that those that draw the sword perish by the sword, and that a presidency won by revolution is apt to be lost by revolution. The end of a great career in exile is full of pathos, and the revolution which terminated it is a misfortune to the country as well as to the immediate victim.

President Madero came into power by a revolution and, as was to be expected, the lawlessness and disorder incident to revolution has continued after the immediate object of it was obtained, namely, the resignation of Diaz from office and the installation of the leader of the revolt. Mexico needs peace, and there can be no doubt that the majority of the people firmly desire it, but, when rudely shaken, the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other and only gradually assumes the position of equilibrium. That this condition may soon obtain in Mexico is the hope, if not the expectation, of its friends and admirers.

The situation of the United States in revolutionary movements in Mexico and Central America is one of embarrassment because charges are constantly made, which unfortunately are not without foundation, that the United States is made the basis of hostile operations; that supplies are slipped across the border, and that revolutions are financed in the United States. The official publication, entitled The Foreign Relations of the United States, teems with complaints of deficiencies in our neutrality laws, and complaints of neglect in the enforcement of the laws. It may well be that the criticism of the laws and complaints of their violations are exaggerated, but where there is so much smoke there must needs be some fire. Thus, it is stated under date of December 23, 1910, that the United States authorities had not prevented the passage of armed insurgents from El Paso to Ciudad Juarez, and under date of January 11, 1911, that the American authorities had not acted upon a request for the arrest of certain revolutionists engaged in violating the neutrality laws in El Paso, Texas. Again, it is alleged that the neutrality laws had been violated, in that revolutionary movements were organized in Texas; that bands of revolutionists were being recruited along the border; that arms and ammunition were procured in the United States and shipped to revolutionists in arms against the government of Diaz, as well as against the government of President Madero.

On March 2, 1912, President Taft issued a proclamation1 calling attention to the serious disturbances unfortunately existing in Mexico,

1 Printed in SUPPLEMENT, p. 146.

and, after stating the force and effect of the neutrality laws, gave notice "that all persons owing allegiance to the United States who may take part in the disturbances now existing in Mexico, unless in the necessary defense of their persons or property, or who shall otherwise engage in acts subversive of the transquillity of that country, will do so at their peril, and that they can in no wise obtain any protection from the Government of the United States against the appropriate legal consequences of their acts, in so far as such consequences are in accord with equitable justice and humanity and the enlightened principles of international law." It is, however, a principle of international law for which authority need not be cited, that private individuals can trade in contraband, although by so doing they subject such ventures to capture and confiscation. The risk is considerable, but if the arms and ammunition, or other material capable of a warlike use, reach their destination, the shippers realize enormous profits at the expense, be it said, of a friendly government which we are morally bound to support as far as we lawfully can. It is quite clear that the best way to prevent arms, ammunition, and other warlike material from reaching revolutionists, is to prevent their exportation, by the apprehension and punishment of all persons engaged in it. By so doing, we shall contribute to the peace of a neighboring country and only act up to the Golden Rule, which the late Secretary Hay impressively stated to be the cardinal characteristic of American diplomacy. Therefore, Senator Root, whose sympathy for and appreciation of Latin America is based upon personal knowledge of actual conditions, introduced a Joint Resolution into the Senate on March 13, 1912, which fortunately passed both the Senate and House on the 14th and was approved the same day by the President. The resolution is based upon the Joint Resolution of April 22, 1898, forbidding the exportation of coal or other material used in war from any seaport of the United States, and authorizes the President of the United States to forbid, in his discretion, the exportation of arms or munitions. of war to any American country in which he shall find conditions of domestic violence to exist, and declares that any shipment of such material made after the issue of the President's proclamation, "shall be punishable by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both."

It is difficult to over-estimate the importance of this resolution, for it

introduced a profound change in the neutrality laws of the United States and enables the President to prevent the shipment of arms or munitions of war, not merely to Mexico, but to any American country wherein conditions of domestic violence unfortunately exist, and which are promoted by the use of arms or munitions of war procured from the United States. The President had, by his proclamation of March 2d, found that "serious disturbances and forcible resistance to the authorities of the established government exist in certain portions of Mexico." He, therefore, took advantage of the authority conferred upon him by the Joint Resolution of March 14th, which was promptly approved by him, and, on the same day issued the proclamation provided for in the resolution, by declaring and proclaiming formally that "conditions of domestic violence promoted by the use of arms or munitions of war procured from the United States as contemplated by the said Joint Resolution," do in fact exist and he therefore directed all persons to abstain from all violations of the Joint Resolution and warned them that such violations would be rigorously prosecuted.2

It is not the purpose of this comment to examine conditions in detail, but to call attention to the importance of the Joint Resolution and to the authority conferred upon the President to prevent export of arms and munitions of war procured in the United States, except under such limitations and exceptions as shall prevent their reaching the revolutionists and their employment for a revolutionary purpose contrary to the neutrality laws of the United States and the Joint Resolution of March 14, 1912. If we can go further and prevent revolutions from being financed in the United States, a great step in advance would be taken to secure domestic peace in the sister republics, without which stable government and ordinary progress would seem to be well-nigh impossible

THE HORCON RANCH CASE

Anent the discussion from time to time arising concerning the inability of the United States Government to perform the international obligations assumed in its treaties, an interesting case arising on the water boundary between the United States and Mexico which has recently been decided by the Circuit Court of the United States in and for the Southern District of Texas affords a refreshing precedent for the vindication

2 Printed in SUPPLEMENT, p. 147.

of at least a part, albeit a small part, of the treaty obligations of the United States.

An American company acquired a large tract of land comprising some fifty thousand acres in the southern part of the State of Texas and abutting the Rio Grande River, which river forms the boundary line between the United States and Mexico. The company proposed to develop, cultivate and utilize its lands by the establishment of an extensive system of irrigation and to that end it cleared its lands, built canals, reservoirs, roads, towns, bridges, a complete electrical power station, and constructed on the banks of the Rio Grande River a pumping station in which were installed engines and other mechanical appliances necessary to draw and lift into its canal system from the Rio Grande the water needed for irrigation.

During the progress of this development a natural cut-off in the course of the Rio Grande began to take place, which change if fully accomplished would have caused the river to follow a channel remote from the site which had been selected by the company for its pumping station. It seems that this site, by reason of the natural surroundings, was the only one available for the purpose within several miles and the company was therefore unable to change the site to follow the vagaries of the river. The company at first attempted to prevent the natural change in the course of the river by revetting the shore at or near the impending cut-off, but the nature of the soil made it practically impossible to do this successfully. The company, thereupon, in order to utilize the extensive works which had been constructed looking to the erection of a pumping station at the point selected, decided to protect itself by cutting an artificial channel further up the stream which would prevent the river from flowing through a loop in which the natural cut-off was threatened. This project of the company was carried to completion during the months. of June and July, 1906, in ignorance or in disregard of the treaty provisions between the United States and Mexico, and particularly in direct violation of Article III of the boundary convention between the two governments concluded November 12, 1884, which article reads as follows:

Art. III. No artificial change in the navigable course of the river, by building jetties, piers, or obstructions which may tend to deflect the current or produce deposits of alluvium, or by dredging to deepen another than the original channel under the Treaty when there is more than one channel, or by cutting waterways to shorten the navigable distance, shall be permitted to affect or alter the dividing line as determined by the aforesaid commissions in 1852 or as deter

mined by Article I hereof and under the reservation therein contained; but the protection of the banks on either side from erosion by revetments of stone or other material not unduly projecting into the current of the river shall not be deemed an artificial change.

The cut-off not only changed the course of the established and fixed international boundary line, but resulted in injury and damage to the Mexican owners of the lands opposite the point of the diversion in the following particulars: (1) to growing crops; (2) expenses of constructing levees; (3) loss of land from erosion; (4) loss of riparian rights.

The matter was by the Government of Mexico brought to the attention of the International Boundary Commission, which commission by the convention of 1889 has exclusive jurisdiction to examine and decide all differences or questions that may arise on that portion of the frontier where the Rio Grande forms the boundary line, whether such differences or questions grow out of alterations or changes in the bed of the river or of works that may be constructed therein. By the same treaty the commission was given authority to suspend the construction of any works prohibited by Article III of the convention of 1884, above quoted, pending investigation.

The engineers of the International Boundary Commission investigated the work and found that it had progressed so far as to be beyond control. The commissioners thereupon, after visiting the locality, examining the works, and hearing testimony regarding the case, made the following report to their respective governments:

That the said American Rio Grande Land and Irrigation Company did wrongfully and knowingly cause a change in the current channel of the Rio Grande where it constituted the boundary line between the United States of Mexico and the United States of America, by artificial means, and in direct violation of Article III of the Convention of November 12, 1884, between the two governments, and if said Article III is applied the change in the running channel of the river produces no alteration in the boundary line, which still continues in the old bed of the river.

The Commissioners are of opinion that indemnity should be made for this wrong, but they do not understand that the treaties under which it was organized and under which this investigation was conducted confers upon it jurisdiction over the title to land, damage to property, the control of riparian rights or the enforcing of reparation for wrongs by offenders for changing the channel of the river where it constitutes the boundary.

Nevertheless, as this is a novel case, wherein it appears that some example should be set and a precedent established in order to deter others from similar wrongs, we submit the question to the better judgment of our respective governments for instructions as to further proceedings.