296 



Doc. No 75. 



use to be made of the rivers for the traffic of their people. This mode of 

 expressing itself was, in those unfortunate circumstances for Nicaragua, 

 a most scandalous mystification^ because the government of Costa Rica 

 could not conceal its intention of binding the question of limits to the re- 

 sult of the question which the former State sustains against Great Britain, 

 on account of the occupation of the port of San Juan ; from which event 

 it has proposed to itself to derive all possible advantage, widiout being 

 deterred by the considerations due, in misfortune; to its neighbor; its 

 friend, its brother, from whom it has received so many proofs of loyalty 

 and kindness. The journal styfed the Paz y el Progreso^'* of the said 

 State (No. 6, of the 8th of January, 1848,) had already given out the de- 

 signs, upon this point, of some few merchants of San Jose of great repu- 

 tation and influence with the ministry, when, in speaking of the occupa- 

 tion of San Juan, it said : ^' lliis occupation, mhich ive consider as a deed 

 cmsummated and irremediable, and the consequent establishment of art 

 opulent wercafitile cofo7iy at that port, opens a new era to the commerce of 

 Costa Rica. When (it continued) the liberty of transit is insured, we may 

 undertake the opening of the Serapique road for the exportatv/U of our pro- 

 duce by the Atlantic. We may even think of tJie practicability of the func- 

 tion of one sea with the other across our ternt ry until the Nicaraguan canal 

 is opened, and we sha I finally be able to aspire to a rapid aggranilizernent 

 and prosperity ifc. The government of Nicaragua naturally resented 

 this conduct, observing the abjuration which Costa Rica miade of the re- 

 lations of Nicaragua, when circumstances called the two States to closer 

 ties by the bonds of union and of friendship. If Costa Rica had, in good 

 faith, tried for its relations ; if its object was to protect its commerce and 

 industry by facilitating the means of communication, why did it not 

 accept the treaty of the 12Lh of December, 1846? Why did it refuse to 

 propose the modifications which it had a right to demand, and Nicaragua 

 w^as disposed to accept? 



Notwithstanding all this, the reply of the ministry of Nicaragua, dated 

 the 7th of June, 1847, was full of moderation and dignity. It stated 

 therein to the government of Costa Rica, that the government of Nicar- 

 agua would agree to the opening of the road which Costa Rica proposed, 

 provided an arrangement was previously made upon the subject, for which 

 purpose it was disposed to receive any commissioner whom the said 

 government might think fit to accredit with such charge, requesting it to 

 abstain in the niean time from any works in order to avoid the consequent 

 discussions. The government of Costa Rica showed itself agreeable to 

 sending the commissioner, promising to do so as soon as it should, from 

 the examinations or surveys then making by the travelling committee, 

 turn out to be practicable to make a road tor carts, for the exportation of 

 the produce of the country by the river Sarapique. ((Communication of the 

 5th of July, 1848.) Whilst it gave this reply, the works for the road 

 towards Serapique were in full activity, and the government of Costa 

 Rica placed itself in communication with the British consul, Mr. Frederick 

 Chaifield, for arranging the navigation of the San Juan with the greatest 

 possible advantage, and to insure itself a support with the government of 

 Her Majesty for appropriating to itself the south bank of that river, the 

 principal object of the question of limits., 



On the other hand, the government of Nicaragua was treating of send- 

 ing to this court the coirmiissioner for arranging the question with regard 



