PUBLIC DOCUMENTS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW UNITED STATES 1 Alsop claim. Case of United States versus Chile before George V, under protocol of Dec. 1, 1909. 1910. 352 p. State Dept. 198 p. State Dept. Appendix. 1910. 400 p. State Dept. Award pronounced by King George V as amiable composi teur, London, July 15, 1911. 1911. 32 p. State Dept. Arbitration. Addresses of President Taft on. 1911. 66 p. President of United States. Chamizal arbitration. Argument of United States before International Boundary Commission, under convention between United States and Mexico, concluded June 24, 1910. 1911. 117 p. State Dept. 1911. 1162 p. 45 p. State Dept. State Dept. Case of the United States. 31+viii+243 p. 2 maps. [English and Spanish.] State Dept. Minutes of Commission, June 10 and 15, 1911, containing award, dissenting opinions, and protest of agent of United States. 1911. 57 p. State Dept. Correspondence relating to inspection of documents printed or relied on in Mexican case and countercase. 23 p. State Dept. Declaration of Independence, 1776. 1911. 11 p. Paper, 5c. State Dept. Fur-seal fisheries of Alaska in 1910. 40 p. Bureau of Fisheries doc. 749. Paper, 5c. Fur-seal rookeries of Alaska, Special investigation of, 1910. Bureau of Fisheries doc. 748. Paper, 5c. 22 p. Neutrality in war between Italy and Turkey, proclamation of. October 24, 1911. 1 p. (No. 1169.) State Dept. 1 When prices are given, the document in question may be obtained for the amount noted from the Superinterdent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Panama Canal. Treaties and acts of Congress relating to isthmian canal. 1911. Paper, 5c. Isthmian Canal Com. Seal islands of Alaska. Response to resolution requesting information relative to. July 19, 1911. 1232 p. il. (H. doc. 93.) Paper, 80c. Dept. of Commerce and Labor. 2 GREAT BRITAIN Alsop claim, Award of George V. (Cd. 5739.) 3d. Arbitration treaty between Great Britain and United States, signed Washington, Aug. 3, 1911. (Cd. 5805.) 1d. Congo, Correspondence affecting, Aug., 1910, to Oct., 1911. (Cd. 5860.) 1s. d. Extradition treaty between Great Britain and Siam, signed Bangkok, March 4, 1911. (Cd. 5861.) 1d. International Agricultural Institute, Further papers relative to. (Cd. 5962.) 4d. Morocco, Declaration between Great Britain and France, with Secret Articles. Signed, London, April 8, 1904. (Cd. 5969.) Naval expenditure, Return of principal Powers since 1900. (H. C. Rept. 265, Sess. 1911.) 2d. Neutrality proclamation in Turco-Italian war, Oct. 3, 1911. (Rules and Orders, 1911, No. 959.) 1d. Pecuniary claims, Agreement between Great Britain and United States for settlement of, with first schedule and terms of submission. (Cd. 5803.) 1d. Siamese naturalization law, May 18, 1911. (Cd. 5806.) 1d. Sleeping sickness, Agreement between Great Britain and Germany respecting, signed Berlin, Aug. 17, 1911. (Cd. 5856.) 1d. Walfisch Bay boundary arbitration, Translation of award, with map. (Cd. 5857.) 91d. GEORGE A. FINCH. 2 Official publications of Great Britain and many of the British colonies may be purchased of Wyman & Sons, Ltd., Fetter Lane, E. C., London, England. JUDICIAL DECISIONS INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW STATE V. GALLARDO ET AL. (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Feb. 8, 1911.) 135 Southwestern Reporter 664. Appeal from District Court, Travis County: Charles A. Wilcox, Judge. [Statement of facts abbreviated.] The State of Texas, acting through the Attorney-General's department, brought this suit in trespass to try title, seeking to recover two leagues of land situated in Hidalgo County, and described, in part, in plaintiff's petition as "all that part of that certain tract or parcel of land known as 'Los Ejidos' that lies on the north side of said Rio Grande River." Jose L. Gallardo and a large number of others were made defendants; the plaintiff alleging that they had unlawfully entered upon and ejected the plaintiff from the possession thereof on the 1st day of June, 1900, and had continuously since that time been in possession, receiving and enjoying the fruits, rents, and revenues arising therefrom. The case was tried before the court without a jury and final judgment rendered against the State. The State has prosecuted an appeal. There is little, if any, conflict in the testimony, and the salient facts are as follows: In 1767 the Government of Spain granted to the town of Reynosa four leagues of land as town commons. The town commons referred to, otherwise known as the "Ejidos," crossed the Rio Grande River, and the portion thereof that was on the north side of that stream is the land in controversy in this suit. It appears from the statement of facts that at some time prior to August 31, 1836, probably in 1801, upon the petition of the citizens of Old Reynosa, the town or municipality was by the government removed from that place to another, about six leagues away. The cause of such removal was the danger of inundation by the flood waters of the Rio Grande. After the removal referred to, and, on August 31, 1836, the alcalde of New Reynosa addressed a letter to the governor of Tamaulipas, stating that disputes had arisen among the owners of certain lands adjacent to the "Ejidos" or commons of Old Reynosa, as to the boundaries of their respective tracts, in which letter he recommended the sale of the commons or "Ejidos" of Old Reynosa. That letter was referred to the Departmental Junta at the city of Victoria, and that body addressed a communication to the governor, recommending that the commons of Old Reynosa be reduced to private property by public sale to the highest bidder. The property was ordered sold, and in pursuance of that order the alcalde of Reynosa proceeded to sell at public auction the commons of Old Reynosa. The sale was consummated on the 9th day of November, 1836, by the acceptance of the bid of Fruto de Cardenas of $210, which sum was paid on that day. Fruto de Cardenas, in making the purchase referred to, was acting for ninety-six inhabitants of Old Reynosa. On November 10, 1836, the alcalde who made the sale ordered. that a deed of conveyance be made to the ninety-six purchasers. On the 24th day of July, 1837, the alcalde ordered the land surveyed before the issuance of title, and after the survey was made and the purchaser had paid the fees of the surveyor, which were paid September 23, 1841, a testimonio of title was issued on the 24th day of September, 1841, by the alcalde of the town of Reynosa to the ninety-six purchasers who had bid in and paid for the land. It is conceded that appellees Jose L. Gallardo and his associates claim and hold title under that sale; and the proof shows that some of them, and the ancestors under whom they claim, have been in possession of the lands so acquired, some on the Texas side and others on the Mexican side of the river, for forty or fifty years. The case was tried on an amended petition, which does not disclose when the original petition was filed; but, as the original answer of Gallardo and his branch of the defendants was not filed until February 29, 1908, we take it for granted that the suit was commenced only a short time before that date. It is true, as contended on behalf of the State, that the uncontroverted testimony shows that the old town of Reynosa had been abandoned and the municipality by that name removed to another place. The abandonment referred to is recited in the communication from the alcalde to the Departmental Junta, and in the communication from that body to the governor, and it would seem that, as a result of the removal and abandonment referred to, the title to the land in controversy reverted to the government. On September 26, 1871, Noberto Garza filed a petition in the District Court of Travis county, Texas, against the State of Texas for confirmation of title to the land in controversy in this case, under the act of August 15, 1870. The Attorney-General filed an answer for the State, and on February 12, 1873, the District Court rendered judgment against the plaintiff, and thereafter the latter appealed the case to the Supreme Court, and that court rendered judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court. It was shown that the plaintiff in that case relied upon the sale of November 9, 1836, that is relied upon by the appellees in this case. An official map of Hidalgo County, dated April, 1880, designates the land in controversy as "Los Ejidos de Reynosa." It also delineates and designates the various porciones granted to individuals and adjacent to the land in controversy. It delineates and designates the old town of Reynosa immediately across the river on the Mexican side. Another official map of the county dated April, 1896, contains substantially the same delineation and designations. It also contains certain marks, figures and letters indicating that at some time certificates had been filed on the same land. Both the maps referred to are on file in the General Land Office of this State. This case was tried in May, 1909, and it was shown that many of the defendants, Gallardo et al., had been paying taxes each upon a specified number of acres of the land, ranging from 10 to 1,500 acres, from 1883 up to the time of the trial. It is recited in the testimonio of title which was issued by the alcalde of Reynosa September 24, 1841, that the sale had been made with the consent of the departmental governor; and it seems to be conceded in the briefs of both parties that the order of sale issued October 5, 1836, was issued by order of the governor of Tamaulipas. There was testimony showing a tradition in that locality to the effect that the ancestors of the Mexican appellees had claimed and held possession of the land in controversy under the sale of November 9, 1836, from that date. There was no proof of actual occupancy at that time; but there was proof tending to show that some of the purchasers and their descendants had resided on and used the land in controversy for forty or fifty years; and it was shown that since that time, and many years ago, many other claimants under that title established their residences upon and became actual occupants of small portions of the land. In fact, the testimony shows that for many years there have been two or three villages on the land in controversy, consisting largely of claimants under the sale referred to and their families. |