35
tween. Would the scandals of Bejucal, and so many others, which have given occasion to complaints, and even now demand the attention of the two countries, have taken place if the dividing line had been clearly fixed? But all the efforts of Mexico have been sterile in presence of the zeal with which Guatemala has sustained her fancied right to Chiapas and Soconusco. Hoping some day to recover these regions, or to obtain a pecuniary compensation for them, she has refused to put an end to an uncertainty harmful to both nations, and proposed the negotiation of treaties of a different character, which can be of no utility as long as the material possession, subject by law to the authority of each government, remains undefined. It is true, as Your Excellency says, that in 1854 Guatemala agreed to the incorporation of Chiapas and Soconusco, but she did not consent to the actual tracing of the limits, insisting, as before, upon the maintenance of the statu quo, as may be seen in Article I of the Memorandum by Mr. Pavon: "The limits between the two republics shall continue to be what they now are." This phrase clearly expresses the invariable idea of Guatemala, namely, not to trace her limits, and thus leave subsisting all the causes of difficulties, and all the elements of future conflicts, between the two nations. Moreover, the deference of Guatemala in 1854 had for its basis the proposed payment of a debt which Mexico can not recognize, and a claim upon unoccupied lands which can not even be discussed, since it has no foundation whatever. It is, in fact, difficult to discover the reasons which Guatemala has had for refusing the settlement of her limits, for it is not possible even to imagine that this refusal involves the idea of maintaining the rights hitherto
