Q. But in the case of Fort Bliss two miles below, the damage was done by gradual encroachments on the United States bank was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Which had the greatest loss in area; the loss of the Mexicans at Juarezs or the loss of the people of the United States at old Fort Bliss? A. I should judge about the same. Q. And both these changes made by the river, one to the South and the other to the North, were always gradual year by year by erosion on one side and deposit on the other? A. Yes, sir. Q. When the river was high and cutting in the bank either at Juarez on the Mexican side or at Fort Bliss on the American shore, you could see the banks caving in, could you not?-A. Yes, sir. Q. But on the contrary opposite Juarez on the United States shore and opposite Fort Bliss on the Mexican shore, during high water these shores were being increased by deposits of sand and alluvium were they not?-A. Yes, sir; it was gradual on both sides. Q. Now when these deposits were being made during high water could you see the operation with the naked eye?-A. No, sir; they were all under water until the river fell. Q. After the water receded could you see the additions that had been made to the overflown banks both opposite Juarez and Fort Bliss, one in Mexico and the other in the United States? A. Yes, sir. Q. During all these years of your residence here you often crossed the river near Juarez, did you not?-A. Yes, sir. Q. How often?-A. Well I was off and on every few days. Q. In the first 25 years of your residence how did you cross?A. We crossed on horseback, carriages, and flat-boat. Q. In your journeys to and fro did you ever observe an abandoned channel on the United States side of the river?-A. Well there was occasionally when the last bed of the river that had been left, a little water running through there until the following year when that would join the other again and fill up. Q. But this was all between the two principal banks and through the sand?-A. Yes, sir. Q. When the river made its frequent changes did you ever observe anything left on this side that you recognized as having seen on the other side?—A. No, sir, everything was washed into the river. Q. Which bank was the highest?-A. The Mexican bank. Q. Did the United States bank ever overflow? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where was the deepest channel near Juarez?—A. Right on the edge of the bank of the river. The South bank. The United States Commissioner here stated that he had no further questions to ask the witness at present. The Mexican Commissioner then asked the following questions of the witness: Q. From 1856 to 1882 has the river bed been changing year by year? A. Yes, sir; it has been changing to the South whenever there was high water. Q. You say it changed year by year. Did the river abandon its primitive bed? A. Yes, as I said before, in large floods there would probably be two river beds running side by side but it would gradually be going South all the time. Q. Were you here during the great floods of 1864 to 1868?— A. No, sir; I was not here. The United States Commissioner then asked the following questions of the witness: Q. When you say there were two river beds running side by side after a great flood, do you mean that these were actually separate river beds or simply currents running in the sand between the two principal banks?-A. The river immediately here in front of Juaraz where it left its old bed or the one on the North side of the bank, from the erosion of the river into the Mexican side would contain some water. There would be two branches of the river really running probably four or five hundred yards before they went into the same river again. Then again there would be but one. Q. Was there any soil between these two streams or was it wholly made of sand deposit by the flood?-A. There was nothing but alluvial soil left by the river. Q. And when the river was quite low there were two streams ?— A. When it was reasonably high and when it was low there would only be one stream and that on the South bank. Q. That is the case at present is it not?-A. Yes, sir; the same thing exists to-day. Q. Below the railroad bridge and under the lower street car bridge the river is now separated into two small branches is it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you consider that there are two river beds there?—A. No; there are not two river beds but a branch of the old river which is practically a part of the old river. Q. The whole river as it runs now is embraced between the American and Mexican banks proper is it not? A. Yes, sir. The Mexican Commissioner then asked the following questions of the witness: Q. Can you explain technically what the river bed is?—A. No, sir. The United States Commissioner then stated that he had not introduced the witness as an expert. The United States Commissioner then asked the witness the following questions: Q. When you spoke of there being two streams in the river, it was the same as exists now; all contained between the two principal banks, Mexican and American? A. Yes, sir; simply currents wandering about in the sand and immediately in the vicinity of each other and between the American and Mexican banks. The Mexican Commissioner then asked the witness the following questions: Q. From 1856 to 1862 did the river abandon its bed?-A. It left the old bed and gradually moved towards Mexico. Q. During that period did the channel as represented by the red lines, remain dry?-A. Certainly it did; it is dry to-day. Q. During that period of time could that bed be seen with the naked eye?—A. Only after the river receded. Q. When the river receded could that channel be seen?-A. Only from year to year. It would fill up as it was going South. The United States Commissioner then asked the following question of the witness: Q. Was there ever a time when you could distinguish two distinct river beds each having two distinct banks, one carrying water and the other not?-A. No, sir. The questions and answers were then read to the witness and found correct. The Mexican Commissioners stated that he had asked the witnesses if they knew the meaning of the words avulsion, erosion, and alluvium to see if they knew technically the meaning of the words. The Joint Commission then, at 2.30 P. M., adjourned to meet Saturday the 18th instant, at the office of the Mexican Commissioner. ANSON MILLS. [Joint Journal.] F. JAVIER Osorno. CIUDAD JUAREZ, MEXICO, April 18, 1896. The Joint Commission met at the office of the Mexican Commissioner at 10 A. M., pursuant to the adjournment of the 16th instant. Mr. Ynocente Ochoa, a witness presented by the Mexican Commissioner, having been previously sworn, was further examined by the United States Commissioner. Q. Mr. Ochoa, you spoke in your testimony on the 14th instant of the pieces of earth falling into the waters of the river from the Mexican bank, making a loud noise. To do so they must have been of considerable size. Please state approximately in feet about the largest in length, breadth, and depth you have noticed.-A. Sometimes the bank was higher above the water than at other times, and according to that would be the depth of the pieces falling in. About from one to three yards, more or less, wide and about from one to three or four yards long. Q. About how far did these banks stand above the surface of the water?-A. In some places the bank was probably half a yard; in other places they were not over three yards. Q. What became of these pieces of earth when they fell into the river? A. It is very hard for me to say or explain. It went into the water. The bank contains two kinds of earth, black clay and sand. I suppose both were carried away by the water. Q. For all you know they were carried down the river, possibly a mile or ten miles, their particles lodging on either bank?—A. I can not say. Q. You say the bank was made up of two kinds of soil, clay and sand. Which was above, the clay or the sand?-A. The clay; the sand is always on the bottom of the bank of this river. Q. Is it quicksand?—A. I do not know what you call quicksand. It is a pure white sand. Q. This sand is first eaten out from under the clay by the current, causing the clay to fall in, is it not?-A. The water excavates the sand from under the clay and then the clay falls in. Q. About how deep is the water generally next to the bank when it is eating out the sand?—A. I am unable to say. Q. Did you ever know the river to overflow the Mexican bank opposite the Santa Fé depot?-A. Not there; but I have once seen it overflow about one mile below. I have also seen it overflow several times at the land called Molino de Cordova. Q. Now about the American bank. What was the character of that bank in the vicinity of the Santa Fé depot?-A. The most of the bank from about half a mile above the Santa Fé depot down below about three miles was sand bars that the river left. Q. You have had a great deal of experience crossing the river in these past thirty or forty years, have you not?-A. I have since 1858. Q. How did you cross?-A. I crossed the river on horseback, in carriages, in ferry boats, and on foot. Q. In 1858, when you first began crossing by the ferry-boats, where was the landing on the American side?—A. I can not tell. Q. Can you describe about where the American bank was somewhere near the Sante Fé depot in 1858?-A. I think the bank was close to where Ketelsen and Degetaus house now is, more or less. Q. How near was it to the Sante Fé depot, more or less?—A. I in not say, exactly. Q. Do you remember a line of trees South of the Sante Fé depot? A. I recollect seeing some trees there, but I do not know if they are the same you refer to. Q. Did the river run near to those trees at that time?-A. Somewhere close, I think. Q. Do you remember to have testified, two years ago, that the river ran near those trees in 1858; the trees were then, two years ago, still existing?—A. I am not sure that those are the trees I referred to two years ago. I suppose they are, but I am not sure. Q. If they are not the same trees that you refer to, could you kindly go with us and point out those you did refer to?—A. I can go, if necessary. I do not know that I can recognize them. Q. They are the only large trees in that vicinity, and it is very important to the just issue of this case that they be identified. Mr. José M. Flores has testified that he recognized them as standing on the American bank about 1868, and I would like to have you either confirm the testimony you gave two years, ago or discover other trees that you may have referred to in that testimony. Mr. Ochoa here stated that he desired to visit the locality and examine the trees with Mr. José M. Flores, and defer answer to this question until after this examination. Q. Now, Mr. Ochoa, in your frequent crossings of the river during the first 25 years of your residence here did you ever observe two independent channels of the river, each having two independent banks, one carrying water and the other none?-A. No independent banks, but in the same bed of the river there were sometimes two channels, as there are now. Q. When the destruction of the Mexican bank was going on at various times you have stated, where was the deepest channel, near the Mexican bank or otherwise?-A. When the destruction of the bank on the Mexican side was going on as a general rule, the larger body of the water was next to that bank. Q. In his testimony Mr. Magoffin spoke of the Mexicans defending the bank, sometime in the '60's and at other times, with what he called tenates. Do you know anything about that?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you please describe this kind of defenses, and about when they were used and how often?-A. A long basket, made of brush and filled with rocks, laid down at the edge of the bank they were trying to defend. Sometimes they also made defenses of large logs and some logs driven into the ground and braced and then filled in with brush and rocks. I do not recollect when they were used, but they generally did that whenever the bank of the river was in danger of being washed away. Q. Did you ever know any to be used before 1864?-A. Yes, sir; I know of some being used. |