[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.