those transitory clauses, has arisen to deprive it of that validity, which was even foreseen by the negotiators of Mapasingue when they embodied Article 31 in this other pact. The arguments founded on the dismemberment of Colombia, have no force, and they may even disparage our defense." Señor Manuel Irigoyen, Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru, at that time, in a note written to Señor José Pardo on October 9, 1889, in which he communicated the instructions that had to be carried out in the defense before the Arbitrator, wrote as follows: "With regard to this, you must consider the Treaty of 1829 in force in its stipulations of a permanent character; one of which, and the one pertinent to the present controversy, is the first part of Article 5-in order to deduce that the principle in question has been positively approved; but without entering into an explanation of the reasons why the clauses relative to the Túmbez have lapsed for Peru, and the value of the protocols preceding the Treaty." In accord with the report of the advisory commissions and the instructions of the Ministry, Señor Don José Pardo, in the first brief, made the following declaration as a base of the Peruvian defense: "My Government has authorized me to repeat on this occasion that it considers the principle stipulated in the Treaty of 1829 to be in full force." And (what seems an inexplicable and unqualified inconsistency in the dignified defense of a national cause) Señor Mariano Cornejo and Señor Osma, in their brief, make the following statement in the name of the very selfsame Peruvian Nation: "Peru declares that Ecuador can not invoke the Treaty of 1829, because it is a Treaty which has lapsed and because it is not possible to invoke treaties, which are not in force, in an arbitration." They And what reasons do they give? say that the Treaty of 1829 does not exist: "first, because it has not been complied with for three-fourths of a century, and second, because a new form of agreement has been made that did away with and is contrary to it." And what is this new form of agreement that is contrary to the Treaty of 1829? According to Señores Cornejo and Osma, Cornejo y Osma, el Tratado de Arbitraje, que sometió al juicio del Rey de España las cuestiones de límites pendientes entre el Ecuador y el Perú .!! "Supongamos (dicen sobre el particular los señores defensores) que el actual arbitraje que va a fallar V. M. no se hubiera pactado con el Ecuador, sino con Colombia, tal como estaba constituída antes de su disolución. Nadie podría negar que ese arbitraje importaba la anulación expresa del Tratado del 29, puesto que las dos partes contratantes, en vez de cumplirlo, recurrían a otro medio para solucionar sus diferencias." Nadie podrá negar que argumentos d ́esta clase no son serios. Nadie ha juzgado peor de la causa peruana que los últimos defensores del Perú ante el Real Arbitro; por lo cual, en magnífica frase, termina así el Sr. Maura su "Defensa de los Derechos de la República del Ecuador": "Ni en el conjunto ni en los pormenores podrá suceder que el juicio del Arbitro mejore el que de versas tiene formado el Perú acerca de su propia causa." CAPÍTULO VIII TRATADO DE ARBITRAJE. -DEMANDA DEL Por convención celebrada en Quito el 1° de agosto de 1887, cuyas ratificaciones se canjearon en Lima el 14 de abril de 1888, se sometieron al arbitraje de S. M. el Rey de España las cuestiones de límites pendientes entre el Ecuador y el Perú, para que las decidiese como Arbitro de Derecho. El Ecuador, en su primitiva demanda ante el Arbitro, presentada antes de que le fuese conocido el protocolo "Pedemonte-Mosquera," pidió que se "declarase que, en cumplimiento de los dispuesto en el Art. 6-del Tratado de 1829, los Gobiernos del Ecuador y del Perú deben nombrar una Comisión compuesta de dos individuos por cada República que recorra, rectifique y fije la línea divisoria conforme a lo estipulado en el Art. 5-, tomando por base las cédulas de siglo XVIII y no la de 15 julio de 1802." it is the Arbitration Treaty that submitted the boundary questions pending between Ecuador and Peru to the decision of the King of Spain .!! "Let us suppose (say these defenders) that the present arbitration to be decided by Your Majesty had not been agreed upon with Ecuador, but with Colombia, as that country was constituted before her dissolution. It could not be denied that such an arbitration would amount to the cancellation of the Treaty of 1829, since the two high contracting parties, instead of fulfilling it, resorted to other means for settling their differences." No one can deny that arguments of this kind are lacking in dignity. No one could have placed the Peruvian cause in a more unfavorable light than the last defenders of Peru, themselves, did before the Royal Arbitrator; as is shown in the magnificent phrase with which Señor Maura concludes his "Defense of the Rights of the Republic of Ecuador": "Neither as a whole nor in detail could the Award of the Arbitrator possibly surpass the one which Peru has formed herself regarding her own cause." CHAPTER VIII. ARBITRATION TREATY. CLAIM OF ECUADOR. Through a Convention agreed upon in Quito on August I, 1887, the ratifications of which were exchanged in Lima on April 14, 1888, the boundary questions pending between Ecuador and Peru were submitted to the arbitration of His Majesty the King of Spain, in order that he might decide them as Arbitro de Jure. Ecuador, in her original claim submitted to the Arbitrator before she knew of the existence of the PedemonteMosquera Protocol, petitioned that "it be declared, in compliance with the provisions of Article 6, of the Treaty of 1829, that the Governments of Ecuador and Peru should appoint a Commission, composed of two individuals from each Republic, who would go over, rectify and fix the dividing line in accordance with the stipulations of Article 5, taking as a basis the Cedulas of the Eighteenth Century and not that of July 15, 1802." Mas, conocido posteriormente por el Ecuador el proto- CAPÍTULO IV.-Reclamaciones de Colombia al Perú.-Declaración de Guerra.-Triunfo de Colombia.. CAPÍTULO V.-Tratado de Paz de 1829.. CAPÍTULO VI.-Protocolo Pedemonte-Mosquera.. CAPÍTULO VII.-Conclusiones..... CAPÍTULO VIII.—Tratado de Arbitraje.—Demanda del Ecuador.. But later, on learning of the Pedemonte-Mosquera La Paz, July 30, 1910. N. CLEMENTE PONCE, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary Section 1.-The 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. . .. 9 14 CHAPTER II.-Jaen and Túmbez. 32 CHAPTER III.-Independence..... 38 CHAPTER IV.-Reclamations of Colombia from Peru. Declaration CHAPTER V.-The Peace Treaty of 1829..... CHAPTER VI.-Pedemonte-Mosquera Protocol.. CHAPTER VII.-Conclusions... CHAPTER VIII.-Arbitration Treaty. Claim of Ecuador. of War. Triumph of Colombia.. 45 58 61 53 47 |