No. 18.
Mr. Osborn
to Mr. Frelinghuysen
.
[Extract.]
Legation of
the United States,
Rio de
Janeiro
,
May 17, 1882.
(Received June 16.)
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.,
[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.
[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.