Outbreak of hostilities between Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala—Discreditable conduct of Nicaragua proved—Failure of United States and Mexican intervention—Dignified and loyal attitude of General Figueroa—Warning to Honduras—President DÁvila used as Zelaya's cat's-paw—The latter's subsequent regret—Central American Court of Justice trial of claim for damages, and result of judgment.

The true friends of interstate peace, of whom there are as many in Latin America as other parts of the world—although, from the frequent turmoils which occur in that part of the globe, one might be excused for doubting it—were much distressed by the serious quarrel which broke out between the neighbouring Republics of Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, in the years 1907-08. This was not by any means the first conflict which arose between Salvador and Honduras, for the two States were at war in 1871, when General Miranda invaded Honduras with the object of proclaiming General Xatruch as President in place of General Medina; again in 1872, when were fought the famous battles of Sabana Grande and Santa BÁrbara; and in 1873, when Salvador sent an armed expedition against President Celio Arias, and in order to restore General Ponciano Leiva to the Presidency of the neighbouring Republic. Although the relations between Nicaragua and its adjoining States had long been on a questionable basis owing to the ambitious projects of General J. Santos Zelaya, its President, there was no reason to anticipate any disturbance, more especially as at the most critical time, owing to the intervention of the United States and Mexico, the cloud had blown over, and to all appearances peace reigned.

The worthlessness of the intervention, and the absolute ineptitude of the United States to effect any permanent improvement in the prevailing conditions, was, however, proved conclusively a few months after the Treaty of Peace and Amity had been signed, amid somewhat premature rejoicings at Washington, on December 20, 1907. Almost before the ink was dry upon the document, Honduranean and Nicaraguan troops had violated the terms and conditions, and continued, moreover, to do so in spite of all diplomatic reminders and serious warnings from the United States. In these "warnings," however, Mexico took no part, merely using the good offices of President Diaz to effect what the threat of the Big Stick had failed to accomplish. Eventually peace was proclaimed, and since then it has been strictly maintained as between the different Republics, although not by any means so within their own borders, as witness what has recently occurred, and is still occurring, in Honduras, and, alas! within Mexican territory, also. It seems a cruel irony that Diaz the Dictator should so soon have become the Deposed. The fact recalls forcibly the poet Burns's well-known words:

The true history of these Republics' quarrels of recent times would at this stage be somewhat difficult to record, since an immense quantity of official documents would have to be translated and given in full. To do this, however interesting, would prove impracticable within the limits of a single volume. The matter has been sketched by me from personal knowledge, and I trust that I shall escape the charge of prejudice or unfairness to any of the parties involved.

For the facts set forth abundant evidence can be procured, and possibly, if my account be compared with the many versions which have been from time to time adduced by others, who have spoken and written from authoritative or personal information, it will not be found to vary very much in the main particulars. I have patiently listened to the accounts of all that took place both on Salvadorean and on Nicaraguan territory, and, furthermore, the incidents which both led up to and followed the clash of arms were related to me by the participants when all feeling of animosity and bitterness had disappeared, and the usual friendliness between the members of this strangely mercurial people had been restored. Thus very little for spirit of resentment—although perhaps something for the vainglorious spirit of the individuals concerned—need be allowed. Il est difficile toujours d'estimer quelqu'un comme il veut l'Être.

Considerable as is the space which I have given up in this volume to the relations of the Salvadorean, Honduranean, and Nicaraguan troubles, I find it impossible to publish in its entirety, as I should have liked to have done, the text of the complaints presented by the Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua against that of Salvador, and which were heard before and decided by the Central American Court of Justice, as well as the final answer and arguments which were later on issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Salvador. All these documents, which fill two substantial and closely-printed pamphlets, the one consisting of 84 pages and the other of 108 pages, are extremely interesting and instructive, serving as they do to throw a particularly clear light upon the methods of some of the Central American States, which imagine that they are acting in an "honourable" manner and fulfilling a respectable destiny.

It is significant that these publications, which are complete and official, were issued by the Government of Salvador, from which it is clear at least that this country had nothing to fear from the world at large being made acquainted with the history of the troubles. No less worthy of comment is it that neither Honduras nor Nicaragua has ever made any rejoinder to the arguments and conclusions of the Court of Justice or of the Salvadorean Government, and in this action, perhaps, they have for the first time shown some intelligent discretion.

The impartial reader of these publications can only arrive at one conclusion, nor, indeed, is it even necessary that he should know anything of either the countries or their inhabitants to be able to form some sensible deduction from the actual position. The correspondence, the genuineness of which is unchallenged, speaks for itself. It seems clear that the Government of Salvador, while subscribing in Washington the Central American Treaty of Peace, swore faithfully to fulfil the International Agreement which bound it to its sister Republics, and at the same time opened for itself and for them, as it had every reason to hope and believe, a new era of confraternity to be maintained in dignity and mutual advantage. To the principles of that Treaty, Salvador adhered with the utmost rigour; and, in the face of the most intense provocation, refused to depart one inch from its solemn obligations. The attitude which this small but high-principled State showed at this time of trouble and trial has evoked the admiration and commendation of all statesmen, independently of country, or creed, or political belief.

To particularize more minutely from the abundant evidence which exists to this effect, and which may be gathered from every page of these two pamphlets, is unnecessary in this volume; but one fact at least I may call attention to, as exemplifying the honesty of purpose and the good faith of the Salvadorean Government towards the Republic of Honduras, at a time, moreover, when only armed retaliation could reasonably have been looked for.

In all probability the friendliness of President Figueroa for his neighbours would never have been questioned, nor their relations have been in any way embittered, but for the Machiavellian interference of Santos Zelaya. It is an eloquent fact of the sympathy felt for Honduras, that President Figueroa of Salvador wrote personally, and almost affectionately, to President DÁvila, on June 10, 1907, drawing his attention to the revolutionary plans of certain Honduranean exiles who were making Salvadorean territory their temporary headquarters. Only feelings of friendship and good-nature could have prompted a neighbourly action of this kind, which, however, some few months afterwards was rewarded by President DÁvila allowing his troops to join forces with the Nicaraguans in their invasion of Salvadorean territory.

This I may say in defence of ex-President Miguel R. DÁvila, whom I know quite well, and with whom I have had many long and interesting conversations: he is a man of great honesty of purpose, but of singularly weak will; in fact, he has neither initiative nor power of moral resistance. Quiet and modest to an extraordinary degree, speaking very little above a whisper, and with the manners of a curate rather than those of a soldier, one is inclined to rather wonder que diable fait-il dans cette galÈre of President of an unruly and half-savage Republic.

In agreeing to join Zelaya upon his mad and mendacious enterprise, President Miguel DÁvila, who had only assumed the Presidency in the month of April of that year (1907), undoubtedly allowed his better judgment and sense of decency to be overruled. This do I know, also: he has deeply and sincerely repented of his action, not because it failed and he lost the game at which he had consented to try his hand, but because, being a man, as I have said, of innate honesty of purpose, he perceived when too late that he had committed what is a worse offence than a mistake—a crime against personal honour.

General Fernando Figueroa, however, did something more than merely warn President DÁvila of the plotting going on against his government and his life, and which was proceeding beyond his own jurisdiction. He actually prevented the leader of the Honduranean revolutionists, General TÉofilo CÁrcamo, from leaving Salvadorean territory, keeping him, with many other conspirators, in prison, and thus helping to quell an uprising against President DÁvila's government.

The magnanimity of the Salvadorean Government continued to the end. Notwithstanding the finding of the Central American Court of Justice, (delivered on December 19, 1908), and which, being in favour of Salvador upon all points raised, should sequentia have carried costs, the Government forewent any such claims, which by the terms usually prevailing under International Law could have been insisted upon, and found its share of the expenses incurred by the inquiry.

Subsequent to the troubles related in the foregoing pages, the Honduranean Government stupidly courted fresh disasters by prosecuting a claim for damages against the two Republics of Salvador and Guatemala for injuries which it declared it had sustained as a result of those two sister-States having harboured Honduranean agitators and conspirators within their borders. The exact value of this claim can best be judged by perusing the following questions that were considered and determined by the Special Court of Justice which was formed in Costa Rica (the only State which stood aside and refused to be concerned in this Central American squabble), and the members of which were made up of five different nationalities. Attached is a faithful translation of what transpired on this occasion:

In the Central American Court of Justice at Cartago, Costa Rica.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS VERSUS THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE REPUBLICS OF EL SALVADOR AND GUATEMALA.

Decision: in the City of Cartago, Costa Rica, at Midnight Of The 19th of December, 1908.

Upon the closing of the deliberations of the Court for pronouncing judgment in the complaint filed by the Government of the Republic of Honduras against the Governments of the Republics of El Salvador and Guatemala, charging responsibility that took place in the first-mentioned Republic in the month of June last, the Chief Justice submitted the following queries to be voted upon in rendering the decision that is to settle the controversy:

First Question.—Should the Court sustain the exception taken by the representative of the Government of Guatemala as to the inadmissibility of the complaint, on grounds that it was filed before all negotiations for settlement, between the two respective Departments of Foreign Affairs, had been resorted to without success?

The result of the vote cast was as follows:

First Question.—The five justices answered in the negative.

Second Question.—Should the Court sustain the exception taken by the same party, as to the insufficiency of basis of action, considering that no evidence was filed together with the complaint?

Second Question.—The five justices answered in the negative.

Third Question.—Is it proven, and should it thus be held, that the Government of the Republic of El Salvador has violated Article 17 of the Treaty of Peace and Amity, signed at Washington on December 20, 1907, by failing to bring to the Capital and to submit to trial Honduranean exiles who endangered the peace of their country?

Third Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justices UclÉs and Madriz in the affirmative.

Fourth Question.—Is it proven, and should it thus be held, that the Government of the Republic of El Salvador has violated Article 2 of the additional convention to said treaty by fostering and promoting the revolutionary movement referred to?

Fourth Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, Astua, and Madriz answered in the negative, and Justice UclÉs in the affirmative.

Fifth Question.—Is it proven, and should it be held, that the Government of the Republic of El Salvador has contributed to the realization of the said political disturbance, through culpable negligence?

Fifth Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justices UclÉs and Madriz in the affirmative.

Sixth Question.—In consequence, should the Court hold that the action instituted against the Government of the Republic of El Salvador is according to law, and, if so, should that Government be sentenced to pay the indemnity for damages that the complainant prays for?

Sixth Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justices UclÉs and Madriz in the affirmative.

Seventh Question.—Is it proven, and should it be held, that the Government of the Republic of Guatemala has violated Article 17 of the Treaty of Peace and Amity, signed at Washington on December 20, 1907, by failing to bring to the Capital and submit to trial Honduranean exiles who endangered the peace of their country?

Seventh Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justice UclÉs in the affirmative.

Eighth Question.—Is it proven, and should it be held, that the Government of the Republic of Guatemala has violated Article 2 of the additional convention to the said treaty by fostering and promoting the revolutionary movement referred to?

Eighth Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justice UclÉs in the affirmative.

Ninth Question.—Is it proven, and should it be held, that the Government of the Republic of Guatemala has contributed to the realization of the said political disturbance, through culpable negligence?

Ninth Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justice UclÉs in the affirmative.

Tenth Question.—In consequence, should the Court hold that the action instituted against the Government of the Republic of Guatemala is according to law, and, if so, should the Government be sentenced to pay the indemnity for damages the complainant prays for?

Tenth Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justice UclÉs in the affirmative.

Eleventh Question.—Should costs be awarded against the losing parties?

Eleventh Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justice UclÉs in the sense that costs be awarded against the Governments of the Republics of El Salvador and Guatemala.

From the above-stated result, judgment is rendered dismissing the action instituted against the Governments of the Republics of El Salvador and Guatemala without costs.

JosÉ Astua Aguilar.
Salvador Gallegos.
Angel M. Bocanegra.
Alberto UclÉs.
JosÉ Madriz.

Witness: Ernesto Martin, Secretary.

A more impudent or baseless claim than that put forward by Honduras, and decided by the Central American Court of Justice, can hardly be imagined. That the Honduranean Government would ever have thought of prosecuting it at all but for the instigation from its immediate neighbour seems hardly probable.

That the Court should have found a decision overwhelmingly in favour of Salvador and Guatemala was only natural, but it seems unfair that, having come to that inevitable conclusion, costs should not have followed the event, and that Honduras should not have been condemned to pay them.

There is but one consolation (a poor one, I am afraid) open to the Republics of Guatemala and Salvador in this connection—namely, that had the Court ordered Honduras to pay the costs of the inquiry, it would never have done so, any more than it has paid back to its foreign creditors either the principal of, or, even the interest upon, the money which it borrowed.

Were the creditors American instead of British, some satisfactory settlement would have been arrived at long ago. Even as it is, the British bondholders will be unable to obtain a settlement of any kind without recourse to American interference, and, as may be well believed, it will be upon such terms as the Americans choose to approve of, and subject to such profits out of the transactions as the Americans choose to demand.

It is satisfactory at least to observe that Honduranean impudence did not succeed in the above instance in getting "any rise" out of either Salvador or Guatemala.

That the relations existing to-day between the two Republics of Salvador and Honduras are upon a more friendly basis, and that they are destined to so remain as long as the present Governments of the two countries remain in power, is proved from the interchange of congratulatory despatches made by Dr. Bertrand, President of Honduras, and Dr. Manuel Enrique Araujo, President of Salvador, in the month of March last, and copies of which I am enabled to give in this volume. The correspondence, conducted by telegraph, was as follows:

"Tegucigalpa,
"March 28, 1911.

"To H.E. the President, Dr. Manuel E. Araujo,
San Salvador.

"I have the honour to bring to the knowledge of Your Excellency that I have to-day taken possession of the Presidency of the Republic before the National Congress. In communicating this to you, I take pleasure in anticipating the good sentiments that animate me for the cultivation of better relations with the Government over which Your Excellency so worthily presides, presenting to you at the same time my good wishes for the well-being of the Republic and for Your Excellency's personal happiness.

"I am, Your Excellency's sincere
and devoted servant,
"F. Bertrand."

Reply from the President of Salvador.

"San Salvador,
"March 28, 1911.

"To H.E. President Dr. Bertrand, Tegucigalpa.

"I am delighted to receive Your Excellency's important message, which conveys to me the flattering news that such a distinguished citizen, to whom I am bound by chains of fraternal sympathy, has to-day taken possession of the elevated office of President of that Republic. Such a happy event is received with immense rejoicing by my Government and the general public, because it implies for the sister-Republic of Honduras peace and progress. I send good wishes for the well-being of Your Excellency, to whom I am pleased to offer the testimony of my perfect friendship and sympathy.

"Manuel E. Araujo."