Page images
PDF
EPUB

and also regarding the question of open or secret sessions, which he would present at the next meeting.

The Joint Commission then adjourned until Monday, March 23rd, at 11 A. M.

ANSON MILLS.

JOHN A. HAPPER.

F. JAVIER OSORNO.

S. F. MAILLEFERT.

[Joint Journal.]

EL PASO, TEXAS, March 23, 1896. The Joint Commission met at the office of the United States Commissioner at 11 A. M., pursuant to the adjournment of the

21st.

The United States Commissioner then presented to the Joint Commission a communication from the Secretary of State dated February 27, 1896, instructing him to abandon the United States Sheet No. 29, of the Emory and Slazraa Survey, objected to by the Mexican Commissioner in the Journal of December 11, 1895, and to rely wholly upon the Mexican copy of said map, Sheet No. 29, when presented and duly authenticated, for the determination of all cases hereafter to arise in the locality covered by it.

The United States Commissioner then requested for a better explanation and history of the case, that his instructions from the Secretary of State be embodied in the Journal of this day, to which the Mexican Commissioner assented.

COLONEL ANSON MILLS,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, February 27, 1896.

Boundary Commissioner, etc.,

Washington, D. C.

SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of February 8th," reporting your unsuccessful endeavors to discover the cause of the erasure of the signatures from this Government's copy of Sheet No. 29 of the Emory Boundary Survey of 1856, in view of the fact that the Mexican Government's original of the same sheet is signed and exhibits some discrepancy in the demarcation of the river channel, amounting in the maximum to about one hundred and fifty yards, at a point involved in the question now before your Commission for determination.

Your conjecture that the erasure was made with a view to substitute the engraved sheet bearing fac-similes of the original signatures so erased and also two engraved views not drawn upon

a [General Mills' letter of the 8th of February, 1896, together with his previous letter of December 11, 1895, dealing with the question of the erased signatures, are printed infra, pages 1106, 1108, for convenient reference.-Agent's note.]

the original copy, is plausible, and the discrepancy between the said original sheet and that of record in Mexico is explicable by the manuscript note, not erased and repeated upon the engraved copy, that slight discrepancies are found during a lapse of several months between the Mexican and the American surveys.

Even were it possible to establish fully the authenticity of the mutilated manuscript copy now in our possession or of the engraved fac-simile thereof, as a record of the true boundary under the treaty, the circumstance that it varies materially as to an important part of the boundary line from the signed original which the Mexican Government is entitled to regard as the treaty record of that boundary, would still make it difficult and perhaps a matter of tedious negotiation and ultimate conventional agreement to determine which of the two discrepant charts is in fact the true boundary. As matters now stand I am inclined to think that the claim of the title of the Mexican map to be regarded as authentic and paramount can not be contested by any facts or evidence in the possession of this Government.

As the point before your Commission is not so much the location of the original boundary existing in 1856, when the Treaty survey was made, as it is to determine whether the variation in the course of the river since that time, by which the boundary as marked on either of the maps in question has been left some distance north of the present channel is due to erosion and accretion or to abrupt cutting of a new channel by avulsion, the question of the authenticity of the maps is of secondary importance, in view of the reasonable certainty now existing that the present channel, having been formed by the cutting away of the Mexican bank and corresponding accretion of the American bank at that point, constitutes the existing boundary, according to the treaty under which your Commission is operating.

The question of eliminating the "bancos" from the consideration of your Commission is still under consideration, and until some other course than that prescribed by the Convention shall be adopted by the two governments in regard to such isolated "bancos" the matter comes within the purview of the present Commission and is to be decided as each case presents itself.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

RICHARD OLNEY.

After an informal discussion between the two Commissioners regarding the question of open or closed sessions, mentioned in the Journal of December 11th, the Mexican Commissioner stated that he did not then mean to exclude persons interested in the cases before the Commission from introducing evidence, either in person or by counsel, but that he did desire excluded spectators and all other persons not interested in the business before the Commission.

71210-11- -8

The United States Commissioner stated that that proposition was agreeable to him, and he was willing to proceed with the consideration of future cases with that understanding.

The United States Commissioner also stated that he was ready to proceed with the consideration of the Chamizal Case whenever it was agreeable to the Mexican Commissioner.

The Joint Commission then requested the Engineers to present the sketch in the Chamizal Case, requested of them in the Journal of November 6th, 1895.

The Joint Commission then adjourned until Wednesday, March 25th, at 11 A. M.

ANSON MILLS.

JOHN A. HAPPER.

F. JAVIER OSORNO.
S. F. MAILLEFERT.

[Joint Journal.]

EL PASO, TEXAS, March 25, 1896.

The Joint Commission met at the office of the United States Commissioner at 11 A. M., pursuant to the adjournment of the 23rd instant.

After signing the proceedings of the meeting of the 21st, the United States Commissioner stated that he would like to submit for the consideration of the Joint Commission, the report of his Engineer, submitting his informal sketch in the Chamizal Case, No. 4, requested by the Joint Commission in the Journal of November 6th, last, stating in his report that he had been unable to obtain the concurrence of the Mexican Consulting Engineer, and submitting a letter from him in explanation.

The map and letter was then submitted to the Joint Commission, with the statement that the United States Commissioner was ready to proceed with the consideration of that case at any time it would suit the pleasure of the Mexican Commissioner.

The United States Commissioner further stated that he desired to present, for the consideration of the Joint Commission, the report of his Engineer, with an informal sketch of the Island of San Elizario, Case No. 10, with the statement from his Engineer that he was unable to procure the joint signature of the Mexican Consulting Engineer to the same, and the United States Commissioner further stated that he was ready to proceed with the consideration of that case whenever it would suit the pleasure of the Mexican Commissioner.

The Mexican Commissioner then stated that he understands that the Mexican sketch is ready for the consideration of the Joint

Commission in the Chamizal Case, No. 4, but that his Consulting Engineer says that he could not sign the sketch of the United States Engineer, on account of small discrepancies between the amplifications taken by Mr. P. D. Cunningham, United States Assistant Engineer, of the Salazar map of 1853, and that made by the Mexican Engineers, and that such discrepancies will probably be reconciled on the arrival of the official map now in Mexico. The Joint Commission then adjourned until the receipt of the Mexican Map, Sheet No. 29, from the City of Mexico.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR SIR: In compliance with your request of November 6th, 1895, and contained in the Joint Journal of that date, I have the honor to submit herewith an informal map of Chamizal Case No. 4, showing part of the cities of El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, the river between the two cities as it was at the time of our survey in December, 1895, and as it is shown on the Emory and Salazar Maps of the Boundary Commission in 1853.

Colonel Corella, the Consulting Engineer for Mexico, has declined to sign this map, and explains why, in his letter to me of the 24th of this month, which please find enclosed with this.

Respectfully, yours,

F. B. DABNEY,
Consulting Engineer.

MR. DABNEY:

CIUDAD JUAREZ, March 24, 1896.

The official map of Salazar, etc., was requested from the City of Mexico on the 22nd instant. As soon as we may have it here, you and I will make an amplification of .

With this amplification, thus obtained, we will make the comparison with the present topography, and in this way we will definitely mark the river of 1853.

When the river of that date, is once located (the only discrepancy in the preliminary sketches we prepared in January), there will be no difference whatever.

Under such circumstances we will sign the map, which will be the International one in the Chamizal Case.

I remain, yours, very respectfully,

EMILIANO CORELLA.

[Joint Journal.]

EL PASO, TEXAS, April 7th, 1896.

The engineers having presented the preliminary sketch of the Chamizal Case, No. 4 (see page 96), requested in the Journal of November 6th, 1895, the Joint Commission met at the office of the United States Commissioner; and the Mexican Commissioner announced himself ready to proceed with the consideration of that case.

The United States Commissioner replied that he was also ready, and suggested that the Joint Commission adopt as a precedent to govern this and all future cases to be brought before the Joint Commission in the question of avulsion or erosion, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of the State of Nebraska against the State of Iowa (No. 4, original; decided February 29, 1892).a

To which the Mexican Commissioner replied that he had read the decision referred to and considered it a very clear elucidation of international law but that he did not feel fully authorized to accept it as established jurisprudence, but from it can be taken the general principles of international law adopted by both nations.

The Mexican Commissioner then suggested that the Joint Commission adjourn until 11 o'clock A. M., Thursday, the 9th instant, when he would be able to present several witnesses for examination in the case.

The Joint Commission then adjourned as above stated.

ANSON MILLS.
JOHN A. HAPPER.

F. JAVIER OSORNO.
S. F. MAILLEFERT.

[Joint Journal.]

EL PASO, TEXAS, April 13, 1896. The meeting stipulated to take place on the 9th in the proceedings of the 7th instant, was, on account of heavy winds, at the request of the Mexican Commissioner, postponed until 3 P. M. to-day, when the Joint Commission proceeded to make the personal examination of the land in dispute in the Chamizal Case, No. 4.

Having completed this personal examination, the Joint Commission adjourned until 4 o'clock P. M., to-morrow, the 14th instant, to meet at the office of the Mexican Commissioner to take testimony in the case.

ANSON MILLS.

JOHN A. HAPPER.

F. JAVIER OSORNO.
S. F. MAILLEFERT.

a [For full text of the opinion of the Supreme Court in this case see infra, p. 1154— Agent's note.]

« PreviousContinue »