Doc. No. 75. 



293 



At fhat very time, the Mentor Castaricense , No. 34, published the basis 

 of the new constitution to be decreed by the assembly of the State; in 

 which they definitively fixed the boundary line between Nicaragua and 

 Costa Rica from the Flor river, on the Pacific side, to that of San Juan, 

 'on the Atlantic, which line cuts the southern extremity of the famous 

 lake of Grenada, and the southern shores of the river San Juan. In con- 

 ^sequence of this a reclamation was addressed on the 18th of the same 

 month of July^ in which the frank and loyal conduct of Nicaragua in 

 relation to this question is manifested, inviting the provisional chief of 

 Costa Rica to intercede with the assembly ^^to abstain in their constitu- 

 tional chart from fixing those limits, reserving to do it (these are the 

 words of the note) when the question shah have been friendly decided 

 t)y the means already proposed, which were worthy of consideration." 

 The chief of the State answered this communication by an edict of the 

 assembly, emitted on the 5th of August, in which they approved of the 

 conduct of the executive power in order to this question, charging him 

 to sustain it with prudence, and to manifest to Nicaragua that the in- 

 tentions of Costa Rica were to maintain their relations as if they were but 

 one family.'^ To prove this assertion, an additional article was added to 

 the constitution, viz; ''But the boundaiy line that separates this State 

 from that of Nicarasrua shall be definitively fixed when Costa Rica shall 

 have been heard in the national representration, or when this afi'air shall 

 liave been submitted to the impartial judgment of one or more of the 

 States of the repubhc." 



It must be observed in the communication from the ministry of Co&ta 

 Rica, and to it I call the attention of the impartial reader, that to satisfy 

 Nicaragua (it says) that they do not possess any other right to retain the 

 territory in question than that of its being Rdeposife which was intrusted 

 to them by the federal Congress, by the decree of the 9th of December, 

 1825-, already quoted-, because if they returned it, they say, without an 

 order from the depositor, it would highly compromise the depositary;" 

 to which it was answered, that their quality of depositing denoted their 

 obligation to return it to the legitimate owner; that Nicaragua, being now 

 independent from the other States, had a right to recover it^, for the same 

 reasons that a man when he becomes of age recovers his property that, 

 till then, had been in the hands of his tutor. In fact, if the district of 

 Nicoya was, before the decree of the 9th of Decemiber, 1825; a part of 

 Nicaragua; if the Congress of the repubhc, which administrated the affairs 

 of the nation., had made Costa Rica depositary , without depriving JNica- 

 ragua of its lawful rights; and if, before giving the property definitively 

 to Costa Rica, both consented to the dissolution of the Union, in virtue 

 of which the Congress existed-, it is unquestionable that Nicaragua, after 

 the dissolution, is apt to recover tlie deposiie, and the depositary, who 

 knows to whom it belongs, has no excuse to retain it when the depositor 

 does not exist. To sustain other opinions, would be to introduce a prin- 

 ciple ruinous to society; it would be to sow the seed of discord amongst 

 the people; to expose the saeredness of propert}^ to the caprices of pas- 

 sions, introducing disorder and confusion among the citizens. 



At that time I was unfortunately in the ministry when these affairs 

 were being dissenting; and I confess, that if 1 hesitated in adopting the 

 •arbitrament, it was not only on account of the States then which did not 

 inspire suificieat confidence to settle a question of so much interest to 



