Black s Law Dictionary Abridged 9th 9th Edition

Bryan A. Garner download pdf

https://ebookultra.com/download/black-s-law-dictionary-abridged-9th-9th-
edition-bryan-a-garner/

Discover thousands of ebooks and textbooks at ebookultra.com

download your favorites today!
We have selected some products that you may be interested in
Click the link to download now or visit ebookultra.com
for more options!.

Black s Law Dictionary Bryan A. Garner

https://ebookultra.com/download/black-s-law-dictionary-bryan-a-garner/

Garner s Dictionary of Legal Usage 3rd Edition Bryan A.

Garner

https://ebookultra.com/download/garner-s-dictionary-of-legal-
usage-3rd-edition-bryan-a-garner/

Nolo s Guide to California Law 9th Edition Lisa Guerin

https://ebookultra.com/download/nolo-s-guide-to-california-law-9th-
edition-lisa-guerin/

Legal Writing in Plain English 1st Edition Bryan A. Garner

https://ebookultra.com/download/legal-writing-in-plain-english-1st-
edition-bryan-a-garner/
Mastering Law Studies and Law Exam Techniques 9th Edition
Richard Krever

https://ebookultra.com/download/mastering-law-studies-and-law-exam-
techniques-9th-edition-richard-krever/

Family Law in Australia 9th edition. Edition Lisa Young

https://ebookultra.com/download/family-law-in-australia-9th-edition-
edition-lisa-young/

Introductory Chemistry A Foundation 9th Edition Steven S.

Zumdahl

https://ebookultra.com/download/introductory-chemistry-a-
foundation-9th-edition-steven-s-zumdahl/

Criminal Law 9th ed Edition Joycelyn M. Pollock (Auth.)

https://ebookultra.com/download/criminal-law-9th-ed-edition-joycelyn-
m-pollock-auth/

The Modern Law of Evidence 9th Edition Adrian Keane

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-modern-law-of-evidence-9th-
edition-adrian-keane/
Black s Law Dictionary Abridged 9th 9th Edition Bryan
A. Garner Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Bryan A. Garner
ISBN(s): 9780314265784, 0314265783
Edition: 9
File Details: PDF, 113.59 MB
Year: 2010
Language: english
 Pronunciation Guide

a for all the vowel sounds in m as in motion, malice

burden, circus, function, wonder n as in notice, negate
a as in fact, plat ng as in long, ring
ah as in balm, father o as in contract, loss
am as in bar, start oh as in oath, impose
air as in flare, lair 00 as in rule, school
aw as in tall, law oor as in lure, tour
ay as in page, same or as in board, court
b as in balk, rob ow as in allow, oust
ch as in chief, breach oy as in join, ploy
d as in debt, docket p as in perjury, prize
e as in leg, tenant r as in revolt, terror
ee as in plea, legal s as in sanction, pace
eer as in mere, tier sh as in sheriff, flash
er as in merit, stationery t as in term, toxic
f as in father, off th as in theory, theft
g as in go, fog th as in there, whether
h as in hearsay, hold uu as in took, pull
hw as in whereas, while uur as in insurance, plural
1 as in risk, intent v as in vague, waiver
I as in crime, idle w as in warranty, willful
j as in jury, judge y as in year, yield
k as in kidnap, flak z as in zoning, maze
1 as in lawyer, trial zh as in measure, vision
Black's Law Dictionary@

Ninth Edition
 Black's Law Dictionary®
Ninth Edition

Bryan A. Garner
Editor in Chief

WEST®
A Thomson Reuters business

Mat #40776543
Mat #40776546--deluxe
"BLACK'S LAW OICnONARY" is a registered trademark of Thomson Reuters,
Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

COPYRIGHT © 1891, 1910, 1933, 1951, 1957,1968,1979,1990 WEST PUBUSHING CO.

© West, a Thomson business, 1999, 2004
© 2009 Thomson Reuters
610 Opperman Drive
st. Paul, MN 55123
1-800-313-9378

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN: 9784-314-19949-2
ISBN: 978+314-19950-8-deluxe

II:>t
'l:I TEXT IS PRINTED ON 10% POST
CONSUMER RECYCLED PAPER
 Black's Law Dictionary
Ninth Edition

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Bryan A. Garner
President, LawProse, Inc.
Distinguished Research Professor of Law
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, Texas

ASSOCIATE EDITOR ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Tiger Jackson JetfNewman

LawPro.lc, Inc. LawProse, Inc.
Dallas, Texas Dallas, Texas

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Karolyne H. Cheng Herbert J. Hammond Brian Melendez

Da/lils, Textls Dallas. Texas Minneapolis, Minnt'sola

Ann Taylor Schwing Fred Shapiro Joseph F. Spaniol Jr.

Minneapolis, Afimlt'sola New Haven, Connecticut Bethesda, Mary/alld

PRONUNCIATION EDITOR
Charles Harrington Elster
S!lT! Diego, California

PANEL OF PRACTITIONER CONTRIBUTORS

Page vi

PANEL OF ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTORS

Pageix
 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
PANEL OF PRACTITIONER CONTRIBUTORS

Sherri K. Adelkoff Diana Brown Bernadette S. Curry

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Houston, Texas Fairfield, California
Daniel Alexander Lynne 'Ihaxter Brown Jonathan A. Darcy
Las Angeles, Califomla Fresno, California Philadelphia,
Suzanne Antlev James Andrew Browne Elaine Maier Deering
San Diega, Ca/from/a San Frallcisco, California Boca Raton, Florida
Leslie Karyn Arfine Julie A. Buffington A. Charles Dell'Ario
Ridgefield, Connectiwt Dallas, Texas Oakland,
John R. Armstrong II B, Chad Bungard C. David Dietz
Irvine, Cai(fornia Fredericksburg, Virginia St. Paul, Minnesota
Brad D. Bailey Beverly Ray Burlingame Michael J. Dimino
Evergrem. Colorado Dallas, Texas Washil1gton, D.C
William P. Baker Fritz Byers Richard S. Dodd II
Baltimore, Maryland Toledo> Ohio Res/on, Virginia
Judith M. Bambace H. Thomas Byron III Leah Domstead
San mega, California Washingtoll. D.C Dallas, Texas
Daniel P. Barer Christopher A. Camardello Preston Saul Draper
Los Angeles, CaWarnia Minneapolis> Il'finn1?sota Norman, Oklahoma
Ben A. Baring Jr. David 1. Cargille John C. Duncan
HOllston. Texas New York, New York Norman. Oklahoma
Chad Baruch Robert J. Jf. Gerald E Dusing
Dallas, Texas Houston, Texas Covington, Kentucky
Isabel Barzun ThomasL. Steve C. Eggimann
New York, New York Lansing. Michigan l'v1il1neapolis, Minnesota
Eric S. Basse Bradley Charles Daniel P. Elms
Bremerton, Washington Grand Rapids, Michigan Dallas, Texas
Laurie T. Baulig Li Chen Ann Erickson Gault
l~ancaster, Pennsylvania Dallas, Texas Pontiac, Michigan
Hugh C. Beck Jordan B. Cherrick l\.Iichael T. Fackler
!,ittleton, Ohio St. Louis, Missouri Jacksonville. Florida
Adron W. Beene Peter Clapp !vlichael E. Faden
San lose, California Richmond. California Rockville, Maryland
Bill C. Berger Kristina A. Clark John D. Faucher
Denver, Colorado Washington, D.C. l1H1usand Oaks, California
Xanthe M. Berry Randall B. Clark Bruce Ellis Fein
Oakland, Ct<lifornia Roston, Massachusetts Washington, D.C.
Nathan V. Bishop A. Cleland Janet Rosenblum Fipphen
East Hills. New York At/unta, Georgia Connecticut
Michael R. Blum Michael Scott Coffman Angela Fisher
San Francisco. California Salt I,ake City, Utah Knoxville, Tennessee
Deborah L Borman Elizabeth J. Cohen Neil Fried
Chicago, Illinois Chicago, Illinois Arling/on, Virginia
Sara E. Bouley Charles Dewey Cole Jr. Elizabeth Klein Frumkin
Salt lake City. Utah New York. New York Cambridge, Massachusetts
Kevin J. Breer Samuel Scott Cornish Mark W. Gaffney
Westwood. Kansas New York, New York Pclham Manor, New York
Mark A Bregman EmilyC6tf lJuane H. Gall
Swttstiale, Arizona San'Jase, Cal(fornia Denver, Colorado
Beth A. Brennan Jefferson Coulter Nicole S. Gambrell
Missoula. MOlltana Seattle, Washillgton Dalla.>, Texas
Joyce Murphy Brooks Jim Covington Baldemar Garda Jr.
Charlotte, North Carolina Springfield. Illinois taredo, Texas

vi
 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
PANEL OF PRACTITIONER CONTRIBUTORS

Kathryn Gardner Stuart B. Katz Morris D. Linton

Ihpeka, Kansas Chappaqua, New York Salt Lake City, Utah
Anne \'\t, Gill Paul D. Keeper David W. Long
Castle Rock, Colorado Austin, Texas Washinglon, D.C.
Alexander CD. Giza Darlene Azevedo Kellv Thomas G. Lovett IV
Culver Cit)" Caiffornill Oakhurst, California ' A1illneapolis, A1inne.Hlta
Kevin \V. Grierson H. Dennis Kelly Margaret I. Lyle
,\iorfolk, \'irginia Fort Worth, Texas Dalias, Texas
Ellen R Gwynn Clark D. Kimball David P. Lyons
'Ii,lIl2hassu, Florida Rochester. New York Chicago, Illinois
Matthew C. Hans James A. King Robert N, Markle
Sf. Louis, Missouri Columbus, Ohio Fairfax, Virginia
Yaakov Har-Oz Andrew D. Klein Anthony T, Marks
Beit .Shemesh, Israel Cherry Hill, New Jersey Los A nge/es, CalijiJrnia
William H. Hart Melissa Lin Klemens Catherine M. Masters
Minneapolis, lvlinnesotll Washington, D.C. Chicago, Illinois
Molly Hatchell William Nt Klimon Jeffrey Matloff
Austin, Texas Washington, D.C. Bellevue. Washington
Scott M. Heenan Helena Klumpp Michael J. Mauro
Cincinnati, Ohio Dee~fidd, Il/irwis Stamford. Conlled/cut
Marie Hejl Jonathan H. Koenig Olga!. May
Austin, Texas Wauwalos'I, Wisconsin San J)jego, California
Susan Hoffman 1110mas J. Koffer Jeffrey T, McPherson
Sail Luis Obispo, California New York, New York St. [ouis, Missouri
Jeffrey A. Hogge Christina M. Kotowski John W. McReynolds
Elk Groye, California San Francisco, California Dallas, Texas
Brian John Hooper Mike Kueber Edward R. Mevec
Arlington, Virginia San AutO/tio, Texas Buchanan, New York
Henry W. Huffnagle Nanda P.B.A, Kumar Andrew E. Miller
Washingtorl, D.C. Philadelphia, Permsylvrwia Los Angeles, California
Hon. Lynn N. Hughes Robert J. Lallv Matthew C. Miller
Houston, Texas Clevt'land, Ohio Ka'lsas City, A1.issouri
Robert N. Hughes Hon. Harriet Lansing Daphna H. Mitchell
Virginia Bem:h, Virginia 51. Paul, Minnesota New York, New York
Maryanne Burnes Hutchinson Geoffrey Larson Michael S. Mitchell
Braintree, Massachusetts Minneapolis, Minnesota New Orleans, Louisiana
Amy B. Ikerd James Hays Lawson Andrew W. Moeller
Coldwater, Ohio Louisville, Kentucky Amherst, New York
Peter 0. Israel Hon. Steve Leben Thomas J. Moses
Los Angeles, California Topeka, Kansas San Francisco, California
Dianne L. Izzo Michelle Thomas Leifeste R. Eric Nielsen
Austin, Texas Boulder. Colomdo BetilesJIi, Maryland
Matthew A. Jacober AndrewD. Levy SiobMn Nurre
St. Louis, Missouri Baltimore, Maryland San Jose. ('alffomia
Robert A, James Janet Li Consuelo Marie Ohanesian
San Francisco, California Fosler City. Califomia Phoenix, .4.rizona
Eric K. Johnson Dryden J. Liddle Erin J. O'Leary
lyfurruy, Utah Alameda, Califorllia Orlando, Florida
David R. Johnstone Raymond J. Liddy Kymberly K. Oltroggc
Washing torI, D,C. San Diego, California Drippings Springs, Texas
Richard B, Katskee Jacob R, Lines William S. Osborn
WClShington, D.C. Tucson, Arizona Dal/lis, Texas

vii
 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
PANEL OF PRACTITIONER CONTRIBUTORS

James C. Owens James F. Schaller II Renee Maria Tremblay

Washington, D.C. Toledo, Ohio Ottawa, Onlario, Canada
Christine C. Pagano Edward Schiffer Craig J. Tracino
Oakland, California San Francisco, California Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Paul I. Perlman Daniel J. Schultz R. Collins Vallee
Buffalo, New York Tempe, Arizona Mandeville, Louisiana
Arthur R. Petrie II David W. Schultz Arthur A. Vingiello
Newport Beach, California Houston, Texas Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Rebecca B. Phalen Herbert R. Schulze Kristin P. Walinski
Atlanta, Georgia Truckee. California Richmond, Virginia
David Pickle Benjamin G. Shatz Richard S. Walinski
Washington, D.C. Los Angeles. California Toledo, Ohio
Mark D. Plaisance Denise Wimbiscus Shepherd Alison Wallis
Baker. Louisiana Solon, Ohio Harvey. Louisiana
Matthew Eliot Pollack Richard A. Sherburne Jr. Mark R. Wasem
Topsham, Maine Balon Rouge, Louisiana Dallas, Texas
Jeffrey D. Polsky Anne M. Sherry Christine E. Watchorn
San Francisco, California Riverswood, Illinois Columbus. Ohio
Christina E. Ponig Jordan M. Sickman M.John Way
Houston, Texas Southfield, Afichigan Tumwater, Washington
Steve Putman Marshall Simmons Philip Weltner II
Houston, Texas Dallas, Texas Atlanta, Georgia
Robert M. Redis Fred A. Simpson Garner K. Weng
White Plains, New York Houston. Texas San Francisco, California
James M. Reiland Adam Snyder Eric R. Werner
Chicago, Illinois Wadsworth. [//inois Fort Worth, Texas
Tracy L. Reilly Randall J. Snyder Donald C. Wheaton JI.
Dal/as, Texas Bismarck, North Dakota St. Clair Shores, Michigan
David E. Robbins William C. Spence Carla L. Wheeler
Broomall, Pennsylvania Chicago, lllinois Chevy Chase, Maryland
Armando Rodriguez-Feo Scott A. Stengel Daniel R. White
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. l.os Angeles, California
Susan L. Ronn Heather E. Stern Malcolm E. Whittaker
Kohimarama Auckland, Los Angeles, California Houston, Texas
New Zealand Scott Patrick Stolley Jamison Wilcox
Joseph E. Root Dallas, Texas Hamden, Connecticut
Montara, California Victor R. Stull Hon. Bruce Donald Willis
Hon. Janice M. Rosa Redlands. California Plymouth, Minnesota
Erie County, New York Michelle Dimond Szambelan Conrad R. Wolan
Glenn F. Rosenblum Spokane, Washington Elmira, New York
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tony Tanke Craig M. Wolff
Joseph M. Russell Davis, California Yarmouth, Maine
Chicago. Illinois Craig D. Tindall Sara T.S. Wolff
James B. Ryan Phoenix, Arizona Yarmouth, Maine
San Diego, California Nick Tishler Albert J. Woller man
Patrick M. Ryan Niskayuna, New York Tallahassee, Florida
San Francisco. California Peter J. Toren William C. Wright
New York, New York West Palm Beach, Florida

GARNERLAWSCHOLARS-SMUSCHOOLQFLAW
Timothy D. Martin Arrissa K. Meyer Jonathan Michael Thomas Laurie M. Velasco
'The Colony, Texas Dallas, Texas Dallas, Texas Plano. Texas

viii
 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
PANEL OF ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTORS

Hans W. Baade Heidi M. Hurd Jean Rosenbluth

'Ihe University of Texas University of Illinois Ur!iversityof
Southern California
Lynn A. Baker Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer
Ihe University of Texas Georgia State University Paul Frederick Rothstein
GeorgetowlI University
Thomas E. Baker Sanford H. Kadish
Florida International University UniversityafCalifornia Ronald Daniel Rotunda
at Berkeley Mason University
Barbara Aronstein Black
Columbia University Gideon Kanner Stephen A. Saltzburg
Loyola Law School 1he Washington
Hon. Thomas Buergenthal
Ulliversity
International Court ofJusticr Joseph R. Kimble
(George Washington University) Thomas M. Cooley Law School Frederic S. Schwartz
Okahoma University
Edward H. Cooper Edward J. Kionka
School of Law
University of Michigan Southern Illinois University
Charles Silver
Daniel Robert Coquillette Douglas Laycock
The University of Texas
Boston College The University ofMichigan
Lawrence M. Solan
David Crump Saul Litvinoff
Brooklyn taw
University of Houston Louisiana State University
Marc L Steinberg
Darby A. Dickerson John S. Lowe
Southern Afethodist University
Stetson University Southern Methodist University
Michael F. Sturley
James Joseph Duane (the late) Julius J. Marke
The University o/Texas
Regent University School of Law SI. John's University
Symeon Symeonides
David G. Epstein Thomas William Mayo
Willamette University
Southern Methodist University Southern Methodist University
Peter MeHes Tiersma
(the late) E. Allan Farnsworth Lucy S. McGough
Loyola I.~w School
Columbia University Louisiana State University
Mark V. Tushnet
Martha A. Field Joseph W. McKnight
Georgetown University
Harvard University Southern Methodist University
William D. Underwood
Monroe H. Freedman John K. McNulty
Baylor University
Hofstra University UniversityafCaliforllia
at Berkeley David Walker
Richard D. Freer
University of Glasgow
Emory University Ernest Metzger
University of A berdecn Robert Weisberg
S. Elizabeth Gibson
Stanford Law School
University of North Carolina James E. MoHterno
College (~f William & Mary Mary Whisner
Richard J. Graving
University ofWashingtoti
South Texas College James A.R. Nafziger
Willamette l'niversity Peter Winship
Alan Gunn
Southern Methodist University
University of Notre Dame John B. Oakley
University of California Charles W. Wolfram
Egon Guttman
Cornell Law School
American University John V. Orth
University ofNorlh Carolina Richard C. Wydick
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr.
Un ive rsity of Ca lifornia
University of Califomia- Alan N. Resnick
at Davis
Hastings College of Law Hofstra University
A.N. Yiannopoulos
R.H. Helmholz O.E Robinson
Tulane University
University of Chicago (;niversityofGlasgow
Judith T. Younger
Tony Honore
University of Minnesota
Oxford University

ix
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
of private citizens without their consent. The owners claimed
protection from the federal congress, and serious disturbances were
averted only by a compromise. During this episode the moderados
or serviles kept fanning the flame of discord between Arce and the
liberals, extolling his measures. When the first congress closed its
session, on the 25th of December, 1825,[V-13] the political features
of the country had notably changed. But fortunately the danger to
the republic from the action of the serviles was avoided, because,
upon lots being cast on the 1st of October for the renewals of
members of congress,[V-14] the retiring members happened to be
chiefly of districts where the servile party had majorities before, and
were now replaced by liberals, the preponderance of the latter being
thus increased. The second constitutional congress assembled on
the 1st of March, 1826. Among its members was Valle, who, bent on
revenge, erelong made common cause with the liberals,[V-15] though
he was not allowed to exercise a predominant influence in their
counsels.

On the day congress opened, the president delivered his

message detailing the condition of the country, but most of it had
reference to the relations with foreign powers.[V-16] The impending
rupture was finally hastened by the president's course toward
Colonel Nicolás Raoul, a French officer who had recently arrived
from Colombia, and had been made commander of the artillery and
a member of the council of war.[V-17] Notwithstanding the
considerations and favors conferred on him by Arce, no sooner had
he received his appointment than he openly sided with the liberals
and gave utterances against the government. Therefore, when Raoul
was summoned by congress to aid in the organization of the federal
troops, the president, to get rid of him, sent him to explore the
northern coasts.[V-18] Arce then undertook to increase the federal
army to 4,000 men, under the pretext that such a force was needed
for the pacification of Nicaragua, and the defence of the country
against a Spanish invasion, rumors of which were circulating. In
order to facilitate the operation, he proposed that the members of
congress should stir up public enthusiasm in their respective states;
but instead of acceding to his recommendation, several persons
known to be hostile to the government, among them Raoul, were
selected by that body. All remonstrances to the contrary on the part
of Arce[V-19] had no other effect than to imbitter the liberals against
him. Charges were accordingly brought forth, such as his neglecting
to lay before congress an account of expenditures during his
administration, and his having squandered a considerable portion of
the money raised by loan in London. The outcry against his conduct
was growing louder from day to day.

This unsatisfactory state of affairs determined Arce to dissolve

congress. Still he was loath to use violent means, and in fact, there
was no need of it. One of the clauses of the constitution allowed the
admission of substitutes for the deputies to congress in certain
cases, and both parties had taken advantage of it without
opposition. However, when the question of calling the president to
account arose, the serviles protested against the presence of the
liberal substitutes which gave to that party the majority.[V-20] On the
2d of June the deputies from Salvador, under instructions from their
government, which was friendly to Arce, abandoned their seats, their
example being followed by those from Costa Rica and most of the
serviles, thus leaving the chamber without a quorum.[V-21] The
session was reopened, however, ten days later, upon the liberals
pledging themselves not to introduce any motion against the
president or the serviles, and thenceforth the discussions were
confined to matters of a general character till the 30th of June, when
the session was closed; but the deputies of Salvador and Costa Rica
had not resumed their seats.
 It was now evident that a collision was
STATE AND
NATION.
unavoidable. The state government, controlled by
the liberals, became fearful that the serviles, in
their endeavor to support the president, might also attack the
authorities of Guatemala, and under the pretext of an invasion
threatening from Chiapas, secretly began to make military
preparations. Salvador and Costa Rica, on the other hand, offered
aid of troops to the federal government. Both parties precipitated
the crisis: the liberals by their heedless attacks on the clergy,[V-22]
and specially by ridiculing its members; the serviles by fanning,
jointly with the clericals, ill feeling among the low, ignorant classes,
whom it was easy to persuade that the liberal party aimed at the
destruction of their religion. This had now become a matter of
greater ease, owing to the irritation already existing, caused by the
forced loans and recruiting for the army decreed by the state
government. Strange though it may appear, the serviles had no
suspicion that the federal authorities were aware of their intrigues.
The clash came in May 1826, when Raoul, without having fulfilled his
commission on the northern coast, tendered his resignation,
accompanied with a number of invectives against the executive,
which he subsequently repeated in a second letter.[V-23] He was
arrested on the 17th of July, and subjected to the action of a court-
martial for disrespect and insubordination. This raised a storm of
fury in the local legislature, where Raoul's arrest was considered as
an encroachment on the state's authority. An order of arrest was
issued against Captain Espínola, the officer who had carried out the
commands of the federal executive, and the jefe, or chief of the
state, Juan Barrundia, was authorized to raise a sufficient force to
seize Espínola's person,[V-24] and the pecuniary contingent of the
state for federal expenses was withheld.[V-25]
 The troops despatched to arrest Espínola numbered 300 men,
and were commanded by Cayetano de la Cerda, who encountered
his man near Acasaguastlan. To avoid bloodshed, a capitulation was
agreed upon by both parties until they should obtain further orders
from their respective governments.[V-26]

When news of this agreement reached Guatemala, a few days

later, simultaneously rumors came to the ears of Arce that a coup-
de-main was contemplated by Barrundia, with the evident intent of
effecting his removal. To anticipate the blow,[V-27] on the 5th of
September Arce secretly ordered the commander of the federal
forces to arrest Barrundia at an early hour the following morning,
and disarm the state troops, using force if necessary.[V-28] This was
done, the officer meeting with no resistance.[V-29] The liberals had
no suspicion of Arce's resolve till after its execution. The vice-jefe of
the state, Cirilo Flores, then forthwith assumed the government, and
being tendered the aid of federal troops to support his authority,
proudly rejected it.[V-30]

On the following day the chiefs of the other

ARREST OF
BARRUNDIA.
states were apprised of Barrundia's arrest, in a
circular from Arce defending his course, which he
declared to have been pursuant to duty under the constitution.[V-31]
Such was the position assumed by his friends and by the serviles in
general; while the radical liberals, taking a different view, denounced
him as a violator of the constitution.[V-32] However, the energy thus
displayed by Arce was rather favorably looked upon, perhaps from a
feeling of relief arising from the supposition that party bickerings had
been brought to an end, more than from any sympathy for Arce. The
president might now have strengthened his party, but did not, and
went on committing serious mistakes. Instead of turning the
imprisoned Barrundia over to the state assembly, as prescribed by
the constitution, to be tried upon the several charges that had been
ostentatiously preferred against him, he allowed the legal time for
prosecution to elapse, and then released the prisoner under bonds.
[V-33]

The second constitutional congress was to meet on the 1st of

October, 1826, and the liberal party had, since September,
industriously worked to secure a majority. But on the appointed day
there was no quorum, the members of the opposition having refused
to take their seats, evidently to prevent the adoption of any
measures against the president.[V-34] It was rather suspicious that
the government at San Salvador, always friendly to Arce, had
forbidden its delegates to occupy their seats in congress unless it
were to discuss the expediency of transferring the federal authorities
to some place distant from Guatemala.[V-35] It soon became
apparent that the president's aim was to have his own assembly, for
on the 10th of October he convoked an extraordinary congress.[V-36]
This was open violation of the constitution, which vested in the
senate the authority for convoking, and moreover limited
representation to only one delegate for every 30,000 inhabitants.
Much indignation was felt by the members of congress, who had
constituted themselves into an organizing commission, but dispersed
on the same day that Arce's decree was published.[V-37]

Exciting events now followed in quick

MURDER OF
FLORES.
succession. The vice-jefe Cirilo Flores and the
state authorities had retired on the 8th of October
to Quezaltenango, where he was murdered a few days afterward—
on the 13th—by a mob of fanatical Indians.[V-38] The act was
attributed to Arce and his immediate friends, but apparently without
much reason,[V-39] though it must be admitted that intrigues of the
servile party and the preaching of hostile priests aroused the
fanaticism of the populace to such a degree that the slightest cause
would bring about the commission of outrages. The trouble did not
end with Flores' death, for many members of the assembly and
representative council were compelled to flee for their lives.

The state was now powerless, for even its military forces
disappeared before the federal troops. The liberals in the state and
republic saw their hopes dashed, and many emigrated.[V-40] Arce
held the executive authority of both the federation and the state of
Guatemala; and acting upon the advice of Salvador, he began
reorganization, decreeing on the 31st of October the election of a
new executive and legislature for Guatemala, from which the
inhabitants entertained hopes of a final restoration of peace
throughout the republic. But those hopes were frustrated by a
sudden change of policy on the part of the Salvador government,
which surprised everybody, all the more from the fact that it had
heretofore firmly supported the president.

Pedro Molina arrived at San Salvador from

ARCE'S VICTORY
AND DEFEAT.
Panamá when Arce had in his charge the affairs of
Guatemala, and had decreed the new elections for
the state. Being a political opponent of the president, Molina refused
to go to Guatemala to report the action of the Panamá congress. It
was not a difficult matter for him to find congenial spirits for an
intrigue against the federal executive. An estrangement had
occurred between Arce and Delgado, who aspired to be bishop of
San Salvador,[V-41] and was a man of great political power. Moreover,
it so happened that the jefe of Salvador, owing to ill health, had to
turn over his office to the vice-jefe, Mariano Prado, who was under
the influence of the discontented party. His first act was to repeal
Arce's decree of October 10th convoking an extraordinary congress
at Cojutepeque.[V-42] Then simultaneously forces were levied in
Salvador, ostensibly to protect congress when assembled at
Ahuachapan. Internal difficulties in Honduras led the federal
government to interfere;[V-43] and thus, at the end of 1826, there
were a number of forces at work to drive Arce from the presidential
seat. This state of affairs continued till February 1827, when rumors
of an invasion began to circulate in Guatemala. The next month
Salvadoran forces, under Trigueros, started on their march toward
the capital. All doubts about the plans of the invading army having
ceased, Arce displayed unusual activity in his preparations to meet
the enemy. With the aid of the newly chosen jefe of Guatemala,
Aycinena, he increased the garrison to 2,000 men, and leaving the
executive authority in charge of Vice-president Beltranena, took
personal command of the troops. He made an effort, however, to
avert an encounter, but without avail;[V-44] and they fought, a few
days later, at Guadalupe, a short distance from Guatemala, the
invaders being repulsed, and the following day, March 23d, utterly
routed at Arrazola.[V-45] This victory caused great exultation in
Guatemala, and Arce's prestige grew rapidly. Money and
reënforcements were cheerfully placed at his command, and he
allowed himself to be carried away by evil counsels to pursue an
aggressive policy and punish Salvador.[V-46]

The federal army marched in April into the

CÁSCARAS IN
SALVADOR.
state of Salvador, and reënforced from Sonsonate
and Santa Ana,[V-47] reached Nejapa without
opposition, that place being about twelve miles from the city of San
Salvador. After certain negotiations for peace, which had no
satisfactory result, Arce attacked the city on the 18th of May, at the
head of 2,000 men, and was repulsed with heavy loss. His slow
movements had given the Salvadorans time to act.[V-48] His retreat
was in good order to Santa Ana; but from this place, desertions
having greatly diminished the force, it degenerated into flight, of
which the pursuing Salvadorans failed to take advantage. Arce
reached Cuajiniquilapa toward the end of May, with only 300 men.
This early failure of a war from which were to flow such great results
brought odium on Arce; but by the efforts of friends, confidence in
him was restored, and about 700 men were obtained to resume
operations by taking Santa Ana.[V-49] For several months no events
of importance occurred. The time was employed by Arce in
strengthening his force, with which he made a fruitless attempt to
intercept a Salvador division that assailed Sonsonate. Overtures for
peace were again made by Salvador, but though not absolutely
rejected, no understanding was arrived at. They gave rise, however,
to a discussion as to whether the federal president was, as he
thought himself, authorized to decide upon the question of peace or
war without consulting the state government of Guatemala.[V-50]
Piqued at the opposition he had met, which he supposed to arise
from want of confidence, Arce received with pleasure a request from
Vice-president Beltranena to give up the army and return to
Guatemala and take charge of the government.[V-51] Brigadier
Francisco Cáscaras was thereupon made commander of the army on
the 12th of October, 1827. Soon after Arce's return to Guatemala he
took steps to restore peace, and issued, on the 5th of December, a
decree to convoke a new congress,[V-52] and at the same time
ordered a suspension of hostilities. But his commissioner, Juan de
Dios Mayorga, who was to notify the authorities at San Salvador of
his measures, was not allowed to proceed to that city, the
Salvadorans, now reënforced with officers exiled from Colombia,[V-
53] being more than ever opposed to conciliation. Hostilities were
resumed and conducted with alternating success;[V-54] but on the
whole, disadvantageously for the federal force, owing to Cáscaras'
lack of strategy, and the temporizing policy of the enemy; for the
latter, whenever pressed, would make overtures of peace, protesting
a willingness to terminate the war, though breaking their promises as
fast as they were made.[V-55] Cáscaras' situation was daily becoming
perilous, on account of the numerous desertions of his troops. At
last, on the 17th of December, a bloody encounter took place in the
streets of Santa Ana, which terminated in a capitulation, under
which both forces were to leave the place the next day. Cáscaras left
it as stipulated, but Colonel Merino with the Salvadorans remained.
[V-56]Cáscaras returned to Guatemala toward the end of December,
the Salvadorans having regained possession of Santa Ana, and of all
the other places formerly occupied by the federal army.

Shortly after, with Aycinena's assistance, another federal army

was organized, but Arce took good care to give positions in it only to
trusted friends.[V-57] As soon as the organization was nearly
completed, detachments were sent to check the enemy's raids in
Chiquimula, and then, under the command of a foreigner named
William Perks, the army marched against the Salvadoran
headquarters at Ahuachapan. Once more stratagem was resorted to
by the wily Salvadorans, who made proffers of peace, the farce
ending as usual.[V-58] In the mean time troubles broke out in the
federal army, and Perks, the commander, was deposed by the field-
officers and sent to Guatemala as a prisoner.[V-59] The command
then devolved upon Colonel Antonio José Irisarri. Arce tried in vain
to have Perks reinstalled, and his efforts in that direction only served
to increase the ill feeling, which grew so strong that on the 14th of
February, 1828, he turned over the executive office, though without
a formal resignation, to Beltranena,[V-60] who conferred the
command of the federal army on Brigadier Manuel Arzú. This officer
marched at once against the Salvadorans, refusing to listen to any
overtures for negotiations from their chief, Merino. The armies met
at Chalchuapa on the 1st of March, and the federal troops obtained
a victory, which drove the foe back to San Salvador.[V-61] Arzú
followed and made an assault on that city, in which both sides gave
proofs of extraordinary bravery. The assault failed; at the end of six
hours' fighting the assailants had to retreat behind their
intrenchments.[V-62] From this time San Salvador and San Miguel
became the theatres of war. A series of encounters, none of
sufficient importance to be lengthily described, followed, with
varying success for either side.[V-63] The Salvadorans having
besieged the remnants of the federal army under Colonel Manuel
Montúfar, at Mejicanos, after eight months compelled them to
surrender, on the 20th of September. Their commander and general
staff were held as prisoners of war.[V-64]

The division of the federal army that occupied

GUATEMALA AND
SALVADOR.
the department of San Miguel, which had been
defeated by General Morazan at Gualcho on the
6th of July, being intercepted on its retreat toward the Lempa, laid
down its arms, under honorable terms, at San Antonio, on the 9th of
October.[V-65]

The condition of federal affairs was now far from encouraging. It

may be that Arce, had he been replaced, might have turned
disaster; but his application had met with a refusal, and he took no
further part in the political events of the republic.[V-66] After all
hostile forces had been either captured or expelled from Salvador,
Morazan made a triumphant entry into the state capital on the 23d
of October, 1828.[V-67] Shortly before this a commission had come
from Costa Rica to mediate between Guatemala and Salvador, but
the latter demanded too much.[V-68] Morazan's presence in San
Salvador greatly strengthened the warlike party, and the idea of
invading Guatemala gained favor from day to day, till it was finally
carried out. After peace overtures had been rejected by the federal
authorities, Morazan began his march toward Guatemala in the latter
end of November 1828.[V-69] The news struck terror into the hearts
of the now defenceless Guatemalans, and no steps to meet the
emergency could be taken, owing to lack of order, official rivalries,
and party intrigues. It was, as a saving measure, finally decided in
the assembly to detach the state from the federation, though it was
never sanctioned or carried out. To increase difficulties, a revolution
broke out in the department of La Antigua, placing it under the
protection of Morazan,[V-70] who, at the head of about 2,000 men,
assuming the title of 'ejército aliado protector de la ley,' laid siege to
the city of Guatemala, assailing it from the side of the Garita del
Golfo, on the 5th of February. He was repulsed after a brisk fire.[V-
71] This was followed on the 15th by a sally of the garrison, which
annihilated at Mixco a considerable portion of the invading army.[V-
72]

In consequence of this reverse, Morazan

SUCCESS OF
MORAZAN.
raised the siege of Guatemala, and concentrated
his forces at La Antigua. The success of Mixco was
the last experienced by the federal army; for with the same neglect
which had characterized its operations almost throughout the whole
campaign, no advantage was taken of the victory, nor of several
military errors of Morazan.[V-73] A strong division under Pacheco
sallied out of Guatemala toward the towns of Zumpango and El
Tejar, as if to confine Morazan in La Antigua; but Pacheco
disseminated his force, and was beaten.[V-74] Early in March
Morazan's troops reoccupied Mixco, and when attacked, shortly
afterward,[V-75] by the federal forces at Las Charcas, signally
defeated them, and the fate of the servile party in Guatemala was
thus sealed.[V-76]
 Through the mediation of General Verveer, minister from the
Netherlands, an attempt was made to bring peace to the distracted
country. Commissioners representing the several belligerents
assembled, on the 27th of March, at the house of Ballesteros, and
discussed the propositions laid before them, which were rejected,
and they then retired. Morazan, who was anxious for a compromise,
specially as he had good reasons to apprehend the dissolution of his
army by the small-pox epidemic which had broken out, urged
Verveer to invite the commissioners to hold another conference. It
took place; and those of Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua
presented four propositions, which were likewise rejected by the
federal and Guatemalan negotiators.[V-77] Morazan had felt certain
that those proposals would be accepted, and believed them to be
exceedingly generous in view of the fact that the city could no
longer hold out. However, hostilities were resumed, and on the 9th
of April the forces under Morazan attacked the city, and a part of it
was taken and plundered.[V-78]

Aycinena applied on the 11th to Morazan, as

FALL OF
GUATEMALA CITY.
commander-in-chief of the allied army of
Honduras and Salvador, for a suspension of
hostilities, in order to negotiate a capitulation which he was disposed
to enter into. Morazan replied at once that he could agree to nothing
but the unconditional surrender of the city, though offering to
guarantee the lives and property of all persons existing therein.[V-79]
The fighting continued, and on the 12th the place capitulated. The
occupation was effected on the following day,[V-80] and immediately
Vice-president Beltranena and his ministers of relations and treasury,
Aycinena and his secretary Piélago, and Ex-president Arce[V-81] were
placed under arrest.[V-82] Morazan, assuming then all the powers of
state, restored Juan Barrundia to the position of jefe of Guatemala,
[V-83] whereof he had been deprived by Arce. The capitulation of
April 12th was on the 20th declared void, on the ground that the
federal commander had failed to comply with its terms in not giving
up all the arms his forces held at the time of the surrender.[V-84]
Morazan treated the functionaries, both federal and of the state of
Guatemala, who had taken part in the revolution of 1826 to 1829,
with much rigor.[V-85]

MORAZAN'S
MEASURES.
A period of reaction, or restoration as it was
properly called, was now inaugurated. During
several years the servile party had held undisputed control of public
affairs in Guatemala, crushing out all opposition to the best of its
ability. Its policy had been one of intolerance, and its downfall was
hailed with joy. Morazan seemed to have been chosen by providence
to inflict condign punishment on those who had so cruelly exercised
a usurped power. Surrounded as he was by so many diverse
elements, the severity of the blows he dealt must not be all laid to
his account. The state assembly, which had been dissolved in 1826,
having again met on the 21st of April, 1829,[V-86] with its old
president, Nicolás Espinosa, was practically a tool in the hands of the
victorious general, and enacted several vigorous laws against the
vanquished party.[V-87] On the 4th of June the assembly passed an
act, which was sanctioned by the consejo representativo on the
12th, and by Jefe Barrundia on the 13th, declaring null all elections
made pursuant to the unconstitutional decree of the president of the
republic dated October 31, 1826, and the subsequent ones of 1827
and 1828. It furthermore stamped as revolutionists and usurpers all
persons who by virtue of those decrees had obtained and held office
of the federation or the state of Guatemala, and as such guilty of
high treason, and amenable to the death penalty.[V-88] On the same
day was issued a so-called amnesty law; but the number of
exemptions from its benefits made its name a piece of irony.[V-89]
The position of the prisoners taken in Guatemala at the time of the
capture of said city, and others, became a more complicated one, in
consequence of a decree passed by the assembly of Salvador on the
9th of June, declaring that it would not recognize in the assembly of
Guatemala any authority to grant, without the assent of the other
states, amnesty to the factious disturbers of public order; and that
the capitulation entered into between Morazan and Aycinena having
been annulled, the captives were really prisoners of war of the allied
states.[V-90] A number of the prisoners were, however, permitted to
go into exile within fifteen days, paying first the expenses of their
support while in prison, and one third of the value of their estates[V-
91]into the federal treasury, as indemnification for the damages they
had inflicted on the country. That privilege was not granted to the
president and vice-president and their ministers, the former chief of
Guatemala, and others. In fact, it was a proscription of all the
principal men who had sided with the servile party.[V-92] It was also
decreed that all salaries paid from October 1826 to April 1829 should
be refunded. Harsh measures were used to force a compliance.

The federal congress that was dismissed in October 1826

assembled on the 22d of June,[V-93] under the presidency of
Doroteo Vasconcelos, and on the 25th José Francisco Barrundia[V-94]
assumed the office of president of the republic, he being the senior
senator, and having been specially called thereto by the congress,
though the real power in the country was Morazan.

EXPULSION OF The chief point of discussion in congress[V-95]

FRIARS. was, what to do with the prisoners. Some
members favored their execution, and though
others disapproved of such a disposal of them, none had sufficient
courage to openly condemn such vindictiveness. The discussions
continued till July 9th, when a number of the prisoners were sent
under an escort to Sonsonate, to be embarked at Acajutla and
expatriated.[V-96] Two days later a similar blow was struck at the
church, evidently because of the sympathy of its head men with the
servile party.[V-97] During the night between the 10th and 11th of
July, an armed force, acting under orders of Morazan, who issued
them in accordance with the views of the acting president and the
jefe of Guatemala, seized the archbishop and the friars of several
orders, and despatched them to the Atlantic coast, where they were
embarked for Habana. Several of the friars are represented to have
died on the voyage.[V-98] Whether there was sufficient cause for so
violent a proceeding is doubtful. However, the federal congress
thanked the executive for his zeal. The sentence of expatriation
against the archbishop was not formally issued till about a year after.
[V-99]On the 28th of July the assembly of Guatemala decreed the
suppression of all monastic establishments of men, excepting only
the Bethlehemite hospitallers, who were allowed to remain as
secular priests, and prohibited in the nunneries vows and professions
in the future. All the temporalities of the suppressed convents were
declared confiscated to the state. The federal congress approved this
act on the 7th of September, declaring that the nation would no
longer receive or recognize within its territory any religious orders.[V-
100]

Peace being finally restored, the large army of Morazan was

gradually dissolved, and the leader became a candidate for the
presidency. The necessity of an energetic man, such as Morazan
was, at the head of affairs, was quite apparent, for new difficulties
were threatening from different quarters. Costa Rica, disapproving
the course of Salvador, declared her secession from the union, and it
was only after much persuasion that she retracted it. The federal
government, and that of the state of Guatemala, now in charge of
Pedro Molina,[V-101] clashed on several occasions, and specially
when, in 1830, the question of constituting Guatemala city as a
federal district again came upon the tapis. The state rejected the
plan, as on every previous occasion.[V-102] A project of Molina to
reform the confederation met with the same fate. He favored the
model of the Swiss republic at that time, abolishing the expensive
machinery of a federal government, which was almost continually at
variance with the different states.[V-103] The failure of this scheme
brought with it the downfall of Molina, who was afterward
suspended on fictitious charges and tried, and though acquitted, was
not reinstated.[V-104]

SPANISH EFFORTS.
The plan of King Fernando VII. of Spain for
the reconquest of his former American dominions, and the steps he
was taking to accomplish it, naturally caused a sensation in Central
America, where that monarch would be sure to find elements
favorable to his views. The so-called nobles, who had endeavored,
after the downfall of Iturbide and the separation from Mexico, to
establish in Central America an aristocratic republic, such as that of
Genoa or Venice, had been again balked in their aims by the
successes of Morazan. In their disappointment they turned their eyes
to Fernando, and through special agents, as well as through
Archbishop Casaus, made known to the captain-general of Cuba that
the circumstances Central America was then in were most propitious
for the restoration of the royal sway; for, as they asserted, all
honest, right-thinking men and women in the country yearned for it,
and the Indians were likewise anxious for the change. Therefore, the
only opposition thereto lay in the comparatively small number of
aspirants to public offices, who made revolution in order to control
the public funds for their own benefit. Such reports were full of
encouragement for the Spaniards who were intriguing in behalf of
Fernando's interests, which were probably also their own.

Positive information was at last received from a reliable source

that Spain was preparing, in Habana, an expedition to land at Omoa
and march on Guatemala, where it expected to find the requisite
coöperation.[V-105] This report coincided with the departure of the
Spanish expedition under Brigadier Barradas to Tampico.[V-106]
President Barrundia, on the 3d of September, 1829, issued a stirring
address; and the congress, in October and November, with the
sanction of the executive, passed an act forbidding Spaniards to
enter or land in Central American territory under any pretext. The
ports of the republic were closed to the Spanish flag, and to the
products and manufactures of Spain, her colonies, and
dependencies.

There were not a few Spaniards who, together with the self-
styled nobles of native birth, desired to see the flag of the old
country waving again over Central America. That anxiously wished
for day had become almost the only subject of conversation in their
circles, of which the assembly of Guatemala took due warning. In
November it declared the sequestration of all property belonging to
Spaniards who dwelt in the republic, coupled with the assurance that
none should be restored till Spain had formally recognized the
independence of Central America.[V-107]
 CHAPTER VI.
CIVIL WAR.

1829-1838.

Revolution in Honduras—Conservatives Invade the State—Second General Elections—

Francisco Morazan Chosen President—Plots of the Serviles—Arce's Invasion from
Mexico—Occupation of Honduras Ports by Exiled Rebels—Spanish Flag Hoisted in
Omoa, and Aid from Cuba—Salvadoran Authorities in Rebellion—Third General
Elections—Morazan Reëlected—Failure of Colonization Plans—Ravages of Cholera—
Indian Revolt under Carrera—His Early Life.

It is difficult for us to realize how long it takes and how hard it is

for progressive man to throw away the fetters, temporal and
spiritual, which in times past he stupidly forged for himself.
Intellectual light breaking in on our old savagism finally tells us that
the hurtful manifestations of nature are not the chastisements of
offended deity; and then we wonder how we could have been so
stupid so long, with our pope-worship and king-worship, and our
servility to their satellites. Then when we first gain our liberty we
know not what to do with it. We feel lost without the harness, the
reins, the whip and spur. The people of Central America, high or low,
knew little at this juncture of self-government. In times past they
had observed that rulership consisted largely of personal wranglings
for place, from king and pope down to the lowest aspirant; of wars,
political and ecclesiastical, brother against brother, priests and
people butchering and burning as if the great object of religion and
civilization was to preserve upon this earth as long as possible the
hell which we all hope in one way or another to escape hereafter.

Note further in regard to Central America the strange union of

widely distinct classes in their efforts to sacrifice the country for self.
Though from somewhat different motives, we see join hands the
highest and the lowest, a self-styled aristocracy and the ignorant
rabble, aided by the priests who would not see their power slip from
them in the general overturnings, all spending their energies and
blood in the direction of utter destruction for themselves, their
families, and their country. Fortunately there were others at hand
whose ideas of self-government were different; who earnestly
desired that this new plant of liberty—a boon which had so
unexpectedly dropped down to them from heaven—should have in
their midst a healthy growth, in spite of ignorance, ambition, or
superstition.
 Honduras.

The legislative assembly of Honduras,

TROUBLES IN
HONDURAS.
pursuant to the proscriptive law enacted by the
federal congress in August 1829, issued a decree
of expulsion, and the government of the state transmitted to
Guatemala a list of those who had come within its provisions.[VI-1]
Some exiles from Honduras and other states of Central America
went to Belize to carry on their plots from that quarter, and soon
caused a sedition in the department of Olancho. The vice-jefe, Vijil,
used his best endeavors to bring the seditious to terms peaceably,
but failed.[VI-2] It became necessary then to resort to force, and
Lieutenant-colonel Terrelonge was authorized to move his troops
from Trujillo against Olancho. The state of Guatemala was also
requested to send its force stationed in Chiquimula to Gracias, for
the purpose of aiding in the preservation of order. The assembly of
Guatemala, on the 24th of November, 1829, directed that 500 men,
subject to the orders of the chief of the state, should repair at once
to Honduras and quell the insurrection. The wording of the decree
caused a disagreement between the president of the republic and
Jefe Molina. The latter insisted that the 500 men to be sent to
Honduras should be under his orders. President Barrundia could not
accede to it, because the command of a military force operating out
of the state belonged by law to the federal government,[VI-3] and
through his minister of war, Nicolás Espinosa, applied to the
Guatemalan legislature for a change in the decree. Espinosa's
communication caused much sensation, and the assembly repealed
the act of November 24th, and in its stead provided that the money
needed to muster in and equip 500 men should be furnished the
general government out of the state treasury.

Morazan, jefe of Honduras, and general-in-chief of the Central

American forces, had marched with a division upon the departments
of Olancho and Opoteca, and to him were despatched the troops
newly raised in Guatemala. Colonel Vicente Dominguez was one of
the chief promoters of the revolution of Honduras.[VI-4] Morazan's
military reputation made easy his road to victory. He encountered no
great difficulties. The year 1830 was inaugurated with new triumphs.
The Olancho rebels surrendered to him at Las Vueltas del Ocote, and
on the 21st of January solemnly bound themselves to recognize and
obey the government.[VI-5] Morazan next, on the 19th of February,
routed the insurrectionists of Opoteca.[VI-6] Morazan, after pacifying
Honduras, intended marching into Nicaragua, if political measures
should prove insufficient to establish regularity there. He first
despatched Dionisio Herrera to the seat of Nicaraguan differences,
who fulfilled his trust with zeal, and Morazan had no need of going
to the state. Herrera had been chosen jefe, and was duly inducted in
his office on the 12th of May.

REVOLT AND
ELECTION.
The time for renewing the supreme federal
authority having arrived, elections were held
throughout the republic. Congress opened its session with due
solemnity on the 27th of March, 1830. The supreme court of justice
was likewise installed.[VI-7] The election of president of the republic
had been also made. Morazan, José Francisco Barrundia, José del
Valle, Antonio Rivera Cabezas, and Pedro Molina obtained votes; but
by far the largest number of them had been polled for Morazan and
Valle.[VI-8]

The votes were counted in June. Morazan had the largest

number; but in order to ascertain if the election had been legal, it
was necessary first to declare if the basis was to be the number of
votes which the citizens of the republic had the right to poll, or that
of the votes actually given and counted. If the former, there had
been no popular election, and congress had to decide the point
between Morazan and Valle; in the latter case, Morazan had been
popularly elected.[VI-9]

The congress consisted for the most part of

MORAZAN
PRESIDENT.
friends of Morazan, and he was declared
president. He made a triumphal entry into
Guatemala on the 14th of September, and should have been
inaugurated on the 15th; but it was decided that Barrundia should
turn over to him the executive office on the 16th, in the midst of the
festivities of national independence. This was done by Barrundia
with that republican simplicity which had ever characterized the
man. All the states sent their congratulations to Morazan, and to
Barrundia for the good judgment and success of his administration.
[VI-10]Mariano Prado, the distinguished citizen of Salvador, who did
such good service to the liberal cause as vice-jefe of that state
during the campaign that ended in April 1829, was elected vice-
president.

One of Barrundia's measures that did him honor was his saving
the island of Roatan to Central America. The British had driven away
the few inhabitants and small garrison and taken possession.[VI-11]
Barrundia made energetic though courteous remonstrances, and the
island was restored after Morazan had become president.

The country now required peace. Morazan exerted himself to

foster education and national industry. Agriculture and trade began
to revive; but it was not to be continued long, for the demon of
political strife was let loose again. The servile party, though
defeated, had not remained inactive. In 1831 it prepared a plot for
the destruction of the liberals, which had ramifications everywhere.
Arce was to invade the republic from Mexico through Soconusco.
Dominguez was to occupy Honduras with elements gathered for the
purpose at Belize. Meantime, Ramon Guzman seized the fort at
Omoa with 200 negroes.[VI-12] Arce effected his invasion with about
100 men, exiled and discontented Central Americans,[VI-13] and was
defeated at Escuintla de Soconusco, on the 24th of February, 1832,
by the forces under General Raoul. He succeeded in escaping with a
few men into Mexico again.[VI-14] Guzman, being hard pressed at
Omoa by the government troops under Colonel Terrelonge, hoisted
the Spanish flag over the fort, and despatched, on the 10th of
August, the schooner Ejecutivo, whose name had been now changed
to General Dominguez, to ask assistance from the captain-general of
Cuba, offering himself and those with him as subjects of the Spanish
king. But the vessel was captured on her return with supplies, and
the rebel garrison surrendered on the 12th of September, after a
siege of five months.[VI-15] Almost at the same time that Omoa was
seized by the rebels, the port of Trujillo was occupied by Vicente
Dominguez, who had in his company Pedro Gonzalez.[VI-16] The
Central Americans had two armed schooners at Izabal, besides two
national vessels under Terrelonge, and an armed schooner at Belize.
Duplessis, a Frenchman, commanding the national vessel Fénix, was
captured by Dominguez, taken to Omoa, and shot in the plaza.[VI-17]

Dominguez' vanguard reached Yoro on the 7th of March, 1832,

and was defeated at Tercales on the 9th, and again at Olanchito. He
fled to Trujillo, leaving behind 200 muskets, other arms, some
money, and other things.[VI-18] He then transferred himself to Omoa,
and with 600 men, on the 26th of March, attacked the government
troops at Jaitique, being defeated. He was again routed at Opoteca,
pursued in all directions, captured, and taken to Comayagua, where
he was put to death on the 14th of September.[VI-19] The rebel plot
thus defeated was a formidable one. Archbishop Casaus from
Habana moved his clergy. Bishop Fray Luis García of Chiapas favored
Ex-president Arce, whose friends confidently asserted that he also
had the support of the Mexican government.[VI-20] Arce's plans were
also in combination with the jefe of Salvador, José María Cornejo.[VI-
21]The fallen party would not admit that they had been vanquished,
that their principles were antiquated and repugnant to the people;
they still believed that a reaction was not only possible, but right and
natural.

Cornejo's intrigues led to a disturbance of the

HONDURAS AND
SALVADOR.
peace in Salvador. The state assembly had been
installed in February 1831, and the tendencies of
its members elect, together with Cornejo's workings, had awakened
mistrust among the liberals of Guatemala. The assembly of the latter
state directed the executive, in congratulating the Salvador assembly
upon its installation, to remind it of the necessity of harmony and of
upholding liberal principles.[VI-22]

On the news of the invasion of Honduras, already described,

reaching Guatemala, Morazan decided to establish his headquarters
in San Salvador as a more convenient centre for future operations.
His relations with the authorities of Salvador were anything but
harmonious; neither could they be harmonious under the
circumstances. Mariano Galvez, jefe of Guatemala,[VI-23] desiring to
avoid conflicts, despatched Colonel Nicolás Espinosa with letters to
Cornejo, advising him that his agent was instructed to use his best
offices to settle the differences between him and Morazan. Espinosa,
when near Atiquizaya, heard that orders for his arrest had been
issued, and therefore went back. Galvez became justly indignant at
the conduct of Cornejo's agents.

The president of the republic started from

SALVADOR
SECEDES.
Guatemala on the 29th of December, 1831,
accompanied by his ministers, and journeyed
toward San Salvador without any military force other than his body-
guard; consequently Cornejo had no cause to apprehend any sudden
blow at his authority.[VI-24] Nevertheless, on the 6th of January,
1832, Cornejo broke out in open rebellion, commanding the national
executive, then at Santa Ana, to quit the state forthwith or he would
be driven away. Morazan, having no means of resistance, obeyed.
This insult to the republic was followed next day, January 7, 1832, by
an act declaring the suspension of the federal compact and the
secession of the state of Salvador. Congress then empowered the
executive to repel invasions. The jefe of Guatemala admitted the
obligation of his state to aid the general government with all its
means.[VI-25] The assembly of Nicaragua, backed by the jefe
Dionisio Herrera, who was a stanch friend and supporter of Morazan,
passed an act disallowing the legitimacy of the Salvador authorities
and their acts, and providing means to support the federal
government.[VI-26]

Costa Rica, through her minister of state, Joaquin Bernardo

Calvo, in a note from San José of March 3, 1832, to the government
of Guatemala, signified her readiness to support the laws, and with
that end to place at the disposal of the federal executive all the aid
in her power. A Guatemalan force was stationed on the frontier of
Salvador, first under Colonel Cárlos Salazar, and afterward under
Colonel Juan Prem, a distinguished officer of the campaign of 1829.
Even now Galvez hoped to avert war, sending commissioners to
confer with Cornejo at Ahuachapan. The latter received them, and
appointed his own to continue the conferences; but they were
suddenly brought to an end without results.[VI-27] Further efforts on
behalf of peace were useless; the contest had to be decided by war.
[VI-28]

Morazan with a force of Salvador and Honduras men marched

from the river Lempa to Portillo. Cornejo had 600 men in Jocoro of
the department of San Miguel. The latter were signally defeated on
the 14th of March, losing 500 men in killed, wounded, and prisoners.
[VI-29]This was soon followed by pronunciamientos in several
departments against Cornejo and in favor of Morazan. The latter lost
no time in marching upon San Salvador, which he took by assault on
the 28th of March, notwithstanding the obstinate resistance of
Cornejo and the garrison, the assailing force being made up of
Nicaraguans and Hondurans.[VI-30] The state authorities were
deposed, sent to Guatemala under a guard, and subsequently tried
by a special court created ex post facto, with the name of jurado
nacional.[VI-31] Morazan then assumed control of Salvador until
constitutional authorities should be reorganized.[VI-32] This step,
illegal as it was, gave dissatisfaction, not in Salvador alone, but in
the other states, which subsequently seceded from the union; and
though later retractions took place, it may be said that the
confederation was dissolved at this period.[VI-33]

Meantime, the federal congress had continued its sessions,

striving to promote the welfare of the country by a liberal policy.
Among the acts adopted at this time, and deserving special mention,
was that of May 2, 1832, abolishing the exclusiveness of the Roman
religion, and recognizing freedom of conscience and of worship.[VI-
34] This law, though practically of little effect, inasmuch as there
were but few foreigners in the country, showed that a spirit of
toleration was gaining ground. Another important measure was the
adoption of Livingston's Louisiana code, and trial by jury. This form
of trial was not understood by the people, and fortunately fell into
disuse.

Notwithstanding the acts of disunion passed

ELEMENTS OF
DISUNION.
by the several states, there was no serious
disturbance during the remainder of 1832 or in
1833. In the middle of the latter year[VI-35] congress adjourned, and
there were fair prospects of peace. Indeed, the liberals had been
made to see the folly of disunion. The states, relinquishing their
antagonisms, quietly returned to the confederacy. The federal
government, on the 20th of April, 1833, convoked a new congress to
adjust differences. But now a new element of discord appeared. This
was the jealousy felt by the smaller states toward Guatemala, which
being larger in extent and population, naturally had a corresponding
influence in the national congress.[VI-36] These states demanded an
equal voice in that body, and insisted that this right should be
recognized before proceeding to the elections.[VI-37] Guatemala,
heeding the anxiety of the liberal leaders, assented to the demand.
Some of the states proceeded with their elections, but it soon
became obvious that the plan of compromise could not be
satisfactory or permanent, and it was dropped. The proposed
congress accordingly did not meet.[VI-38]

Rumors were current for some time in 1833 of an intended

invasion of Salvador by Arce, by sea from Acapulco,[VI-39] but they
proved to be unfounded. The federal government transferred its seat
on the 5th of February, 1834,[VI-40] first to Sonsonate, and later to
San Salvador, which for the time being quieted the jealous feeling of
the several states against Guatemala. But after a few weeks the
dissensions between the federal and state governments, of so
frequent occurrence when the former was in Guatemala, were
renewed in San Salvador. On the 23d of June, 1834, a fight took
place between troops of the two parties, and the affair ended in
another overthrow of the local authorities,[VI-41] who were
proscribed under ex post facto laws.[VI-42] The state government
went first into the hands of General Salazar, who called himself jefe
provisorio, and afterward into those of the vice-president of the
republic. Neither had any legal authority in the premises. This state
of affairs caused dissatisfaction in Salvador. Political disturbances
were also experienced in other states. The flame of discord was
fanned everywhere by the oligarchs, who found their task made
easier by the extreme religious liberalism of the ruling party. Their
influence was felt when, on the 7th of February, 1835, after San
Salvador, together with a few surrounding towns, was constituted a
federal district,[VI-43] a new constitution, based on the former one of
1824, was generally rejected.[VI-44]

ELECTION AND
DEATH OF VALLE.
Elections for supreme authorities of the
republic were decreed on the 2d of June, 1838.
The end of Morazan's term was approaching, and his popularity was
to be again put to the test. There was really but one man that could
compete with him, José del Valle, who was leading a retired life
devoted to scientific and political studies; but his reputation was a
national one, eminently Central American, and a large portion of the
people summoned him to rulership. He was elected, but died before
the certificates of election were opened.

The death of Valle occurred on the 2d of March, 1834. The

highest honors were paid to his memory.[VI-45] This untoward event
necessitated another election to carry out the decree of June 1833,
and José Francisco Barrundia having declined to be a candidate,
Morazan encountered no opposition and was reëlected.[VI-46] For the
office of vice-president, no one having obtained the constitutional
number of votes, congress, on the 2d of June, 1834, chose from
among candidates having forty votes and upward José Gregorio
Salazar, to be inducted in office on the 16th. Mariano Prado, the
former vice-president, had been as such at the head of the federal
executive authority in 1831; but he was chosen jefe of the state of
Salvador, and took charge of that office on the 25th of July following.
The vice-presidency and the office of a state jefe were incompatible.
He chose the latter, and was most unfortunate in the discharge of its
duties. There being then no vice-president, José Gregorio Salazar
had charge of the executive in 1834 as the senior senator, Morazan
having for a time, and with the permission of the senate, absented
himself. Upon being elected on the 2d of June, Salazar continued in
charge, and it was by his order that the federal authorities
transferred themselves to the city of Santa Ana during San Martin's
insurrection against the national government. The day after the
inauguration of Morazan for the second presidential term, congress
closed its session.[VI-47]
 No important event affecting the confederation occurred during
the remainder of 1835, but the atmosphere was filled with folly and
misrule, foreboding the storm which was to make of Central America
for many a day the theatre of the bloodiest of civil wars.

It has been shown that the party in power pursued in general a

liberal policy—too liberal, in fact, as later events proved. In view of
the tardy development of the country in the old way, inducements
were offered for foreign immigration, and an English company was
organized for the purpose of fostering colonization in the department
of Vera Paz.[VI-48] Settlers were sent out, and several hundred
thousand dollars expended, but the scheme failed because of
unskilful and dishonest management.[VI-49] Nevertheless, the servile
party turned this incident to account, filling the minds of the lower
classes, especially the Indians, with prejudice against the
government, which it accused of an intent to exterminate the native
population by throwing open the country to foreign influence,
religion, and administration of justice. The innovations in this last
respect had, more than anything else, imbittered the natives, and on
the 6th of March led to an outbreak at Ostuncalco, where the
Indians had become irritated at being compelled to work at the
construction of prisons.[VI-50] An armed force was sent to quell the
disturbance, out of which the judges and some officials had great
difficulty to escape with life.

Scarcely was this trouble over when a worse

REVOLT AND
CHOLERA.
one stole in—the cholera. The scourge began its
ravages in Central America early in 1837,[VI-51]
and soon spread throughout the towns of the republic. The
governments of the different states, and notably that of Guatemala,
used the utmost efforts to relieve suffering. Physicians and medical
students, provided with medicines, were despatched to the several
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com