The proceedings held for that purpose were three in number, and are sent you herewith in Folios 22, 12, and 104, in conformity with the prescriptions of Articles 1 and 4 of the Convention of March 1st, 1889, to the end that you proceed, together with the Commissioner of the United States of America, agreeably with said Article 4, to the place where the changes occurred and institute such proceedings as be proper in order to be able to determine and arrive at a decision as called for by the Treaty. I reiterate my protestations of regard. To the COMMISSIONER OF MEXICO, MARISCAL. OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF BOUNDARIES, REYNOSA, TAMAULIPAS. [One package sent under separate cover.] [Joint Journal.] EL PASO, TEXAS, November 6th, 1895. The Joint Commission met at the office of the American Commissioner at 10 A. M., pursuant to the adjournment of the 4th instant. The United States Commissioner then stated that he had as carefully examined all the papers in the Chamizal Case No. 4 as was practicable since their presentation to him, for the first time, at the last meeting of the Joint Commission on the 4th instant, and found them to consist of 139 pages, embracing the petition of claimant, Pedro Y. Garcia, with the evidence of a number of witnesses to fifteen questions, taken by written interrogatories, and answers before Mexican officials; and 23 deeds conveying portions of the tract of land known as "El Chamizal," and that he did not feel himself authorized to admit the proffered testimony as proper evidence in the case according to the terms of the Treaty. The sole question before the Joint Commission, as he understands it, is the location of the boundary line and the national jurisdiction over the lands adjacent, and not one of personal title to any lands, and to simplify the case and avoid multiplicity of papers in the record and hasten an early conclusion, he is ready and willing to admit on the part of his government, that at the time of the establishment of the boundary between the two governments in 1855, by the Conimissioners Emory and Salazar, as provided in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the tract of land then known as “El Chamizal" was wholly within the territory and jurisdiction of Mexico; and that subsequently a portion of that tract has been passed by the action of the Rio Grande, to the United States side of the said river, and he submits that, having admitted this, the whole question before the Commission is whether or not the river in its passage moved over the land by gradual erosion from the Mexican bank and deposit on the United States Bank, as described in Article 1 of the Treaty of 1884, or by sudden avulsion, by cutting a new bed or deepening another channel than that which marked the boundary. In the former case, the present channel of the river to be the boundary, or in the latter, the boundary to be established in the old channel though it be dry. The American Commissioner understands that his admission covers all that the text of the first ten interrogatories indicates is intended to be proven by answers favorable to the claimant, and also all that could be established by the admission of the 23 deeds as testimony in the case, and he further states that he feels it his duty to contest all that favorable replies to the five following interrogatories, Nos. 11 to 15, inclusive, might tend to establish as favorable to the claimant, and he further claims that by the general rules of evidence, the witnesses should appear in person whenever practicable and give their testimony orally to the Joint Commission. He therefore proposes that the Joint Commission proceed at once to the place where the change is alleged to have taken place and make the personal examination required by Article IV of the Treaty of 1889, and if necessary take any testimony and make any surveys that may be then found necessary, according to Rule VI, for our government. The Mexican Commissioner then replied that he accepted the statements and admissions of the Commissioner of the United States, and requested that the engineers be instructed to proceed, without unnecessary delay, to make an informal sketch, so as to enable the Commissioners to identify the land in dispute. At 11.30 the Commission adjourned, until the engineers shall have the said sketch prepared. ANSON MILLS. JOHN A. HAPPER. F. JAVIER OSORNO. S. F. MAILLEFERT. [Joint Journal.] EL PASO, TEXAS, December 11, 1895. The Consulting Engineer of the Mexican Commission having announced that he had completed the informal sketch to identify the land in dispute required in the journal of November 6th, the Joint Commission met at the office of the United States Commissioner at 11 A. M., and the Commissioners proceeded to examine said informal sketch by superposing a similar sketch, which the Consulting Engineer of the United States Commission had prepared separately meanwhile. There was at once discovered a material discrepancy between the two sketches and this unfortunately at the most important point with reference to the subject of the alleged avulsion before the Joint Commission for consideration. The Consulting Engineer of the Mexican Commission stated that he had compiled his sketch exclusively from the original of the Mexican copy of Sheet No. 29 of the Emory and Salazar Surveys dated 1852, and the United States Consulting Engineer stated that he had compiled his sketch exclusively from a photographic copy of the United States Sheet No. 29 of the Survey of Emory and Salazar. On examination of this United States sheet, the following note that would explain the discrepancy was discovered, showing that the survey from which it was compiled was made some six months after the survey from which the Mexican sheet was compiled: “This map has been compared with the corresponding map of the Mexican Commission, and is found to represent the true boundary. The two maps agree, except in the bed of the river, which circumstance is the consequence of the two surveys being made at different periods, six months apart, during which time the river changed its bed, as it is constantly doing, but always within narrow limits." a On further examination it was discovered that this photographic copy of United States Sheet No. 29 presented little evidence of having been signed by either of the Commissioners Emory or Salazar, or if it had been signed the photograph gave some indications of erasure on the original, while all the other photographic copies of the preceding numbers have the signatures of the two Commissioners clearly, while the original of the Mexican Sheet No. 29, in the possession of the Mexican Commissioner, showed plainly the signatures of the Joint Commissioners. a [See portfolio map No. 6.-Agent's note.] The Mexican Commissioner here stated that as the United States Sheet No. 29 did not appear to have been signed, he considered it of no legal significance or effect in the consideration of this case, and declined to give it such consideration, and insisted that the Commission proceed to make its determination of the question before them in the Chamizal Case No. 4, relying wholly upon the legally signed Mexican copy of the survey, which he then presented. The United States Commissioner then stated that the matter of the absence of the signatures was a surprise to him, and that as there was a material difference between the two maps at the very point in question, he did not feel authorized to proceed with the Mexican map alone and ignore any significance of the United States map without some specific instructions from his government in the matter, which he would endeavor to procure at as early a date as practicable, and meanwhile suggested that the Engineers of both Commissions be directed to proceed to the Island of San Elizario, Case No. 10, and take up the extensive work of surveying that large island, as it was uncertain how much time it would take for him to procure instructions from his government regarding the delicate question of the absence of signatures from the important map. The Mexican Commissioner then replied that he preferred not to enter into the work of surveying in the Island Case No. 10, until the surveys of this case were entirely completed and insisted that it be first determined, and proposed that the Joint Commission proceed at once to take the necessary testimony in the case with closed doors. The United States Commissioner then replied that he doubted whether his Government would approve of such proceeding of a secret trial; that he understood it to be the custom of his Government in all cases of adjudication of rights that parties interested had the right to appear themselves or by counsel and that he felt reluctantly constrained to disagree with the proposition. It then appearing to both Commissioners that there were so many embarassing questions surrounding the immediate consideration of this case, first, in the very difficult solution of the alleged remote change in the river by avulsion, and the now, difference of opinion between the two Commissioners as to the method of taking testimony in the case, but more particularly the discovering of the unfortunate absence of the signatures of the Commissioners establishing the original boundary, to the United States map. The United States Commissioner then stated that it was his purpose, if agreeable to the Mexican Commissioner, to proceed to Washington and lay these matters before his Government and procure at as early a date as practicable, instructions thereon, and suggested that as the Treaty was formed and entered into between the Mexican Minister now in Washington and the Secretary of State of the United States, that he would ask the Mexican Commissioner to accompany him to Washington for the purpose of consulting with the Mexican Minister there, who could probably more quickly determine the questions at issue by immediate consultation with the United States Secretary of State. The Mexican Commissioner replied that it was indeed of great importance to elucidate the differences that exist, not only on account of the absence of signatures on the maps, but in the discrepancy of dates, and that in Washington it would be easier to investigate this matter; but as far as he was concerned he could not leave this city just now without first consulting his government, which he would do at once. The United States Commissioner then stated that if the Mexican Commissioner would assent to the Engineers of the two Commissions proceeding to develop the survey according to both the United States and Mexican maps, giving each the same significance in their surveys and maps as the other, leaving the question of legality of the United States map in the final determination of the case, to the decision of the two governments, that he would assent to the method. To this proposition the Mexican Commissioner gave his assent, and the Joint Engineers were so instructed. The Joint Commission then adjourned until such subsequent period when the United States Commissioner returns from Washington. ANSON MILLS. F. JAVIER Osorno. S. F. MAILLEFERT. [Joint Journal.] EL PASO, TEXAS, March 21st, 1896. The Joint Commission met at the office of the United States Commissioner at 4 o'clock P. M. The United States Commissioner stated that he had received instructions from his Government regarding the United States Sheet No. 29, of the Map of the Commission of Emory and Salazar, |