In agreeing to join Zelaya upon his mad and mendacious enterprise, President Miguel Dávila, who had only assumed the Presidency in the month of April of that year (1907), undoubtedly allowed his better judgment and sense of decency to be overruled. This do I know, also: he has deeply and sincerely repented of his action, not because it failed and he lost the game at which he had consented to try his hand, but because, being a man, as I have said, of innate honesty of purpose, he perceived when too late that he had committed what is a worse offence than a mistake—a crime against personal honour.

General Fernando Figueroa, however, did something more than merely warn President Dávila of the plotting going on against his government and his life, and which was proceeding beyond his own jurisdiction. He actually prevented the leader of the Honduranean revolutionists, General Téofilo Cárcamo, from leaving Salvadorean territory, keeping him, with many other conspirators, in prison, and thus helping to quell an uprising against President Dávila's government.

The magnanimity of the Salvadorean Government continued to the end. Notwithstanding the finding of the Central American Court of Justice, (delivered on December 19, 1908), and which, being in favour of Salvador upon all points raised, should sequentia have carried costs, the Government forewent any such claims, which by the terms usually prevailing under International Law could have been insisted upon, and found its share of the expenses incurred by the inquiry.

Subsequent to the troubles related in the foregoing pages, the Honduranean Government stupidly courted fresh disasters by prosecuting a claim for damages against the two Republics of Salvador and Guatemala for injuries which it declared it had sustained as a result of those two sister-States having harboured Honduranean agitators and conspirators within their borders. The exact value of this claim can best be judged by perusing the following questions that were considered and determined by the Special Court of Justice which was formed in Costa Rica (the only State which stood aside and refused to be concerned in this Central American squabble), and the members of which were made up of five different nationalities. Attached is a faithful translation of what transpired on this occasion:

In the Central American Court of Justice at Cartago, Costa Rica.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS VERSUS THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE REPUBLICS OF EL SALVADOR AND GUATEMALA.

Decision: in the City of Cartago, Costa Rica, at Midnight Of The 19th of December, 1908.

Upon the closing of the deliberations of the Court for pronouncing judgment in the complaint filed by the Government of the Republic of Honduras against the Governments of the Republics of El Salvador and Guatemala, charging responsibility that took place in the first-mentioned Republic in the month of June last, the Chief Justice submitted the following queries to be voted upon in rendering the decision that is to settle the controversy:

First Question.—Should the Court sustain the exception taken by the representative of the Government of Guatemala as to the inadmissibility of the complaint, on grounds that it was filed before all negotiations for settlement, between the two respective Departments of Foreign Affairs, had been resorted to without success?

The result of the vote cast was as follows:

First Question.—The five justices answered in the negative.

Second Question.—Should the Court sustain the exception taken by the same party, as to the insufficiency of basis of action, considering that no evidence was filed together with the complaint?

Second Question.—The five justices answered in the negative.

Third Question.—Is it proven, and should it thus be held, that the Government of the Republic of El Salvador has violated Article 17 of the Treaty of Peace and Amity, signed at Washington on December 20, 1907, by failing to bring to the Capital and to submit to trial Honduranean exiles who endangered the peace of their country?

Third Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justices Uclés and Madriz in the affirmative.

Fourth Question.—Is it proven, and should it thus be held, that the Government of the Republic of El Salvador has violated Article 2 of the additional convention to said treaty by fostering and promoting the revolutionary movement referred to?

Fourth Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, Astua, and Madriz answered in the negative, and Justice Uclés in the affirmative.

Fifth Question.—Is it proven, and should it be held, that the Government of the Republic of El Salvador has contributed to the realization of the said political disturbance, through culpable negligence?

Fifth Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justices Uclés and Madriz in the affirmative.

Sixth Question.—In consequence, should the Court hold that the action instituted against the Government of the Republic of El Salvador is according to law, and, if so, should that Government be sentenced to pay the indemnity for damages that the complainant prays for?

Sixth Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justices Uclés and Madriz in the affirmative.

Seventh Question.—Is it proven, and should it be held, that the Government of the Republic of Guatemala has violated Article 17 of the Treaty of Peace and Amity, signed at Washington on December 20, 1907, by failing to bring to the Capital and submit to trial Honduranean exiles who endangered the peace of their country?

Seventh Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justice Uclés in the affirmative.

Eighth Question.—Is it proven, and should it be held, that the Government of the Republic of Guatemala has violated Article 2 of the additional convention to the said treaty by fostering and promoting the revolutionary movement referred to?

Eighth Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justice Uclés in the affirmative.

Ninth Question.—Is it proven, and should it be held, that the Government of the Republic of Guatemala has contributed to the realization of the said political disturbance, through culpable negligence?

Ninth Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justice Uclés in the affirmative.

Tenth Question.—In consequence, should the Court hold that the action instituted against the Government of the Republic of Guatemala is according to law, and, if so, should the Government be sentenced to pay the indemnity for damages the complainant prays for?

Tenth Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justice Uclés in the affirmative.

Eleventh Question.—Should costs be awarded against the losing parties?

Eleventh Question.—Justices Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz, and Astua answered in the negative, and Justice Uclés in the sense that costs be awarded against the Governments of the Republics of El Salvador and Guatemala.

From the above-stated result, judgment is rendered dismissing the action instituted against the Governments of the Republics of El Salvador and Guatemala without costs.

José Astua Aguilar.
Salvador Gallegos.
Angel M. Bocanegra.
Alberto Uclés.
José Madriz.

Witness: Ernesto Martin, Secretary.

A more impudent or baseless claim than that put forward by Honduras, and decided by the Central American Court of Justice, can hardly be imagined. That the Honduranean Government would ever have thought of prosecuting it at all but for the instigation from its immediate neighbour seems hardly probable.

That the Court should have found a decision overwhelmingly in favour of Salvador and Guatemala was only natural, but it seems unfair that, having come to that inevitable conclusion, costs should not have followed the event, and that Honduras should not have been condemned to pay them.

There is but one consolation (a poor one, I am afraid) open to the Republics of Guatemala and Salvador in this connection—namely, that had the Court ordered Honduras to pay the costs of the inquiry, it would never have done so, any more than it has paid back to its foreign creditors either the principal of, or, even the interest upon, the money which it borrowed.

Were the creditors American instead of British, some satisfactory settlement would have been arrived at long ago. Even as it is, the British bondholders will be unable to obtain a settlement of any kind without recourse to American interference, and, as may be well believed, it will be upon such terms as the Americans choose to approve of, and subject to such profits out of the transactions as the Americans choose to demand.