Boundary question between the Republic of Guatemala and the Republic of Honduras under mediation of the Honorable secretary of state of the United States of America; brief on behalf of Honduras

Contents

PAGE

Statement of the Case i

Events leading to the present Mediation. ... 4 ^^..

II (3) The cedilla of September 8, 1563

even assuming it were not repealed by that of May 8, 1564, is inconsistent with the cedulas which extended to the Captaincy- General of Guatemala the system oiintendencias \V[v\^\2.v\\.^di in New Spain by the Ordinance of Intende^ites of December 4, 1 786. . . 36

(4) The Constitutions of Guatemala of

1825 and 1845 are inconsistent with the present Guatemalan claim to the line of Fonseca Bay and Ulua River 38

(5) The cedula of 1563 is of no effect

because inconsistent with the treaties between Honduras and Guatemala of May 12, 1839, August 14, 1839, March i, 1895, and August i, 1914 40

II. The uti possidetis of 1821 is the controlling PRINCIPLE 42

(i) The principle is well settled in American international law and is founded on sound political and social reasons 42

(2) The principle has been expressly adopted in Article 6 of the 19 14 treaty between Guatemala and

Honduras . .

Ill

PAGE

(3) The principle has been expressly

defined in such terms by the representative of Guatemala in the present Mediation as to involve a waiver of any prescriptive rights to territory not covered by the uti possidetis of 182 1 and occupied by Guatemala since that year ... 45

(4) Such waiver by Guatemala is proper,

because there has been no change of legal status between the parties since 1821 ^g

(5) The determination of the line of the

uti possidetis juris of 1821 thus becomes a necessary step precedent to the suggestion by the Honorable Mediator of a compromise boundary which will harmonize with the present day situation of the parties 50

(6) In its application to the present dis-

pute the principle of the ttti possidetis of 1 82 1 is an historical reconstruction of the limits of political and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Honduras and Guatemala at the close of the colonial period; every variety of evidence being admissible under the treaty of 19 14 to realize such reconstruction r i

IV

III. The evidence of a general character shows that under the principle of the uti possidetis of 1 82 1, honduras had possession both de jure and de facto at least up to the line of Cerro Brujo-Cerro Obscuro-Coyoles AND THE Managua River to its confluence WITH MOTAGUA RiVER, AND THENCE THE MoTAGUA RiVER TO THE

SEA. This line also substantially

DEFINES THE MODERN LIMIT OF HON- DURANEAN OCCUPATION 54

(i) Spanish Colonial Legislation 57

(2) Constitutional provisions and Gua-

temalan legislation after 1821 . . . 60

(3) Exercise of the electoral franchise

before and after 1821 63

(4) Colonial administration; official re-

ports 65

(5) Colonial land titles 70

(6) Ecclesiastical evidence 79

(7) Treaties between Guatemala and

Honduras: and negotiations

thereunder 86

(a) Treaty of August 14, 1839. . 86

(d) Treaty of July 19, 1845. ... 86 (c) Treaties of March i, 1895

and August i, 19 14 88

(8) Cartographical and geographical

evidence 89

FA6BI

IV. The line of possession in 1821 ran sub-

stantially FROM CeRRO BrUJO THROUGH Cerro Obscuro to the Portillo de Caulotes or Coyoles; and Cerro Brujo and Cerro Obscuro are two points which have been definitively fixed by subsequent agreement of the parties 95

(i) Cerro Brujo is the point of common boundary of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador 95

(2) Cerro Obscuro has also been defi-

nitively fixed as a point of the boundary 97

(3) The line from Cerro Brujo through

Cerro Obscuro to the Portillo de Caulotes or Coyoles is demarcated in detail by evidence of several varieties submitted by Honduras in the present Mediation. The evidence likewise supports Honduranean possession

behind the line 97

(a) Land titles 97

(d) Evidence of a political and

judicial character 10 1

(c) Ecclesiastical evidence 103

V. The Copan region was within the limits

OF the Intendencia of Honduras in

182 1 106

(i) The legislation of the Spanish Kings

and the Cortes is confirmatory. 107

VI Pace

{2) The acts of the Governors, and later the hite7identcs, and of other officials of Honduras establish Honduranean jurisdiction over

the Copan region 107

{a) Evidence of a judicial nature. 107

{b) Land titles 1 1 1

[c) Miscellaneous evidence of administrative jurisdiction ... 115

(3) The ecclesiastical evidence is to the

same effect 115

(4) The treaty of August 14, 1839,

recognizes that the Copan region

lay in Honduras 118

{5) The treaty of July 19, 1845, ^^<^ Guatemala's Instructions to her Commissioner thereunder are to the same effect 118

(6) The Guatemalan constitutions, legis-

lation and acts of jurisdiction since independence are confirmatory . . 120

(7) The cartographical and geographical

data uniformly confirms the inclusion of the Copan region in Honduras 123

VI. Upon the principle of the uti possidetis OF 182 1 Honduras is entitled at least TO the line of the Motagua River

FROM ITS confluence WITH THE MAN- AGUA TO THE SEA VIA THE SaN FrANCISCO

River, which formed the channel in

THE colonial PERIOD I 26

(i) The evidence of colonial administration supports this contention. ... 127