[XIX-4] The Hondurans claimed on the strength of art. 8th of the treaty concluded at Santa Rosa on the 25th of March, 1862, the concentration in the interior of Salvador of Gen. Florencio Xatruch, the priest Miguel Bustillo, and José Manuel Selva, Hondurans; and also of certain Nicaraguans, who after their rebellion against the government of Fernando Guzman in their own country, had found a refuge in Salvador, and made common cause with the enemies of President Medina, because he had supported Guzman with the moral and diplomatic influence of his government. The Salvadoran negotiator denied that Xatruch was a political refugee. He was sent by Nic. in 1863 to Salv. at the head of an auxiliary force. Later with Nicaragua's permission he was employed by Salv., he being since 1858 a general of division of her army, a rank conferred on him for his services against Walker and his filibusters; and was therefore entitled to all the rights of a Salvadoran citizen. Salv. pledged, however, that he would do no hostile act against Hond. As to adopting any action against the Nicaraguans, the demand could not be acceded to, because they did not come under the provisions of the treaty with Honduras, nor were they political refugees at all. The commissioner of Salv. made counter-charges: 1st. Hond. had violated art. 9 of the treaty of Santa Rosa, in that her legislature had empowered the executive to declare war against Salv. without first complying with the terms of that clause. 2d. She had allowed asylum to Salvadoran refugees, giving them employment on the frontier of Salv., where they had been constantly plotting and uttering menaces against their govt, using arms obtained from Honduran govt warehouses. All remonstrances against such proceedings had been disregarded. 3d. Hond., heeding false reports, had raised 1,500 men, keeping a portion on the Salv. frontier, and maintaining a warlike attitude. The Honduran commissioners denied the correctness of the charges, and quoted instances in which their government had given proofs of deference and friendship toward its neighbor. Salv., Protocolo de las Conf., 1-16.
[XIX-5] Nic. had mediated on behalf of peace, accrediting H. Zepeda and M. Montealegre as commissioners at Amapala. But an affair of arms at Pasaquina frustrated the efforts of the legation. Circular of Nic. Foreign Min., Sept. 5, 1876, in Salv., Gaceta Ofic., Oct. 26, 1876.
[XIX-6] The oligarchs pretended contempt for Medina's action; some said, 'Medina es un loco, y Honduras un esqueleto;' others, 'La quijotesca actitud de Honduras afianzará mas nuestro poder.' Uriarte, Observ. ... Union Rep. Cent. Am., 3.
[XIX-7] It was said that Medina was enticed into assisting the liberals, under the delusion that they would call him to rule over the united states of Guat., Salv. and Hond.
[XIX-8] San Salvador, the capital, had been several days fortified awaiting an assault, but the invaders, not knowing how much force there might be at hand for its defence, preferred to march on to Santa Ana.
[XIX-9] Hond., Boletin Ofic., no. 2, contains the official report of the action, copied in Nic., Gaceta, March 13, 1871.
[XIX-10] A guard was kept around the minister's house as long as Dueñas was his guest.
[XIX-11] He was kept there, treated with respect and consideration till after his trial. The particulars of his surrender appear in the official correspondence of Min. Torbert with both his own and the Salvadoran governments. U. S. Gov. Doc., H. Ex. Doc., Cong. 42, Sess. 2, i. 693-5.
[XIX-12] There was no reason to keep him a prisoner. He could no longer injure Medina, and moreover, the government took into account his valuable services to Cent. Am. in 1856-7 against Walker. Laferrière, De Paris à Guatémala, 197-8.
[XIX-13] The process was accordingly passed to the cámara de 2d instancia. El Porvenir de Nic., June 2, 1872.