No. 18.
Mr. Osborn to Mr. Frelinghuysen .

[Extract.]
No. 30.]

Sir: The long-continued controversy between Brazil and the Argentine Republic, touching their boundaries, has recently assumed a rather threatening aspect. The territory in dispute lies on the western border of the Brazilian province of Parana, between the rivers Iguazu and Uruguay, and covers an extent of eight hundred square leagues. It is far removed from the civilized settlements, being inhabited only by a few wild Indians, and is covered by dense forests of valuable timber.

Pending the controversy the two governments have tacitly assented to the non-exercise of sovereignty over the disputed territory by either, and the present commotion is caused by some action of the Argentine Government, which it is alleged looks to the abandonment of its former policy. It seems that by a law of the Argentine Republic the Missions territory has been transferred from the provincial to the national domain, and by executive decree has been divided into five administrative departments. According to the Argentine claim this territory includes the district in dispute.

The adoption of these measures caused considerable anxiety here, and resulted in the sending of an instruction by the government to their minister in Buenos Ayres, having in view the presentation of a protest against what appeared to be the contemplated action. For reasons not known to the public, but which seemed sufficient with the Brazilian minister in Buenos Ayres, the protest was not made, and I am not aware that any correspondence between the two governments has been had on the [Page 26] subject. The newspapers have continued to talk of the matter, however, and the community has not been free from apprehension, notwithstanding the seeming want of alarm in government circles.

Doubtless with a view to force the government to disclose their policy, a few days since Baron de Cotegipe caused to be published in the Globo, an evening newspaper, a letter, of which the inclosed is a translation. The baron is a leading conservative, is president of the Senate, and was minister of foreign relations some years since when his party was in power. The government, in response, caused to be published in the Diario Official of the 13th instant an article, of which I also inclose a translation.

The desire of the government to avoid a public discussion of the subject has been patent to all, but this has not had the effect of silencing the opposition. All efforts, however, having in view a further disclosure have failed, the president of the council of ministers having declared in the Senate that he would not permit himself to be drawn into the discussion at present. He evidently hopes to obtain an assurance that the purposes of the Argentine Government are not hostile, and in the mean time he is, apparently, endeavoring to calm the excited fears of the country. On the 15th instant he stated in the Senate that he did not believe there was any cause for alarm; but with this his mouth closed, and he could be induced to say no more.

As will be seen by the inclosures, the controversy consists in determining the location of the two streams called the Santo Antonio-Guassú and the Pepiry-Guassú. These streams take their rise in the territory between the Igassú and Uruguay Rivers, and flow in opposite directions, one emptying into the former and the other into the latter. It is conceded that they constitute the line of division between the two countries, but the Argentines contend that the Brazilian location of them is erroneous. They insist that the two streams lying several leagues to the east of the Brazilian location, which appear on the Brazilian maps as the “Chapeco” and the “Chopim,” are, in truth, the Santo Antonio Guassú and the Pepiry-Guassú, and herein consists the question in dispute.

These streams were fixed as the line of separation under the provisions of a treaty entered into between Spain and Portugal in 1750. In 1759 a commission visited that locality, in pursuance of the requirements of the treaty, for the purpose of definitely establishing the boundaries, and upon the report of this commission, it seems, both parties to the controversy base their claims.

In 1857 an effort was made to arrange the difficulty amicably, and the negotiations to that end resulted in the signing of a treaty which recognized the Brazilian claim. The treaty was, however, rejected by the Argentine Congress.

In 1876 another effort was made in the same direction, but without result; since which time, until the recent movements, the question has remained at rest.

You will not fail to notice the language of the second paragraph of the article published in the Diario Official. I quote:

No Argentine law can extinguish the issue existing between the two states, nor establish a jurisdiction which the imperial government does not recognize; The right of Brazil to the Pepiry-Guassú territory subsists in full force and shall be maintained.

* * * * * * *

I have, &c.,

THOMAS A. OSBORN.
[Page 27]
[Inclosure 1 in No. 30.]

Letter of Baron de Cotegipe

The following letter has been addressed by Baron de Cotegipe to the Globo on the subject of the Argentine decree creating the national territory of Missiones:

A month ago, while noticing the promulgation of the decree of the Argentine Government organizing the Missiones territory, you made some important queries. Have they been overlooked, or was it inconvenient to reply to them? The question is not of a reserved kind, especially after the act of force just effected by our neighbor, in deciding singly what has long been an object of controversy.

To those who give no attention to the matter, nothing appears more simple and natural than that decree. It traces the boundary of the Missiones government by the Pepiriguarú, at the Uruguay, to the San Antonio-Guarú, at the Iguazú. But not so to whoever knows that the rivers so called are really the Chapeco and the Chopim, and that our division from the Argentine Republic runs by the Piperiguarú and Santo Antonio, explored and marked in 1759 by the Spanish and Portuguese commissioners, whose mouths are: As to the first at 27° 9’ 23”, and as to the second, 25° 35’ 4”, for he sees that a large area of terrain has been usurped from us, and what is more, that this tract enters like a wedge between the provinces of Parana, S. Catharine, and Rio Grande de Sul.

Before and since our emancipation we have always maintained our right to this territory, declaring categorically that we would maintain it. The Argentine Republic never exercised any act of possession in that region even, because Paraguay lay between any attempt of the kind through its occupation of the Missiones territory, and it has to be noted that Paraguay always respected our limits on this side.

I am not aware of any act of the Argentines, unless this of which we treat, that authorizes their intrusion into the disputed lands. On the contrary, there is the treaty of January, 1857, which recognized it as Brazilian domain. And if this treaty, negotiated by the Argentine Government and approved by Congress, was not ratified —for a reason honorable to us—in the end by General Urquiza, under whose Presidency it was made, it is, nevertheless, an historical document, which at least should throw doubt on the right now arrogated by the Argentine Government.

Likewise, in opposition of the daring pretension, there are the documents of the negotiation which took place in 1876 between the minister of foreign affairs, Senhor Irigoyen (the same who has signed the decree of expropriation), and Baron Aguiar de Andrade.

The proceeding of our neighbor, if failing in justice, has the merit of frankness. The Argentine Government commenced by obtaining from Congress authorization to form the Missiones territory into a separate government. It then allowed some time to elapse, and has now cut through all doubts by taking the disputed territory to itself.

And what have we been doing?

The only act of our government that has come to light, and it merely on the return trip, is what we learn by to-day’s papers, viz:

“The Brazilian minister has sent a note to the minister of foreign affairs to inform him that the imperial government, yielding to repeated urgings from the tribes in habiting the Missiones territory between Guarapuava and the Pequiri, has decided on effecting an examination of those lands for the purpose of ascertaining whether they will serve for colonization.

“Nevertheless, as the boundary question between the Empire and the Republic is not definitely settled, Brazil, before taking any decision on this matter, has sent a communication to the Argentine Government and consulted it, to prevent false information.

“The minister of foreign affairs has sent on the note to his colleague of the Interior. It is supposed that the Argentine Government will consent to the request of Brazil.”

Whence it may be concluded: 1st. That when the Argentine law was voted to nationalize,the Missiones territory, there was nothing done on our side to save our right; 2d. That, when publication was given to the executive decree that included the terrain in litigation, no protest to the same purpose appeared; 3d. That any reclamation has been deprecated by putting the matter in doubt and asking license to explore on this side of the Pequiri.

It is natural that the Argentine Government will reply that if the Pequiri (the Argentine one) is the line it has nothing to permit, but if it is the Brazilian Peqiuri it cannot permit explorations for the founding of colonies in national territory.

What will the Government of Brazil say or do? Gulp down the humiliation? Abandon our right? This matter is grave, very grave. It is not by being silent and submitting that we can settle it honorably. The country may be surprised by a serious conflict for which it is not ready.

[Page 28]

Ill-judged economy has snipped away our means of defense, whilst our neighbors have armed themselves by land and sea, without looking to sacrifices.

Right without power is now a weak barrier between nations. Provision is not provocation. Let us be provident.

BARON DE COTEGIPE.
[lnclosure 2 in No. 30.]

Reply of the government to the letter of Baron de Cotegipe.

The following official rejoinder appeared in the Diario Official of the 13th:

The government has not been careless in the boundary question with the Argentine Republic; on the contrary, it has pursued in it the example of lively interest left in the ministry of foreign affairs by Baron de Cotegipe. The incident referred to by his excellency in his letter to the editor of the Globo was the object of immediate attention. As soon as made aware, by telegram from the legation in Montevidéo, that the Argentine Government had submitted to Congress a bill transferring the Missiones territory from the provincial to the national domain, instructions were sent to the envoy in Buenos Ayres to send in a note saving the right of Brazil. It happened, however, that this note was not sent in at the fit moment, for reasons which appeared weighty to our minister in the Argentine Confederation, but which were not accepted by the imperial government. It was then considered that it would be well to await the resolution of Congress and subsequent acts.

No Argentine law can extinguish the issue existing between the two states, nor establish a jurisdiction which the imperial government does not recognize. The right of Brazil to the Pepiry Guassu territory subsists in full force and shall be maintained.

The recent acts of the Argentine Republic were: a law transferring the Missiones territory from the provincial to the national domain, and an executive decree dividing this territory into five administrative departments. In this decree the rivers Santo Antonio-Guassú and Pepiry Guassú are designated as the boundaries with our territory. These are really the rivers that divide the two countries; the controversy consists in settling what are the rivers that bear these names, the Argentine Republic maintaining that they are not those we indicate, but those we call the Chapeco and Chopim.

The international question remains, therefore, on foot, and the act of the Argentine Government cannot in any way affect it so long as it does not attempt to enter upon possession of the disputed territory. The founding of our military colonies cannot furnish motive for reclamation, because these colonies are situated outside that territory, as may be seen in the report presented by Conselheiro Doria to the general assembly.

The imperial government has no knowledge of the note said to have been sent in by Baron de Araujo Gondino to the Argentine Government.