Chapter XXXIV: Interoceanic Communication (10)

Further authorities for the preceding chapters are:
_Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, vols i.-iv., passim; _Id._,
_Discurso_, 1-12; _Guat._, _Recop. Leyes_, i. 1-72, 96-100,
164-79, 185-6, 197-202, 207, 217-73, 382-95, 453-5, 461-75,
592-600, 858-9, 877-8; ii. 83-260, 632-7; iii. 286, 338-48;
_Id._, _Bolet. Ofic._, 1831, no. 2; 1832, nos. 17, 20; 1833,
no. 34; 1834, nos. 34, 56, July 15, Oct. 15; 1836, no. 84;
1837, no. 10; 1838, no. 53; _Fernando VII._, _Documentos_,
264-76, 281-5, 292-311, 337-49; _Id._, _Decretos_, 4-10,
15-26, 33-73, 105-10, 120-34, 149-82, 194-201, 220-3,
243-81; _Ayon_, _Consid. Límites_, 20-4. _Id._, _Apuntes_,
passim; _Astaburuaga_, _C. Amer._, 12-32, 79-80; _Arce_,
_Mem._, passim; _Reichardt_, _Nic._, 76-9; _Id._, _Cent.
Am._, 37-44, 114-17, 133-4, 139-45, 208-11; _Pim's Gate
of the Pac._, 38, 56, 58-61; _Gac. Imp. Mex._, i. 162-3,
445-8, 477-9, 489-91, 503-5; ii. 554-61, 635, 657-9, 677-9,
735, 747-52; _Gac. de Méx._, 1823, no. 3, 11-12, 1826, July
4, Sept. 16, Oct. 31, Dec. 14; 1826, Jan. 25, March 1, 31,
April 26; _Ocios Españ. Emig._, v. 307-11, 405-13, 487-505;
vi. 8-21, 107-17, 302-13, 383-4; vii. 3-7; _Rocha_, _Cód.
Nic._, i. 19-23, 56-64, 72-92, 214-16; ii. 22-56, 163-4;
_Morazan y Carrera_, _Apuntes_, MS., 1-18; _Molina_, _Coup
d'œil Costa R._, 4-5, 9-12; _Id._, _Costa R. y N. Granada_,
9-10, 16-29; _Id._, _Bosq. Costa R._, passim; _Integ. Cent.
Am._, Dec. 11, 1849; _El Rol_, Oct. 13, 1854; _Zebadúa_,
_Manif._, 1-40; _Juarros_, _Guat._, ii. 103-4; _Id._, _Stat.
and Com. Hist. Guat._, 74; _Squier's Guat._, 581-2; _Id._,
_States C. A._, 360-1, 414-16, 466, 482, 493, 575-88, 627-8,
641-3, 663; _Id._, _Travels C. Am._, ii., passim; _Id._,
_Comp. Hist. C. A._, 18-191; _Wells' Honduras_, 116, 120,
230-1, 472-83; _Jordan's Dangers to Foreigners_, 50-2;
_Cuevas_, _Porv. Méx._, 252-7; _Costa R._, _Mem. Relac._,
1884, 2-34, and docs. 1 and 2; _Annals Brit. Legis._,
i. 60; ii. 192, 365; _Hernandez y Dávalos_, _Col. Doc._,
ii. 81-2, 130-1; _Herrera_, _Discurso_, 1-12; _Suarez y
Navarro_, _Hist. Méj._, 386, 407-14; _Sur America_, _Sobre
las Perturbaciones de Guat._, 1-52; _Lafond_, _Voy. autour
du Monde_, i. 367, 373-8; _Laferrière_, _De Paris à Guat._,
58-64, 256-8; _Puydt et Binckum_, _Colonisation_, 116-24;
_Rivera_, _Hist. Jalapa_, ii. 305; _Urrueta_, _Inglaterra_,
7-12; _Zamacois_, _Hist. Méj._, ix. 9-10; _Aznero Plata_,
_Informe_, 1-19; _Espir. Públ._, Dec. 13, 20, 1828; Jan.
18, Feb. 14, 1829; _Wappäus_, _Mex. und C. Amer._, 258-64,
271-4, 360-3; _Trollope's W. Ind._, 335; _Dunn's Guatemala_,
13-29, 150-1, 167-88, 205; _Atleta_, 149-50, 199-200, 477;
_Guat._, _Mem. contenant au Aperçu_, 4, 126, 146-58; _Id._,
_Memoria_, 1837, 12-22; _Robertson's Hist. Am._, ii. 1138-9;
_El Progreso_, April 11, 18, 25, 1850; _Tribune Almanac_,
1851, 36; _Holinski_, _La Californie_, 305-31; _Huston's
Journey in Hond._, 11; _Niles' Register_, xxii. 65; xxiii.
406; xxvii. 355; xxviii. 37, 114-15, 304; xxix. 39, 192, 382;
xxx. 439-40; xxxi. 160, 172-6; xxxii. 80, 201, 232, 282, 375;
xxxiii. 38; xxxiv. 8, 36, 123; xxxv. 41, 155, 349; xxxvi.
321; xxxviii. 369, 395; xliii. 268; xlv. 210; liv. 289;
lvi. 49, 210, 243, 385; lvii. 34, 280; lix. 191; _Emigrado
Observ._, 1828, 5-24, 122, in _Ocios de España_; _Pineda_,
_Descrip. Geog._, 14-16; _Byam's Wild Life_, 32-7; _Nouv.
Annales Voy._, xcii. 59-60, 75-7; c. 51-60, 64-6; _Young's
Mosq. Shore_, 15-21, 26-33, 42-3, 53-89, 106-14, 122-38,
156, 166; _Overland Monthly_, xiv. 159-67; _Larrainzar_,
_Soconusco_, 80, 132,168, 178; _Repertorio Americano_, i.
273-89; _Eastern Coast C. Am._, 8-25; _Strangeways' Mosq._,
4-5, 59-68, 119-33, 144-8, 237-338; _Dunlop's Cent. Am._,
passim; _Henderson's Account of Br. Hond._, 28-105, 165-211;
_D'Orbigny_, _Voy. deux Ameríques_, 398-406; _Pim and
Seemann's Dottings_, 314; _Nuevo Viajero Univ._, iii. 609-10;
_Larenaudière_, Mex. et Guat., 295-308; _Poinsett's Notes
on Mex._, app. 64; _Anderson's Commerce_, iv. 449; _Dunbar's
Mex. Papers_, 234-5; _Regil_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog._, iii. 239,
315; _Ancona_, _Hist. Yuc._, iv. 221-35; _Boletin Ofic._
(_Méx._), no. 14, 2; _Diputados, Lista de_; _Doc. Hist.
Cal._, iv. 807-8; _Suarez_, _Informe_, 182; _Dicc. Univ.
Hist. Geog._, x. 919-20, 971; _Findlay's Directory_, i. 223,
240; _Peralta_, _Repúb. de Costa Rica_, 4-8; _Polynesian_,
iv. 166; _North Am. Rev._, xiv. 420-46; xxvi. 136-8, 143-5;
_Osborne's Guide to W. Ind._, 234, 261-2; _Wagner_, _Costa
Rica_, 201-3, 231, 543-51, 568; _Crowe's Gospel in C. Am._,
115-51, 200-22; _Los Anales_, Oct. 15, 1872, p. 471; Nov. 1,
1872, p. 53; Nov. 15, 1872, p. 56; Dec. 1, 1872, pp. 62-3;
Dec. 15, 1872, pp. 71-2; _Paredes_, _Coast of Mosquitos_,
1-62; _Nic._, _Semanario Nic._, May 30, July 4, 18, Dec. 26,
1872; Jan. 2, March 6, April 17, 24, 1873; _Hassel_, _Mex.
and Guat._, 316-19; _Boddam's Across Cent. Am._, 66; _Bolet.
Extraord. Guat._, Oct. 16, 1832; July 30, 1833; _Farol_,
102-5; _Von Tempsky's Mitla_, 337-43; _Fajardo_, _Informe al
Min. Relac._, 2-3, 14-15; _Haefkens_, _Reize naar Guat._, ii.
76-97; _Id._, _Central Amerika_, 1-468; _Stephens' Travels C.
Am._, i. 11-22, 195-200, 211, 225-50, 304-7, 359; ii. 37-8,
51-90, 107-17, 205-9; _Thompson's Guat._, 2, 136, 140, 160,
163, 167, 185-6, 252-8, 415, 422-3, 509-10; _Lastarría_,
_La América_, 250-2; _Ortigosa_, _Sermon_, p. 24; _Diaz_,
_Miscel._, no. 1, p. 1; _Costa Rica_, _Ley Fundamental
Reformada_ (Alajuela, 1835), 1-48; _Id._, _Ley Fundamental
de Costa R._ (San Salvador, 1825), 1-26; _Amer. Review_,
Nov. 1850, 446-55; _Stout's Nic._, 147-9, 168-75, 258-9,
358-62; _Bolet. Soc. Mex. Geog._, 2da ép., iii. 100-6; iv.
712-15; _Méx._, _Actas Congr. Const._, iv. 2; _Id._, _Col.
Dec. sob. Congr._, p. 219; _Mesa y Leompart_, _Hist. Amer._,
ii. 360-72; _Martin's Hist. W. Ind._, i. 163-70; _Lond. Geog.
Soc._, _Jour._, v. 387-92; vi. 128, 135; viii. 317-27; xi.
82-8; _Lynch_, _Relacion Puntual_, 1757, MS., 4-19; _Otras
Reflex. sobre Reforma en Cent. Am._, 1-21; _Pan._, _Docs.
Ofic._, in _Pan._, _Col. Doc._, MSS., no. 31, pp. 62, 66-70;
_Pinart Coll._; _S. Amer. and Guat._, i. 221-3; _Liceaga_,
_Adic. y Rectific._, 613; _Malte-Brun_, _Précis Géog. Univ._,
vi. 468; _Macgregor's Prog. America_, i. 744-7; _Gordon's
Digest Laws U. S._, 328-35; _Lunario de Centro-Amér._; _El
Siglo_, Jan. 10, May 16, 1851; June 5, 1852; _Guat. Com.
and Agric. Co._, 133-7; _Macpherson's Annals of Com._, iii.
548; iv. 159, 179; _El Observador de la Repúb. Mex._, July
4, 1827; _Guat._, _Los Nobles_, 1-11; _Blasquez_, _Opinion
sobre los Chamelcos_, in _Doc. Originales Chiapas_, 4-5;
_Diario Méx._, xi. 279-80; xii. 477-80; _Amer. Annual
Reg._, 1825-6, 40-9; _Id._, 1826-7, 171-82; _West Indies_,
_Description_, 49-50; _Torrente_, _Revol. Hisp.-Am._, i. 115;
_Revue Américaine_, i. 398-408; _Oposicion_ (_La._), June
15, 1835; _Democ. Review_, v. 609-10; xxx. 547; _Pabellon
Nac._, Nov. 21, 1844; _Nic._, _Reg. Ofic._, 9-13, 59-60;
_Los Altos_, _Manif. Documentado_, 1-28; _Amér. Cent._,
_Reclam. de Interv._, 7-10; _Lesur_, _Annuaire Hist. Univ._,
1827, 577-8; _Cor. Fed. Mex._, Nov. 9, 11, 27, Dec. 14, 18,
1826; 1827, passim; Feb. 13, March 31, June 14, July 18,
Sept. 1, 9, 14, 18, 21-2, Oct. 28; _Amérique Cent._, _Cie
Belge_, pt ii. 30-2, 115-29, 160-1; _Guat._, _Decretos_,
i. nos. 1, 4, 20, 25, 31, 32, 39, 41, 134; _Morelet_, _Voy.
dans l'Amér. Cent._, ii. 291; _Montgomery's Narrative Jour.
to Guat._, 33-54, 142-9; _Modern Traveller_, _Mex. and
Guat._, ii. 194-5, 317; _Nic. y Hond._, _Docs._, 1-11, 35;
_Sandoval_, _Revista Polít._, 3-7; _San Juan_, _Ocupacion_,
28-43; _Alaman_, _Hist. Méj._, 50, 291-2; v. 57, 478, 614,
ap. pp. 46-65, 104; _Id._, _Mem. Presentada á las Cámaras_,
9; _Bidwell's Panamá_, 347; _Hond._, _Gac. Ofic._, Feb. 20,
June 30, 1853; _C. Rica_, _Gac. Gob._, Jan. 26, 1850; _Gac.
Nic._, April 1, June 17, 1865; July 20, 1867; _Santangelo_,
_Congr. Panamá_, 73-5; _Saravia_, _Bosq. Polít. Estad._,
17-18; _El Semanal Nicaragüense_, i. 44; _Baily's Cent.
Am._, 81-2; _Mex. Finan._, April 18, 1885, pp. 40-2; _Mex. y
Guat._, _Cuest. Límites_, 52-3; _Nic._, _Nueva Discusion_,
6; _Gac. Salv._, Oct. 12, 1854; _Salv._, _Diario Ofic._,
Feb.-May 1875, passim; March 2, 28, Sept. 9, 1876; Sept. 20,
1878; June 20, Sept. 5, 1879; _Méx._, _Mem. Guerra_, 1833,
p. 8; _Id._, _Mem. Relac._, 1823, pp. 11-12; 1827, p. 11;
1829, p. 2; 1832, pp. 2-3; 1833, pp. 1-2, 1835, pp. 3-4;
1838, p. 9; 1839, pp. 2-3; 1839, MS., pp. 12-13; 1840, p. 2;
1841, in _Diario Gob. Mex._, Jan. 24, 1841, p. 1; _Méx._,
_Mem._, ii., docs. 1, 5, 8; _Id._, _Mem. Min. Relac._, i.,
docs. 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13; _Nic._, _Memoria_, in _Cent.
Am. Pamphl._, iii., no. 1, 4-28; _Payne's Hist. Europ.
Colonies_, 324-32; _Quart. Review_, xxviii. 157-61; _Gac.
de Guat._, Oct. 7, 1853; May 5, Dec. 22, 1854; _Costa Rica_,
_Bolet. Ofic._, Jan. 13, 24, 27, Feb. 3, 7, 14, 17, 28, March
14, 17, 1855; _Mill's Mex._, 205-19; _Alm._, _Ruiz Calend.
Salv._, 1873, 66-71; _Id._, _Guat. Guia_, 1853, 13-14;
_Id._, _Hond._, 1829, 5, 18-37, 56-64, 90-5, 124-7, 133-48;
_Cabildo_, _Informe que el Cabildo_, 1-75; _Cancelada_, _Tel.
Mex._, 104-11; _Chatfield's Letter to Lord Palmerston_, Dec.
13, 1847; _Id._, _Letter to Guat. Govt_, Dec. 10, 1847, in
_Mosq._, _Correspond. respecting Mosq. Terr._, 170-2; _La
Nacion_, Sept. 8, 1856; _Mosq.-Küste und Texas_, 29-30;
_Conkling's Guide_, 335-6; _National Calendar_, 18; _Conder's
Mex. and Guat._, 195-7; _Centro-Amér._, _La Situacion_, 1-17;
_Candé_, _Golfe de Hond._, 5-9; _Centro-Amér._, _Informe
sobre la Constit._, p. 73, and p. 30; _Id._, _Convencion_,
1-32; _Centro-Americano_, passim; _Córtes_, _Actas Públ._,
ii., April 23, 1814, p. 320; _Castellon_, _Docs. Relat._,
36, 104; _El Nacional_, June 19, 26, July 5, 31, Aug. 14,
Sept. 25, Dec. 11, 1858; Jan. 22, 1859; Sept. 8, 1860;
_Mosqueto Indian_, in _Churchill's Coll._, vi. 300-11;
_Bericht Mosquitolandes_, 5-7, 12, 23, 28, 31-43, 220-7;
_Cor. Atlántico_, May 9, 1835; _Benton's Thirty Years' View_,
65-9; _Id._, _Debates in Cong._, vii. 383-4; viii. 737, 746;
ix. 769; x. 746; xi. 767; _Mosaico Mex._, ii. 232, 342, 344,
462; _Nacionalidad Española_; _Mosquito Docs._, nos. 77-229;
_Nic._, _Bolet. Ofic._, Sept. 6, 1862; _Id._, _Constit._,
1838, 1-39; _Id._, _Docs. Dip. Hist._, 18-22; _Id._, _Cor.
Ist._, July 1, 1849; Oct. 3, 1850; _Id._, _De Órden del
Director_; _Muñoz_, _Defensa Llaves San Pedro_; _Obispo de
Chil._, 153-64, 451-54; _Córtes_, _Diario_, 1811, viii. 33;
1813, xix. 404; 1821, ext. i., Sept. 22, p. 7; ext. iv.,
Nov. 18, pp. 12-13; 1835-6, ii. 227; _La Union_, Dec. 1,
1849; Jan. 1, 1850; _La Union de Nic._, Jan. 5, 1861; _El
Universal_, April 18, 1850; April 16, 1853; _Voy._, _New
Univ. Col._, ii. 374-8; _Verdaderas Razones_, 1-13; _Viagera
Univ._, xxvii. 174-7, 189-91; _Vera Paz, Colonisation
de_, 4; _El Veracruzano Libre_, June 13, 1828; _Valois_,
_Mexique_, 154-9, 209-27, 316-19; _Cent. Am. Papers_, i.-v.,
passim; _Papeles Varios_, xix. pt 18; cxxi. pt i.; cxxiv.
pt 9; cxlix. pt 7; clx. pt 19; clxvii. pt 5; ccxxvi. pt 10;
_United Service Jour._, 1833, pt ii. 456; _U. S. Govt Docs._,
Commercial Rel., 1866, 567-8; 1868, 302, 728-9; _Id._, Cong.
Globe, 1838-9, 91; _Id._, Cong. Debates, 1825-6, i. 1303-5;
1831-2, i. 767-74; _Id._, Amer. State Pap., For. Rel., v.
774-82; _Id._, 19th cong., 2d sess., U. S. Acts, pp. 8-31;
Sen. Doc. 1, vol. i., pp. 149-70; _Id._, 26th cong. 1st
sess., H. Ex. Doc., 2, p. 6; _Id._, 30th cong. 2d sess., H.
Com. Rept, 145, pp. 383-5; _Filisola_, _Mem. Guerra Tex._,
ii. 88-9; _Id._, _Á la Junta Soberana de Guat._, 1-8; _Gazeta
de Guat._, vi. 21, 177-84, 443; ix. 757; xi. 4-7, 91-2,
120-4; xiii. 353, 369-76; xiv. 1-16, 82, 265; _Dublan_ and
_Lozano_, _Leg. Mex._, i. 326-7; _Bustamante_, _Voz de la
Patria_, MS., 4; _Id._, _Hist. Iturbide_, 160-1, 176; _Id._,
_Cuadro Hist._, MS., vii. 108-19; viii. 177-9; _Porvenir de
Nic._, Oct. 22, 29, 1871; July 20, 1873; _Perez_, _Mem. Camp.
Nacional_, 82, 154; _Id._, _Biog. Sacasa_, 3-5; _Frisch_,
_Staaten von Mex._, 55-62, 73-8; _Kewen's Nic. and Walker_,
MS., 27-36, 39-60, 64-85; _Costa Rica_, _Col. Leyes_, iii.
43-5, 101-18, 129-31, 144-67, 169-88, 280-2, 297-8, 304-6;
iv.-v., passim; vi. 41-3, 276-86, 304-5, 319-20; _Belly_,
_Nic._, i. 71-5, 137, 350-2; _Romero_, _Bosq. Hist._, 42-5,
66-233, 395-417, 639-795; _Pineda de Mont_, in _Guat._,
_Recop. Leyes_, iii. 347-8; _Cent. Am._, _Mem. Hist. Revol._,
passim; _Mem. Hist. Centro-Am._, 1-72; _Marure_, _Bosq. Hist.
Cent. Amér._, passim; _Id._, _Efem. Hechos Notables_, passim.

[XI-1] Molina, who denies that Carrillo was disposed to be
tyrannical, but on the contrary anxious for the good of
his country, adding that he was 'severo y sencillo en su
conducta, y que paliaba su arbitrariedad con el ejercicio
de las virtudes mas relevantes en un mandatario,' confesses
that on the present occasion this great man committed a grave
error. _Bosq. Costa R._, 103; _Costa R._, _Dec. de garan.
y bases_, 24 mo.; _Id._, _Col. Ley._, viii. 15-36, 41-2;
_Salv._, _Diario Ofic._, May 25, 1875.

[XI-2] The former was constituted with as many members as
there were departments, namely, four. The latter was composed
of a president, two relatores fiscales, and four justices.

[XI-3] He insulted them, however, by providing that they
should be under the surveillance of the authorities. _Costa
R._, _Col. Ley._, vii. 42.

[XI-4] He was married to a niece of Carrillo. Bonilla was
faithful to him in life, and to his memory after death.

[XI-5] According to Col Bernardo Rivera Cabezas. Barrundia
makes the force only 300. He had at first landed at La
Union, in Salvador, with 22 officers of all ranks, and
marched upon San Miguel, where he recruited 200 men, and
then returned to La Union. He next visited Acajutla and
Sonsonate, where he ascertained the state of public affairs
in Salvador and Guatemala, after holding some correspondence
with the chiefs of the former state and Nicaragua. The latter
answered very offensively. _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, iv.
47-55, 145. Entertaining a favorable idea of the invitation
sent him by the Costa Ricans, he sailed for the isle of
Martin Perez, in the gulf of Fonseca, where he finally
organized his expedition and embarked it on the vessels
_Cruzador_, _Asuncion Granadina_, _Josefa_, _Isabel II._, and
_Cosmopolita_.

[XI-6] _Astaburuaga_, _Cent. Am._, 55-6; _Salv._, _Diario
Ofic._, Feb. 14, 1875.

[XI-7] _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, vii. 248-50.

[XI-8] Among them were Vicente Aguilar, Francisco and Mariano
Montealegre, and Rafael Barroeta.

[XI-9] It is understood that Rafael Barroeta was the sole
exception.

[XI-10] Carrillo was to leave the country with a full pledge
of safety to his family and property. The convention was
signed by Morazan, Villaseñor, generals Saget, Saravia, and
Rascon, 5 colonels, and the other assenting officers of all
ranks, including 5 Texiguas.

[XI-11] Carrillo left the state from Puntarenas. Bonilla
was also guaranteed security. _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._,
iii. 615-19; _Niles' Reg._, lxii., 275. Both Carrillo and
Aguilar died out of Costa R.; the former was killed, and
his murderer executed. Funeral honors were paid in Costa
R. to Aguilar, Aug. 25, 1846. _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, ix.
289-90. The remains of both ex-chiefs were brought home by
Presid. Castro's decree of Nov. 5, 1848. _Id._, x. 365-8; _El
Salvador Regenerado_, June 4, 1842.

[XI-12] Dated April 14, 1842. _Id._, vii. 250-1.

[XI-13] A general order was given to prevent any interference
with the elections on the part of the troops. Copies of
Morazan's decrees to undo the evils of his predecessor, and
to prepare for the reorganization of the state on liberal
principles, are furnished in _Id._, 236-342, passim;
_Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, iii. 621-31.

[XI-14] Again on the 30th of Aug. it authorized the
continuation of his government till a new constitution should
be framed. The same day it reaffirmed Morazan's extraordinary
powers, and on the 2d of Sept. adjourned to reassemble April
1, 1843. Among the most noted acts of this convention were
the following: A vote of thanks and other honors to Morazan
and Villaseñor, the latter being awarded a gold medal with
an honorable inscription. Morazan was given the title of
Libertador de Costa Rica; and on his refusing to publish the
decree, the assembly specially requested him to do so. The
army that brought about the change was honored with the name
of Division Libertadora de Costa Rica. The assembly also
made a formal declaration on the 20th of July, in favor of
a federal republic. _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, vii. 342-51,
379-82, 403.

[XI-15] It was strictly in accordance with the military code.
His brother Felipe, in relating the occurrence, says that a
disappointment in love, and his removal from the comandancia
of the department, preyed upon his mind, 'le sobrevino
una fiebre, perdió la razon, y se hizo criminal.' But he
subsequently declared his loyalty to Morazan, and while lying
on a bed of sickness was arrested. _Molina_, _Bosq. Costa
R._, 104.

[XI-16] Molina did not hear of his son's fate till after
the 15th of Sept. Greatly agitated, and shedding tears for
Morazan's end, his son-in-law, Irungaray, told him not to
bewail the fate of Morazan, for he had spilled the blood of
Manuel Ángel. These words so shocked the aged patriot that he
fell senseless to the ground.

[XI-17] He was a Portuguese who came to Costa Rica while
still young. In his early years he had been in the naval
service, and acquired some skill as an artilleryman. He
married into a respectable family of San José, and had
numerous descendants. By the cultivation of coffee he made
himself wealthy, and this together with his connection with
the Carrillo family enabled him to attain the position of
comandante general, and to link his name with some important
events. At his house the worst enemies of Morazan had always
been welcomed. _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, iii. 647-8.

[XI-18] There were two barracks in San José; one his guard
occupied; in the other were 150 men from Cartago who had no
ammunition. _El Siglo_, Aug. 16, 1852.

[XI-19] Morazan tried to save his wife; but in traversing
the street to reach the house of the Escalantes, amidst
the deadly fire, she was taken by the enemy and conveyed to
the house of Father Blanco, a brother of Luz Blanco, one of
Morazan's mortal foes.

[XI-20] He would have met with no difficulty in obtaining
security for Saravia, who was much esteemed by all. But
the case was different with others, especially Villaseñor,
against whom much animosity was felt.

[XI-21] Herrera was a student when he gained this unenviable
notoriety. He afterward went to Guatemala to complete his
studies, and was well treated and much aided by Juan José
Aycinena and Manuel F. Pavon; and he became their most
humble henchman. Returning to Costa Rica as a lawyer, he was
appointed after a while a justice of the supreme court. On
many occasions he proved himself unprincipled, treacherous,
and contemptible.

[XI-22] Over 100 killed and 200 wounded.

[XI-23] He had wanted to go to Tárcoles, expecting to find
Saget there, but was dissuaded by Villaseñor and others.

[XI-24] The Spaniard Espinach, a reactionist of some standing
who acted as a commissioner of the revolutionists, fearing
that Morazan's popularity in Cartago might bring on a
counter-movement, and in order to avert it, asked Morazan to
instruct Cabañas to lay down his arms, and to command Saget
to deliver those he had in Puntarenas. He assured Morazan
his life was in no peril. His next step was to meet Cabañas
at Chomogo, telling him Morazan was leaving the state by
the Matina road with sufficient money, and advising him to
disband his men. Cabañas was deceived, and went alone to
Matina, where he was taken prisoner.

[XI-25] _Marure_, _Efem._, 56. Saravia was a son of Miguel
Gonzalez Saravia, the governor of Nicaragua, who attached
that province to Iturbide's empire, and a grandson of General
Saravia, president and captain-general of Guatemala, who had
been appointed viceroy of Mexico, and was shot by Morelos in
Oajaca. Young Saravia's mother, Concepcion Nájera y Batres,
was of the leaders of Guatemalan society, for which reason
the aristocratic party expected much from him. But after
completing his education, with evidences of extraordinary
talents, he often gave expression to the most liberal ideas.
Before being admitted to the bar in 1834 he had served in
the office of the secretary of the senate, and later as a
chief of bureau in the department of foreign affairs. He
afterward held a judicial appointment, being at all times
noted for ability and eloquence, as well as for his writings
in _El Semanario_, which attracted the attention of Morazan,
who made him auditor de guerra of the federal army. From
that time Saravia followed Morazan's fortunes, taking part
in several actions of war, and thus attaining the rank of
general. He was also this leader's aide-de-camp, private
secretary, and minister-general, both in Salvador and Costa
Rica. A portrait of the young general gives him quite a
distinguished air.

[XI-26] Among them were Mariano Montealegre, Juan de los
Santos Madriz, and José M. Castro.

[XI-27] The most virulent were Luz Blanco and Herrera. They
even worked upon the feelings of Pinto's family, and it
is said that his daughter Petronila imagined that she saw
her father sent to the scaffold by Morazan, and fell in a
convulsion.

[XI-28] Morazan had demanded a trial. He also desired to
address a circular to the governments of the states, but it
was not permitted him.

[XI-29] He declared that he had expended the whole of his own
and his wife's estate, besides $18,000 due to Gen. Bermudez,
in endowing Costa Rica with a government of laws. This was
his sole offence, for which he had been condemned to lose his
life, which was further aggravated by a broken pledge, for he
had been assured by Espinach that his life would be spared.
The forces he had organized were originally intended to
defend Guanacaste against an expected attack from Nicaragua.
Subsequently a number of volunteers were detached for the
pacification of the republic. He reiterated his love for
Central America, urging upon the youth of the land to imitate
his example, and fight to redeem her. He finally disclaimed
any enmity or rancor toward his murderers, forgiving them and
wishing them every possible happiness. In that instrument,
says Barrundia, 'se ve diáfana el alma, noble, tranquila, y
generosa del héroe que descendia á la tumba.'

[XI-30] The remains lay in Costa Rica till, under a decree
of Pres. Castro, Nov. 6, 1848, they were exhumed on the
27th, and after paying honors on the 4th of Dec., were
surrendered, according to Morazan's wishes, to Salvador, by
whose authorities they were received with high military and
civic honors. _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, x. 368-9. Carrera
afterward treated them with indignity. _Montúfar_, _Reseña
Hist._, iii. 656; iv. 219-20, 250-3; v. 650-2, 665-6;
_Testam._, in _Cent. Am. Pap._, No. 2. Further particulars
on Morazan's rule in Costa Rica, and on his death and
interment, may be found in _Nic._, _Correo Ist._, May 1,
1849; _Niles' Reg._, lxiii., 19, 176; _Nic._, _Registro
Ofic._, No. 2, 7; _Squier's Trav._, ii. 444-9; _Wappäus_,
_Mex. und Cent. Am._, 361; _Reichardt_, _Cent. Am._, 142; _El
Progreso_, Oct. 3, 1850; _Crowe's Gospel_, 152-3; _Wagner_,
_Costa R._, 203-5; _Dunlop's Cent. Am._, 217-22; _Belly_,
_Nic._, i. 73-4; _Wells' Hond._, 484-93; _Salv._, _Diario
Ofic._, Feb. 14, 1875; _Robert Glascow Dunlop_, _Travels
in Central America_, London, 1847, 8°, 358 pp. and map, is
a work purporting to be a journal of nearly three years'
residence in Central America, and giving a sketch of the
history of the republic, together with an account of the
physical peculiarities, agriculture, commerce, and state of
society. Much of the information therein is correct; but on
historical and social topics the author, who was a Scotchman,
displayed narrow-mindedness, and a judgment warped by British
prejudices.

[XI-31] In the latter—his native state—his last will was
published in the official journal in the column of varieties
with offensive remarks. These notes, and indeed the whole
conduct of the authorities, were disgraceful. _El Redactor_,
_Ofic. de Hond._, Sept. 15, 1843.

[XI-32] The priest Juan José Aycinena, who was the minister
of state, hated Morazan with a deadly hatred from the
day that his brother was defeated at San Antonio. This
animosity became more intensified, if possible, upon Morazan
contemptuously rejecting the dictatorship that was tendered
him. Morazan said in his last will that his death was an
assassination, as he had not been allowed any form of trial.
But the worthy padre and his accomplice in iniquity, Carrera,
attributed the crime to heaven, and made Rivera Paz, chief
of state, accuse providence of aiding Vicente Herrera and Luz
Blanco in its perpetration.

[XI-33] Honors were paid to his memory in the city of
Guatemala in 1876; a statue was erected to him by Honduras
in 1883. _La Regeneracion_, July 10, 1876; _Costa R._, _Mem.
Relaciones_, 1884, 2-3, and doc. 1, 2.

[XI-34] Every abusive epithet was applied to him in the
official press; tyrant, bandit, monster, were among the
mildest. The aim was to make him appear in the eyes of the
ignorant as the only obstacle to peace and reorganization;
and the masses believed that he was the author of all the
evils under the sun. _Gac. de Guat._, Oct. 28, 1842.

[XI-35] The subscribing commissioners were Manuel F. Pavon,
for Guatemala; Pedro Nolasco Arriaga, for Honduras; and
Joaquin Duran, for the other two states. Inasmuch as Arriaga
and Duran were Aycinena's and Pavon's humble satellites, the
treaties might just as well have been signed Pavon, Pavon,
Pavon. _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, iv. 129-33; _Guat._,
_Recop. Leg._, i. 395-408.

[XI-36] It is asserted that the Guatemalan government said
that Costa Rica should appoint as her commissioner a resident
of Guatemala. But José M. Castro, the young Costa Rican
minister, thought differently.

[XI-37] They had led the revolt on the 11th and the following
days. _Molina_, _Bosq. Costa R._, 105.

[XI-38] So says Marure, now a confirmed 'conservador,'
adding, 'y celebrados con entusiasmo en toda la república.'
_Efem._, 56.

[XI-39] The expeditionary force of 300 to 500 under Saget, on
hearing of the trouble at San José, went on board their ships
at Puntarenas, thence menacing the government. Subsequently
arrangements were made for the surrender of the arms and
disbandment of the men, but owing to misunderstanding were
not carried out, and the expedition departed for La Libertad
in Salv. on the _Coquimbo_. Costa R. afterward claimed the
armament and ship, but Salv. invariably refused to return
them, on the plea that they belonged to Morazan's family,
'como ganadas en ley de guerra por aquel caudillo.' Much
indignation was felt in Guatemala and Honduras, and somewhat
less in Nicaragua, against Salvador, because the latter,
notwithstanding the treaties of 1840 and 1842, and the
protest to the contrary, had allowed Saget, Cabañas, Barrios,
and their companions, to reside in the state under the
protection of its laws. The first two named governments saw
that for all they had manœuvred to make of the executive of
Salvador a mere submissive agent of the aristocracy, he had
now emancipated himself from its control. _Montúfar_, _Reseña
Hist._, iv. 4-5, 115-33; _Molina_, _Bosq. Costa R._, 105-6.

[XI-40] _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, vii. 404-16.

[XI-41] Art. 3 stated that the idea was not yet entertained,
which later was formed, of declaring the state to be a
sovereign and independent republic. Art. 5 resolved the
question of boundaries with Colombia and Nicaragua upon
the principles sustained by Costa Rica. Arts. 4 and 10
established a fourth power under the name of Conservador,
composed of no less than three councillors chosen by the
people. Art. 9 places the legislative authority in an
assembly of not less than 15 members. It does not establish
two chambers. Art. 11 says that the executive office is to
be exercised by a tribune, out of four to be chosen by the
electors. Art. 13 was condemned by the fanatics, though it
merely allows religious toleration. The _Gaceta de Guat._
exclaimed, 'Ya volvemos á las andadas.' _Montúfar_, _Reseña
Hist._, iv. 383, 391-3, 417-18; _Molina_, _Bosq. Costa R._,
106.

[XI-42] All these acts, dated respectively June 7-8, Sept.
13, 19, 1843, appear in _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, viii. 45-50,
63-7.

[XI-43] By the second jefe, Oreamuno, then in charge of the
executive.

[XI-44] The govt was supported by the people and troops.
Quiroz was promoted to gen. of brigade. _Molina_, _Bosq.
Costa R._, 106; _El Mentor Costaricense_ gave an extensive
account of the affair.

[XI-45] Pinto was an uncle-in-law of Castro,
secretary-general, who under the circumstances surrounding
the govt could not restore him to his office.

[XI-46] To give an idea of the situation: Cartago's deputies
were three clergymen, Peralta, Campo, and Carazo. Heredia
also sent the priest Flores. If the senators must be still
more grave and circumspect, where could they be procured?
_Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, v. 173.

[XI-47] His successor was Juan Mora.

[XI-48] _Costa R._, _Col. L._, viii. 352-3, 384-5.

[XI-49] He was a native of Cartago; a man of elegant manners,
cultured without affectation, well informed on general
subjects, and a highly respected citizen. Though not a member
of the bar, he knew enough of law to successfully oppose
the lawyers who constantly took advantage of the confusion
existing in the old Spanish laws.

[XI-50] The chamber of deputies censured him, but his purpose
of getting rid of the executive office was accomplished.
_Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, viii. 392-3; ix. 23-4.

[XI-51] A wealthy man and head of a large family which gave
him much social importance. During his short administration
he improved the public roads. _Molina_, _Bosq. Costa R._,
107. He also gave impulse to education, though under the old
ecclesiastical system. _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, v. 175.

[XI-52] Correspond. on the subject in _Id._, 184-6.

[XI-53] Fault was found with the clause requiring the
election by the people of all public functionaries, including
the ministers of state and judges. It was said the people
should not be molested with so many elections.

[XI-54] The manifesto issued by the leaders comprised the
abolition of the constitution, and the framing of another
better suited to the needs of the country, the immediate
election of a new vice-jefe, who must be a native of Costa
Rica, not under 25 years of age, married, or a widower with
children, and possess property to the value of no less than
$10,000; one who had never been criminally punished, except
by a pecuniary fine, nor attached for debts contracted in the
state; he must have served in other public offices without
taint, and must be in favor of independence and a separate
government for the state. A new legislative chamber was to
be immediately convoked, and the manner of election fixed by
the chief; meantime, the present assembly was to continue
its sittings. The chief was to select a good port on the
north coast, and make a road from it to the capital with
funds of the treasury. _Costa R._, _Pap. Sueltos_, nos. 1, 2;
_Dunlop's Cent. Am._, 252-3.

[XI-55] His removal from the executive seat resulted from
the intrigues of a few who knew that he could not be made a
convenient tool.

[XI-56] It was divided into 14 sections, placed the executive
in a president, and created a vice-president. The legislative
authority was vested in a congress of a single chamber,
presided over by the vice-president. The Roman catholic
religion was the only one permitted, and it remained as
that of the state and under its protection. _Costa R._,
_Constit._, 1847, 1-24; _Id._, _Constit. Polít._, 1847,
1-118; _Id._, _Col. Ley._, x. 1-56; _Astaburuaga_, _Cent.
Am._, 46-9.

[XI-57] Nov. 22, 1848, and promulgated by the executive
on the 30th. A law regulating the election of the supreme
authorities was passed Dec. 20th. _Costa R._, _Constit.
Polít._ (ed. of 1850, 8°), 1-38; _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, x.
347-408, 422-52; _El Universal_, June 8, 1849.

[XI-58] _El Arco Iris_, Oct. 14, 1847. Alfaro was not pleased
at being lowered to the second place, even though he had
ex-officio the presidency of congress. He resigned on the
1st of Oct. of the same year, and Juan Rafael Mora became
his successor. _Costa R._, _Informe Relaciones_, ap.; _Id._,
_Col. Ley._, x. 86-7, 160-1, 187-8.

[XI-59] Castro had enemies in San José. He was accused of
bringing about Gallegos' dismissal. This assertion was
repeated from mouth to mouth, and came to be believed
by many. Moreover, some men that he looked on as his
friends suggested to him unwise measures, with the view of
damaging his administration. Unfortunately, congress began
to show aristocratic tendencies, restoring the abolished
compellations without opposition on Castro's part. The title
of Excellency was voted to itself, the president, and the
supreme court.

[XI-60] Castro and Mora differed on many points. The
president's circle considered Mora a dangerous competitor.
Congress treated Mora with marked indifference, though he
had restored peace in Alajuela with only 200 men. He resigned
the vice-presidency. An election being ordered, at the second
attempt Manuel José Carazo, a friend of Castro, was chosen.
Carazo was an able and well-informed man. He resigned the
office on the 24th of Aug., but was reëlected Sept. 22d.
_Id._, 190, 306-7, 310-12, 327-9.

[XI-61] _Costa R._, _Inf. Relaciones_, 10-12, 23-5. In Nov.
of the same year all political offenders were pardoned,
and a war tax which had been levied on Alajuela was ordered
refunded. _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, x. 269-90, 374-6, 410;
_Id._, _Pap. Sueltos_, nos. 3-5; _Molina_, _Bosq. Costa R._,
107-8.

[XI-62] Congress took into consideration a number of
petitions from influential sources highly commendatory of
Castro's acts. Castro on the 16th of Nov. had been made a
general of division. _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, v. 525-6,
530-8, 543-51.

[XI-63] The flag had five horizontal stripes, of which the
centre one occupied one third the width of the flag, and the
others one sixth each. The centre stripe was red, the one
above and the one underneath it were white, and the other two
blue. _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, x. 354-6.

[XI-64] France sent in April 1847 the corvette _Le Génie_ to
make demands on behalf of her subject Thierriat, which Costa
Rica settled by paying $10,000.

[XI-65] Full particulars on the foreign relations are given
in _Molina_, _Bosq. Costa R._, 9-10, 61-2, 112-19; _Id._,
_Coup d'œil Costa R._, 3; _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, x. 339-47;
xii. 5-18, 94, 202-7; xv. 225; xvi. 195-6; xviii. 95-6,
171-88; xix. 107-9; xx. 24-8; xxiii. 184-200; xxiv. 171-97;
_Id._, de 1869, 216-22; _Id._, de 1879, 61-3; _Id._, _Gac.
de Gob._, Jan. 12, 26, Feb. 23, March 9, 1850; _Id._, _Bol.
Ofic._, Dec. 8, 22, 26-7, 29, 1853; Jan. 5, Apr. 20, 1854;
_Id._, _Informes y Mem., Relaciones_, 1850-80; _Salv._,
_Diario_, Nov. 5, 1875; _Cong. Globe_, 1860-1; _Smithsonian
Rept_, 1863, 54; _Colombia_, _Diario Ofic._, Feb. 14, 1874;
_U. S. Govt Doc._, 36th cong. 2d sess., sen. i., 19 vol. i.;
_Id._, 39th cong. 2d sess., For. Aff. (Mess. and Doc., Dept
of St., pt ii.), 430-45; _Id._, 40th cong. 2d sess., For.
Aff. (Mess. and Doc., Dept of St., pt ii.), 277-80; _Id._,
42d cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc., 1 For. Rel., p. 7 (249-52);
_Id._, 42d cong. 3d sess., For. Rel., p. xxxv. (158-61);
_Pan. Gac._, Apr. 16, 1876, and numerous other works in
various languages.

[XI-66] Nic. argued that the constitution of Costa R. of
1825 declared her boundary to be at El Salto, not at La
Flor; to which Costa R. replied that the instrument alluded
to was anterior to the federal decree, and therefore could
not embrace Nicoya in Costa Rican territory; but after this
decree the fundamental laws of Costa R. did take it in.

[XI-67] Nic. had demanded the restoration in 1843, which
led to the making of a voluminous protocol, without any
definitive result. _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, ii. 229-31;
iv. 382-3; _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, viii. 3-4.

[XI-68] The treaty was made at San José, Costa R., on the
15th of Apr., 1858, and signed by José M. Cañas and Máximo
Jerez, plenipotentiaries respectively of Costa R. and Nic.,
and by Pedro Rómulo Negrete, mediator on the part of Salv.
The signatures of the secretaries of the three legations
also appear to the instrument. The ratifications were made
in due form, and exchanged by the two govts on the 26th
of April, the same year. The treaty was approved by the
Nicaraguan constituent congress May 28th, and published by
President Tomás Martinez and his secretary of state, June
4th. Under its 2d article the dividing line was to be as
follows: Starting from the Atlantic Ocean, the line to begin
at the extreme end of Punta de Castilla, at the mouth of
the River San Juan, and continue on the right bank of that
stream to a point in waters below the Castillo Viejo, at
three English miles from the outer fortifications. Thence a
curve was to commence, whose centre should be those works,
and distant therefrom in all its course three English miles,
and terminating at a point distant two miles from the bank of
the river in waters above the fort. Thence the line should
continue in the direction of Sapoá River, which empties
into Lake Nicaragua, following a course invariably two miles
distant from the right margin of the San Juan River, with its
curves to its source in the lake, and from the right margin
of the same lake to the said Sapoá River, where this line,
parallel to said margins, ends. From the point where it may
coincide with the Sapoá River, which must of course be two
miles from the lake, an astronomical line should be drawn
to the central point of the bay of Salinas on the Pacific
Ocean, where the delimitation of the two contracting powers
will terminate. The 6th art. gives Nic. the exclusive control
over the waters of the San Juan River from its source in Lake
Nicaragua to the point where it empties into the Atlantic
Ocean; Costa R. retaining the right of navigation in said
waters for trading purposes from the mouth of the river to
a distance of three English miles from the Castillo Viejo.
_Rocha_, _Cód. Nic._, i. 137-41; _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._,
xv. 75-6, 182-8; _Id._, _Informe Gob._, 1858, 12-13; _Id._,
_Inf. Rel._, 1860, 6; _Salv._, _Gaceta Ofic._, June 7, 1877,
513-14; _El Nacional_, June 26, 1858, 10; _Peralta_, _Rio S.
Juan_, 24-5; _Belly_, _Le Nic._, i. 359-62.

[XI-69] The treaty, after being completed and published in
the official journal of Nic., was communicated by both govts
to the foreign diplomatic corps accredited near them, as well
as to their own representatives abroad. All friendly nations
came to look on it as an accomplished fact.

[XI-70] Ayon did not pretend to deny that the treaty had been
concluded by his govt, and duly ratified by the legislative
authority of the two republics. He alleged that the
fundamental law of Nic. established the limits of the state,
embracing within them the territory of Guanacaste; and that
the treaty in question ignored the Nicaraguan constitution,
which prescribed that an amendment of it by one legislature
must be submitted to the next for ratification; and this
not having been done, there was a radical nullity. Costa R.
replied that the legislative ratification in Nic. had been,
not by an ordinary legislature, but by a constituent assembly
fully empowered to amend the constitution or frame a new
one. It had been called to make a new fundamental law, and
therefore had a right to establish new boundaries. Moreover,
that even if that assembly had not possessed constituent
authority, but had been a merely ordinary congress, the fact
still remained that a number of Nicaraguan legislatures
had held the treaty to be valid and unobjectionable. Some
attempts have been made in administration circles of Costa
R., much against public opinion, to annul the treaty, in
order to have for a boundary line the whole right bank of the
San Juan, from Greytown or San Juan del Norte to San Cárlos,
and Lake Nicaragua to La Flor. Were this supported, and the
treaty set aside, the questions between Costa R. and Nic.
would assume a serious aspect. _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._,
ii. 231-4; _Ayon_, _Cuestion de Límites_, 1-26; _Id._,
_Consid. sobre Límites_, 1-26.

[XI-71] Details may be found in _Nic._, _Mem. Relaciones_,
1871, 10-16, 29-39; _Id._, _Gaceta_, Oct. 3, 1868, May 4,
11, 1872, June 7, 1873; _Id._, _Seman. Nic._, June 6, 1872;
_Id._, _Correspond._, 1872, 1-24; _Id._, _Continuacion de
la Correspond._, 1872, 1-16; _U. S. Govt Doc._, H. Ex. Doc.,
43d cong. 1st sess., pt 2, 732, 735, 739, 743; 44th cong. 1st
sess., pt 1, 157, 168; _Costa R._, _Informe Rel._, 1873, 1-6;
_Id._, _Pap. Sueltos_, Doc. no. 15; _Salv._, _Gaceta Ofic._,
May 22, 1876; _Peralta_, _Rio S. Juan_.

[XI-72] Antonio Zambrana for Costa R., and Francisco Álvarez
for Nic. _Pan. Star and Herald_, March 5, 1883; _Costa R._,
_Gaceta_, Feb. 3, 1885; _U. S. Govt Doc._, 48th cong. 1st
sess., H. Ex. Doc., pt 1, 59-61.

[XI-73] An extract of that treaty is given in _Montúfar_,
_Reseña Hist._, i. 289-90.

[XI-74] The royal commission of Diego de Artieda Cherino,
governor, captain-general of Costa R., issued in 1573, fixed
the boundaries of the province from the 'embocadura del
Desaguadero ó rio San Juan de Nicaragua hasta la frontera de
Veraguas en el Mar Atlántico, y desde los linderos de Nicoya
hasta los valles de Chiriquí en el Pacífico.' _Molina_,
_Bosq. Costa R._, 14; _Id._, _Costa R. y Nueva Granada_,
9-10, 16-35. Felipe Molina being in the service of Costa
R., and intrusted with the defence of her interests, his
assertions might be by some deemed biassed; but the testimony
of Juarros, the historian of Guatemala, who wrote with the
official docs before him, is not open to the same objection.
He says, speaking of Costa R., 'sus términos por el mar del
norte, son desde la boca del rio San Juan hasta el Escudo
de Veraguas; y por el sur, desde el rio de Alvarado, raya
divisoria de la provincia de Nicaragua, hasta el rio de
Boruca, término del reino de Tierra Firme.' _Montúfar_,
_Reseña Hist._, ii. 230.

[XI-75] The territorial division recognized by him was that
made in 1810, at which time no New Granadan authority had
a footing in Cent. Am. territory. A representation of the
ayuntamiento of Cartago to the Sp. córtes in 1813 says:
'Costa Rica tiene por límites de su territorio el rio de
Chiriquí que la separa de la provincia de Panamá.' _Córtes_,
_Diario_, 1813, xix. 404.

[XI-76] Contract of Col Galindo, as agent of the govt.
_Molina_, _Bosq. Costa R._, 100-1.

[XI-77] Copy of correspond. between the gov. of Veraguas
and that of Costa R. _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, ii. 272-3;
_Mosq. Correspond._, 22-5; _Pan._, _Docs. Ofic._, in _Pan.
Col. Docs._, no. 31, pp. 62, 66-70; _Id._, _Star and Herald_,
Oct. 15, 16, 1880.

[XI-78] During the Walker war, a treaty was made at San José
between P. A. Herran for Colombia, and Joaquin B. Calvo for
Costa Rica, which does not follow the line on Molina's map.
Modifications were made to it at Bogotá, and ratifications
were never exchanged. Later on José M. Castro went to Bogotá
and negotiated another treaty, which did not stipulate
Molina's line. This treaty was not ratified by either govt.
The next attempt was made by B. Correoso, on behalf of
Colombia. His negotiations were mostly verbal, disregarding
arguments for the straight line between Punta de Burica and
the Escudo de Veraguas; and alleging that on the N., N. E.,
W., and N. W. of that line were Colombian settlements, which,
under the constitution of his country could not be ceded.
A treaty was entered into, however, which did not obtain
the ratification of either government. In Costa R. it was
considered a ruinous one. Correoso was charged in Colombia
with having made a damaging arrangement. _Pan._, _Gaceta
Istmo_, Oct. 20, 1841; _Id._, _Crón. Ofic._, Feb. 6, 1853;
_Id._, _Boletin Ofic._, Dec. 25, 1870; _Pan._, _Gaceta_, June
15, 1871, June 19, 1872, Aug. 22, 29, Oct. 31, 1874, May 21,
1876, July 25, Aug. 4, 22, Sept. 26, Oct. 13, Nov. 10, 21,
1878, July 11, Sept. 12, Oct. 17, 28, 31, 1880; _Pan._, _Mem.
Sec. Gob._, 1879, 13-14, 35-42; _Colombia_, _Diario Ofic._,
Feb. 26, 1876; _Costa R._, _Mem. Rel._, 1851, 5; _Id._, _Col.
Ley._, xiv. 54-5, 160-1; _Id._, _Informe Gobn._, 1880, 2-4;
_U. S. Govt Docs._, H. Ex. Doc. 41, p. 64-5, vi. 35th cong.
2d sess.

[XI-79] Ratified by the executive, and sanctioned by the gran
consejo nacional, of Costa R., Dec. 27, 30, 1880. _Pan._,
_Gaceta_, Jan. 16, 1881.

[XI-80] Carazo, the vice-president, had done the same Oct.
26th. _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, xi. 216.

[XI-81] At the same time he was declared a benemérito, and
the founder of the rep. of Costa R. _Id._, 157-8, 224-5; _El
Costaricense_, Nov. 17, 1849. The opposition, however, made
severe comments on his policy as reviewed by himself. _Anot.
á la renuncia_, in _Cent. Am. Miscel. Doc._, no. 20.

[XI-82] Mora was a Costa Rican of rare intellectual powers,
quite conversant with her affairs; a wealthy merchant, who
had travelled abroad, and by his frankness and liberality won
a well-deserved popularity. _El Costaricense_, Nov. 18, Dec.
1, 1849; _Costa R._, _Col Ley._, xi. 225-6, 234-5. Francisco
M. Oreamuno was elected vice-pres. Jan. 30, 1850. _Id._,
241-2; _Costa R._, _Gaceta_, Feb. 2, 1850.

[XI-83] _Nic._, _Cor. Ist._, May 2, 1850. In an address
Mora depicts the situation, and the attempts of Quiroz and
others to disturb the peace in San José and Heredia, together
with his measures to balk them. _El presid. de la rep. á la
Nacion_, June 8, 1850.

[XI-84] The decree was issued at the Hacienda de Frankfort
en las Pavas, and countersigned by Joaquin Bernardo Calvo,
minister of govt. He based his action on the fact that
congress having declined to accept his resignation, he was
made responsible before God and the people of evils that
might result from the existing order of things. _Costa R._,
_Gaceta_, no. 165; _El Siglo_, March 10, 1852; _Costa R._,
_Col. Ley._, xii. 96-7.

[XI-85] José M. Castro, Bernardo Rivera, and Nazario Toledo.
_El Siglo_ (S. Salv.), March 4, 1852.

[XI-86] June 6, 1853, the president's salary was raised to
$5,000 a year. _Costa R._, _Col. Ley._, xii. 236-7, 247-8;
_Id._, _Gaceta_, July 23, 1853; _Hond._, _Gaceta Ofic._, June
20, 1853; _Wagner_, _Costa R._, 171-2, 506-8, 296-7.

[XI-87] Min. Calvo's rept to cong. May 16, 1854. The chamber
on the 5th of June sanctioned all the acts of the govt, and
passed a vote of thanks and congratulation to the president,
'por el acierto y prudencia con que la ha regido.' _Costa
R._, _Mem. Rel._, 15.

[XII-1] The following persons held the office ad int. before
him: namely, Patricio Rivas, June 1839; Joaquin Cosío, July
1839; Hilario Ulloa, senator in charge, Oct. 1839; Tomás
Valladares, senator, Nov. 1839; Patricio Rivas, Sept. 1840.
_Marure_, _Efem._, 64; _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, iv. 136;
_Wells' Hond._, 494.

[XII-2] There was much dissimilarity of views on political
matters between the two men, though Castellon had contributed
to Buitrago's election. Many bitter publications appeared
subsequently from the pens of the two adversaries. _Perez_,
_Mem. Hist. Rev. Nic._, 48, 146.

[XII-3] They were not even allowed to enter the state,
because of the treaty of Oct. 1842, signed by Pavon, Arriaga,
and Duran.

[XII-4] The Gaceta eulogized him, and Pavon said that he
was 'un hombre de órden que solo aspiraba á la justicia y
al decoro.' Buitrago's position was becoming a difficult
one. Morazan ruled in Costa Rica, had not a few friends in
Nicaragua, and public opinion in the latter state favored
a convention of states. On the other hand, he was anxious
not to forfeit the good opinion of the nobles and nuns.
Upon the news of Morazan's execution reaching Leon, he had
it published with marks of satisfaction. He also objected,
though not strenuously, to the landing of Saget and his
companions, ycleped Coquimbos, in Salvador.

[XII-5] One of his first acts was to make Francisco Castellon
his ministro general.

[XII-6] The new official journal, _Eco de la Ley_, in its
first number declared that an Octavian peace reigned. And
indeed, had Nicaragua been away from obnoxious influences,
peace might have been maintained under republican
institutions. But she was, unhappily, surrounded by states
where for a time brutal force held sway.

[XII-7] The claimants were Bridge, Glenton, and Manning.
Full details on the claims of the last two are in _Nic._,
_Registro Ofic._, 109-10, 121-3, 132-5; _Dunlop's Cent. Am._,
55-6.

[XII-8] They embarked at San Juan del Norte on the 11th of
March, 1844. Both have since figured prominently in political
circles.

[XII-9] Selva had held the office by virtue of his position
as senior senator to that date, when his senatorial term
expired.

[XII-10] 223 votes were cast for him, the next highest
receiving only 190. The other candidates were Juan José
Ruiz, José Guerrero, Pablo Buitrago, Laureano Pineda, José
Rosa Perez, G. Carcache, Patricio Rivas, and Rafael Machado.
_Nic._, _Registro Ofic._, 47-8; _Sandoval_, _Revistas
Polít._, 19; _Dunlop's Cent. Am._, 250.

[XII-11] To raise two loans of $10,000 and $30,000,
respectively, and to regulate the financial system. Trial
by jury was suspended. An amnesty was issued with many
exceptions against the defenders of Leon. _Nic._, _Registro
Ofic._, 69-70. Two portfolios were created; namely, that
of war, intrusted to Lino César, and that of treasury,
placed in charge of Jesus de la Rocha. José Montenegro was
ministro general and of foreign relations. The administrative
course of Fruto Chamorro, as supremo delegado of the late
confederacy, was approved the 9th of May, long after Chamorro
had vacated his office.

[XII-12] Under the decree of June 23d, the prisoners were
confined respectively in Granada, Matagalpa, Acoyapa, San
Fernando, and Nandayme, and subjected to prosecution by the
courts. Many persons, specially the partisans of Cabañas,
were given by Corral the advice—which was tantamount to
an order—to quit Managua and not return. _Nic._, _Registro
Ofic._, 90, 96-8, 101, 104.

[XII-13] The cause was the indignation at the sympathy of the
government's agents for Malespin and Guardiola.

[XII-14] The treaty with Salvador bore date of May 6, 1845,
and was ratified by the Salvadoran chambers June 3d.

[XII-15] The municipal authorities and citizens of the place,
by an acta on the 29th of July, authorized Valle to take such
action as he deemed best to upset the existing government and
restore constitutional order. _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, v.
139-40; _Nic._, _Registro Ofic._, 138-9.

[XII-16] Salvador was for a time suspected of connivance with
Valle, but she proved the contrary.

[XII-17] Director Sandoval called them assassins and robbers.

[XII-18] The western department and Managua were mulcted in
$12,000 as punishment.

[XII-19] His official reports of July 8th and 17th are
textually given in _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, v. 162-4;
_Nic._, _Registro Ofic._, 128-9, 133-4.

[XII-20] It is inexplicable how these two men could serve
in the same cabinet, unless under some one of very superior
mind and character, which Sandoval certainly did not possess.
Jerez was a democrat, a friend of Central American union,
and an admirer of Morazan. Buitrago was the opposite—a
conservative, separatist, and opponent of Morazan.

[XII-21] Leaders surrendering were to be dealt with by the
civil courts; otherwise, if captured, would be tried under
military laws.

[XII-22] Every one refusing to return was heavily
fined. Chief-of-bureau E. Castillo's instructions to the
sub-prefect, in _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, v. 293.

[XII-23] Decree of Oct. 30, 1842. _Nic._, _Registro Ofic._,
126, 128, 138, 143.

[XII-24] Official reports of Dec. 6th and 8th to the min. of
war of Nic., _Id._, 157-8; _El Tiempo_, March 12, 1846.

[XII-25] 'En cuanto al pasaporte, el Gobierno Supremo ama y
desea mucho la felicidad del Estado, y no podría privarlo de
su mas fuerte apoyo.' _Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, v. 284-5;
_Nic._, _Registro Ofic._, 290.

[XII-26] He followed the example of Carrera in Guat.

[XII-27] Sandoval surrendered his office June 25th to the
legislature in order that it might freely adjudicate upon his
official acts. Once approved, he resumed the executive duties
Sept. 2d.

[XII-28] Dec. 12th it voted an amnesty law with a number
of limitations; namely, against persons entering the state
with arms to disturb the peace; and against the guilty of
murder or other atrocious crime. The govt issued, Jan. 9,
1847, a supplementary decree of amnesty. _Sandoval_, _Revista
Polít._, 57-9. _Nic._, _Registro Ofic._, 390, 401, 407-8;
_Montúfar_, _Reseña Hist._, v. 298-9.

[XII-29] Sandoval returned to Granada and was received with
great honor.

[XII-30] July 16, 1847. This measure awakened much acrimony
outside of the benefited department.

[XII-31] _El Razonador_, Dec. 29, 1847.

[XII-32] See _Hist. Cent. Am._, ii. 599-607, this series. In
Nov. 1803, the whole north coast, including the island of San
Andrés, and the Mosquito Coast extending from Cape Gracias
á Dios to the Chagre River, was placed under the viceroy
of Nueva Granada; but five years later the transfer was
annulled, and the coast of Mosquitia restored to Nicaragua,
to which it had been annexed by royal order of March 31,
1803.

[XII-33] He based his pretension on the following incident:
The Caribs on the Trujillo line rebelled in 1807 betaking
themselves to Mosq. territory, where they were captured by
Sp. troops and brought back, together with some Mosquitians,
as prisoners. King Stephen, successor to George, the man
crowned by the British, threatened to burn Trujillo and to
wage a border warfare if his subjects were not forthwith
returned. The president of Guatemala, for prudential reasons,
had the prisoners sent back. _Am. Cent._, _Reclam. de
Interven._, 8.

[XII-34] Altogether about 76,000 square miles. _Strangeways'
Mosq._, 4-5. Lord Palmerston, in his instructions to Brit.
represent. in Nueva Granada and Cent. Am., spoke of a coast
line of about 720 statute miles as belonging to Mosq. Squier,
_Cent. Am._, 629, has it that from 200 to 500 miles in
length, and undefined breadth, have been claimed.

[XII-35] Capt. Geo. Henderson took some in 1807. The chiefs
expected higher marks of regard, but had to be contented with
what they got. _Henderson's Brit. Hond._, 168, 204.