under consideration for nine months to-day, examining meanwhile but seven witnesses. I feel it my duty to suggest that under the circumstances of this disagreement that no action be had on the report of the two Commissioners, dated San Antonio, Texas, January 15th, 1895, recommending an elimination of the bancos proper, from the effect of the Treaty of November 12th, 1884, for the reason that should the Mexican Commissioner's contention in the Chamizal Case be unfortunately maintained, there will be no occasion for this modification of the Treaty suggested, because of a certainty if the river did not move in the Chamizal Case, by gradual erosion and deposit for the effects of Article I of that Treaty of 1884, certainly the formation of these bancos were not slow and gradual according to that Treaty, and hence those cases would have to be re-considered and the boundary established in the old bed of the river as surveyed by Emory and Salazar in 1852, and the formations whatever they were and the cut-offs whatever they may have been, would have no effect on the boundary. It is proper also to state here that two United States citizens, Mr. Lowenstein, of Ysleta, and Mr. Armendaris, near Socorro, have presented claims informally to me for land on the other side of the river formed in exactly the same manner that the land opposite El Chamizal was formed, and that I have advised them that I did not think they had a claim, thinking that the Mexican Commissioner would see the futility of his case, but now I shall advise them to formally present their cases, pending the decision in the Chamizal Case. I also feel it my duty to urge the Department in whatever way may be deemed best, to prosecute an early settlement of the Chamizal Case for several reasons. The first, it will be a precedent under which all similar cases can be quickly adjusted, and second, although the United States local authorities have held undisputed possession and jurisdiction over the land in dispute, as it has accrued for forty-two years, soon after this claim of Mexico was set up legally, which was very proper, many Mexicans, most of them claiming to be United States citizens, have taken physical possession of certain tracts of land and in some cases the local courts have issued writs of ejectment in behalf of United States owners. So far I have been able to persuade these parties not to enforce their writs, hoping that the Commission would arrive at an agreement, but now as soon as it shall become known that we have disagreed, no doubt the United States holders will demand of the courts the enforcement of the writs of ejectment, and if the Mexicans should resist there may be bloodshed-and thus entail serious international complications, which ought to be avoided, if there is any possible method of doing so. I forward in a separate package two maps described in the Journal of July 17th (page 129, English). I think it proper to explain here an episode of the claims of Dougherty and Kirby, two lawyers of this place, not of the best standing in the community, recounted in the journal of May 18th, page 64 and following. By reference to the maps it will be observed that the location of the river of 1827 at the time the original Ponce grant was made about that date, is laid down. Last winter, seeing the engineers working about this location, without any authority from either the Mexican Commissioner or myself, it was asserted in the newspapers that the boundary had been established there and soon after many unscrupulous men made their claims and employed Dougherty and Kirby to present their claim to the Commissioners. To both the Commissioners and engineers these claims were perfectly absurd and although we used every patience in inviting them to our offices, explaining the maps and in every other reasonable way attempt to show them the injustice of their claims, they persisted and I understand still persist that the river ran there in 1852. We finally determined to dismiss them as we did in a joint letter, dated May 18th, and included in the journal of that day (Page 68 of the proceedings in English). a For a better understanding of this case I enclose certified copy of a decision of the Supreme Court, No. 4, original, October term, 1891; State of Nebraska against the State of Iowa, and the following papers in that case: Bill in equity and cross bill, which has appended a map of the land in dispute, showing a banco identical with those we found on the lower Rio Grande and described in the printed report of the Commissioners; transcript of the record in that case; brief of complainants and abstract of the oral testimony. I also enclose copy of the Special Report of the Joint Commission on the four bancos, in which, on pages nine and ten, you will find what was [See infra, p. 156, Agent's note.] [See infra, p. 1154, where this decision of the Supreme Court is printed in full. [Inasmuch as the other papers, constituting the record are voluminous and appear to be sufficiently summarized for the purposes of this case in the decision of the Court, they are not printed. Certified copies will however be furnished the Commission if desired.] [See infra, p. 1092, Agent's note.] said by the Commissioners, of which the Mexican Commissioner is endeavoring to construe into an assertion by the United States Commission, that no such a thing as gradual erosion and deposit was known in the upper Rio Grande. By perusing the whole report it will be readily seen that no such construction was intended. In the last paragraph, on page 12 and the first on 13, it will be seen that our decisions were suspended for the reasons therein explained. I have the honor to be, Sir, Very respectfully your obedient servant, ANSON MILLS Colonel Third Cavalry, U. S. A., Commissioner. JOINT JOURNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION. SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, October 29, 1895. The Joint Commission met at 9 A. M. and having no business at this point agreed to proceed immediately to El Paso, Texas, to there take up the case of "El Chamizal", No. 4. ANSON MILLS. JOHN A. HAPPER. F. JAVIER OSORNO. S. F. MAILLEFERT. [Joint Journal.] EL PASO, TEXAS, November 4, 1895. The Joint Commission met at the office of the American Commissioner at 10 A. M. The Mexican Commissioner presented the papers in the case of "El Chamizal", No. 4 to the Joint Commission for its consider ation. The Mexican Commissioner also presented a new case to the Joint Commission called "La Isla de San Elizario", No. 10 in the series. At 11 A. M., the Joint Commission adjourned until 10 o'clock A. M., the 6th instant. ANSON MILLS. JOHN A. HAPPER. Citizen Jefe Politico. (Mayor): F. JAVIER OSORNO. Pedro Ygnacio Garcia, of legal age, a farmer and a resident citizen of this City, respectfully presents himself to Your Honor and begging leave of the Court says: That, in the year 1818 the then Lieutenant of Cavalry and Political Governor of Paso del Norte, granted and conveyed to Señor Ricardo Brusuelas, Twenty Thousand squares varas (20,000 Vs. Sq.) of land, more or less, said land lying and being situate at a certain point that was at that time on this side of the Rio Bravo. That the said Señor Brusuealas in conjunction and acting with Don Felix Miranda, Mrs. Ursula Miranda and Dr. José Antonio Apodaca did sell, grant and convey to my Grandfather, Señor Don Lorenzo del Barrio in the year 1827, a certain piece, tract or parcel of land known by "El Chamizal", a house having already been built on said property. That my aforesaid Grandfather was in public and peaceable possession of the aforesaid real estate without any interruption whatever from the time that he bought the place, up to the time of his death, which event took place in the year 1865. That on the following year, viz: in 1866, October 15th, his son and executor of the estate, Mr. Antonio del Barrio, granted, deeded and conveyed to me the aforesaid property, the same being from that time on in my possession, through my legally authorized agent, Mr. José Acosta up to the year 1873, in which year, in consequence of the abrupt and sudden change of the current of the aforesaid Rio Bravo, that land in question was by that fact left on the other side of said river, or on the side of what is called to-day, El Paso, Texas. Ever since this change took place, I have not dared to occupy my aforesaid land, fearful, as I was, among other things, that some personal injury might befall me from the part of a few North Americans, who supposing this land to belong to the United States of North America, pretended to come into possession of the same and also because I was not satisfied in my own mind which of the two governments I ought to recognize as having jurisdiction over the same, in regard to the collection of taxes. The facts to sustain my claim aforesaid are contained in the documents herein enclosed comprising three legal pages; and in order to ascertain the facts relating to the sudden change of the course of the river and the identification of the land in question, I beg that you have the testimony of the witnesses mentioned in the accompanying interrogatories taken, all of whom are resident citizens of this City, so that each in his turn be examined, and when this be done, you will please forward all the documents in the case, viz: The petition, the papers herein transmitted, and the interrogatories and answers, to the International Boundary Commission, according to Article VIII of the Convention between Mexico and the United States, held on the first day of March, 1889, so that said Commission may decide in conformity with the stipulations in Clauses II and III of the Convention of 1884, to which of the two nations belongs the land in question and whether or not I have any right to the aforesaid land. It is justice that I demand. C. JUAREZ, MEXICO, 23rd January, 1894. PEDRO Y. GARCIA. DISTRICT OF BRAVOS, MAYOR'S OFFICE (JEFATURA POLITICA) NO. 371. The Judge of Letters of this District having carried out the attestation asked for by Citizen Pedro Y. Garcia in his petition dated January 23rd last, this Office ordered as follows: "February 19th, 1894. "That the interested party be informed of the receipt of his petition of January 23rd last, that the said petition together with the documents accompanying same and the investigation held in regard to it be transmitted to the International Boundary Commission for such action as may be proper." I have the honor to insert the above for such action as your Hon. Commission may deem proper; enclosing herewith the petition in fifteen pages, the documents in originals, an uncertified copy of same and the attestation above mentioned. Liberty and Constitution, Ciudad Juarez, February 26th, 1904. JESUS O. NAJERA. To the CHIEF OF THE MEXICAN COMMISSION, Present. DEPARTMENT OF STATE OF FOREIGN RELATIONS, SECTION FOR AMERICA, ASIA, AND OCEANIA, MEXICO, October 29th, 1894. On the 4th of September last, the Fiscal Attorney of the District Court of Paso del Norte, Chihuahua, instituted two investigations with the view of ascertaining the changes that had occurred in the current of the Rio Bravo from a point where the river reaches the last international post that marked the boundary between Mexico and the United States of America, to a point two leagues to the east of said City, and from the 2nd February, 1848, up to the day when said investigations were begun. |