[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.