the bank of sand, 

 from the Caribbean Sea into the waters of 

 Harbour Head Lagoon. 



" It shall pass, at its nearest point, three 

 hundred (300) feet on the northwest side 

 from the small hut now standing in that 

 vicinity. 



" On reaching the waters of Harbour 

 Head Lagoon the Boundary Line shall 

 turn to the left, .or south-eastward, and 

 shall follow the water's edge around the 

 Harbour, until it reaches the river proper 

 by the first channel met. 



" Up this channel, and up the river 

 proper, the line shall continue to ascend 

 as directed in the Treaty." 



The next point of difference was that 



