Page:Difficulties Between Mexico and Guatemala.djvu/43

 Alaman and Mayorga did not constitute a legal agreement.

10. The decree of October 31, 1825, by modifying the essence of the propositions of the Mexican Minister, left them without effect.

11. The neutrality in which Soconusco remained de facto was many times violated by Guatemala.

12. No act of Mexican authorities recognizing such neutrality could be valid, since any treaty required the approbation of Congress.

13. Mexico was under no obligation to respect such neutrality. Consequently, when she occupied Soconusco in 1842, she infringed no international compact, and only made use of the right given her by the vote of May 3d, and the declaration of September 12, 1824

14. Soconusco, in 1842, was free to unite herself again to Mexico; for; even supposing legitimate the act of July, 1824, the district was thereby united to Central America, not to Guatemala; therefore, when that federation was dissolved, Guatemala had no rights of any kind.

15. The military pressure, the intrigues, and other abuses which Guatemala has imputed to Mexico are not proved, while, on the contrary, it is proved that in September, 1824, there were no Mexican troops in Chiapas, and that those commanded by Colonel Aguayo in 1842 were invited thither by the inhabitants of Soconusco.

16. Any supposable irregularity in the incorporation of Chiapas and of Soconusco has been entirely validated by the constant union of those regions during fifty-one years in the first case, and during thirty-three years in the second case, in which lapse of time they