Q. Do you ever remember of any being used after 1868 ?—A. There were some used more or less from time to time whenever the bank was in danger of being washed away.

Q. I think you stated in your former testimony that there were slight changes before 1864 and slight changes after 1868?-A. Yes, sir; there has been.

Q. Do you mean by that, that the whole of the changes during these periods were slight or that each one of the many changes was slight in itself? A. I mean that each change was slight in itself.

Q. When were the defenses known as the Garfias Jetties built and by whom?-A. They were commenced about 1885. The Mexican Government built them.

Q. Do you know why they were built?-A. To prevent the river from washing away the town.

Q. Have they prevented it up to this date?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Taking the whole character of the changes of the river during the long years you have seen it going on, do you not consider it a gradual one, as a whole?—A. As I do not understand International Laws, I can not say.

Q. Have you ever known the current of the river to break through the Mexican bank and form a new and separate channel and river bed in the vicinity of Juarez?-A. No; I do not recollect having ever seen it.

Q. Have you known the river to do so in other places?—A. Yes, sir; I think the river did that opposite Tres Jacales.

Q. In 1864, when the floods of the river here were destroying the bank at Juarez, have you any knowledge of what it was doing down at old Fort Bliss two miles below here?-A. It once washed away a part of the old fort.

Q. The action of the current in destroying the American bank at Fort Bliss was similar to its action here in destroying the bank at Juarez, was it not?-A. Something like; only the bank at old Fort Bliss was much lower than on the Mexican side.

Q. And as the bank was destroyed on the American side at Fort Bliss, what happened on the Mexican side opposite Fort Bliss ?—A. It left sand bars, the same as the river did here when it destroyed the bank at Juarez. They also made defenses at the time at old Fort Bliss in the same manner as they did here with tenates, trees, etc.

The United States Commissioner then stated that he had no more questions to ask the witness at present.

The Mexican Commissioner then asked the witness the following questions:

Q. Was the work of destruction done by the river between the years 1864 and 1868 greater than in any other years, both before and after?-A. The greatest change was in 1864, when the destruc

tion of the dam took place; after that the changes were more gradual.

Q. Do you attribute the changes in the river bed to the artificial work done on the American side besides what damages could be done by natural causes, of the river?

The United States Commissioner here stated that it had not been proven that works had been constructed on the United States side.

A. I think that some works done on the American side by Captain French above the Santa Fé depot did damage, and I saw the works myself.

Q. Please describe to me how the river made the change in 1864?-A. It began to tear up the bank on the Mexican side and kept coming this way sometime during that year until the whole volume of water struck the Mexican bank, leaving sand bars back where the old bed was, and never went back. The river remaining where it is now more or less, but farther North.

Q. Were the defenses that you referred to made with the tenates so weak that the ordinary current could destroy them, or was it necessary for the violence of the floods?-A. I think it was necessary for the strength of the high waters to destroy them.

The United States Commissioner then asked the witness the following questions:

Q. Please describe the character of the works you stated Captain French placed on the American side and their object?-A. The work done by Captain French on the American side was to prevent the river working towards El Paso, and they were done with big cotton-wood trees, and I think a few tenates and some rock.

Q. Were they not to protect the acequia leading down to the City of El Paso?-A. I think they were also built for that purpose. They were to protect both the banks and the acequia.

Q. When the force of the current of that year broke the Mexican dam, did not that fact change the current and throw it over towards the American bank near where those works were made?— A. Yes, sir. The current did strike the place where the works of Captain French were with very great force.

Q. About that time did you not make some works on the American side?—A. There was a canal built there, but the same year the people of El Paso stopped it up and that was the last of it.

Q. Will you please state about where it was located, how long it was, and about how much it cost?-A. The place where the canal is located you can hardly see; something like $1,000, more or less. Q. It was a canal taken out below Captain French's works and intended to carry the water across the land on the American side, to relieve the current from striking the Mexican side?-A. Yes, sir. The canal was built through the sand bars to straighten the

course of the river and emptied out into the river below and I suppose about a thousand yards, more or less.

The questions and answers were then read to the witness and found correct.

The Joint Commission then adjourned to meet at 10 A. M., at the office of the Mexican Commissioner, on Monday, April 20th. ANSON MILLS. F. JAVIER OSORNO.

JOHN A. HAPPER.

[Joint Journal.]

S. F. MAILLEFERT.

CIUDAD JUAREZ, MEXICO, April 20, 1896. The Joint Commission met at the office of the Mexican Commissioner at 10 A. M., pursuant to the adjournment of the 18th, and proceeded with the witnesses Flores, Ochoa, Provencio, and Serna, to the trees on the American side mentioned in the proceedings of Saturday. Mr. Flores pointed out the trees as being the ones mentioned in his testimony.

Mr. Ynocente Ochoa, a witness introduced by the Mexican Commissioner, was then asked the following questions, he having been duly sworn before, the United States Commissioner asking the questions:

Q. Do you remember these eight trees where we are now, South of the Santa Fé depot?-A. Yes, sir; I do.

Q. Are they the same trees you refer to in your testimony of two years ago?-A. I think they are.

Q. Do you remember having seen them some time about 1858?— A. No; I do not recollect so far back.

Q. About when do you remember to have first seen them?A. I do not recollect the year when I first saw them.

Q. Please state about the year when you first saw them?—A. I think I saw them about 1864, more or less. Since then I have seen them several times.

Q. On which side of the river were they in 1864?-A. They were on the American side.

Q. How near the bank were they when you first saw them?— A. I do not recollect.

Q. Did you ever see them on the Mexican side of the river?— A. I do not recollect whether I did or not, because the trees here on the banks of the river grow so fast that I cannot say that these ones are the ones I saw then.

Mr. E. Provencio, a witness introduced by the Mexican Commissioner, having before been duly sworn, was recalled and the United States Commissioner asked him questions as follows:

Q. Do you remember ever having seen these trees, where we are now standing, in years gone by?-A. From 1862 to '64 I saw some trees here. I think they are the same trees, but I am not sure.

Q. If these are the same trees you saw about 1862 to '64, which bank of the river were they then on?-A. I think they were on the American side in 1862.

Jesus Serna, a witness introduced by the Mexican Commissioner, who had been formerly sworn, stated that there had never been any trees there about 1862.

The Joint Commission then returned to the office of the Mexican Commissioner and resumed the taking of testimony in this case. Mr. Ynocente Ochoa was then recalled and questioned by the Commissioner for the United States as follows:

Q. Referring to the works you describe as having been built on the United States side below the Mexican dam, were they, like the works you described on the Mexican side, simply for defensive purposes?—A. I think those works were built for two objects. To prevent the river from going down and tearing away the American bank and at the same time to protect the acequia, which ran very close to the bank.

Q. The people on the American side had no other method of protecting that acequia, as by removing it away from the encroachments of the river, because of high rock banks; is it not the case?A. By making these defenses, it was the cheapest way to protect the acequia.

Q. How could they otherwise have protected it?-A. They could have cut a ditch through the foot of the hill, which would have been more permanent but more expensive.

Q. The foot of the hill there is composed of rock, is it not?-A. It is composed of rock and limestone.

The questions and answers were then read to the witness.

Mr. E. Provencio, a witness introduced by the Mexican Commissioner, having formerly been sworn, was recalled and questioned as follows by the Commissioner for the United States:

Q. I think you stated in your former testimony that there had been no changes in the river from 1860 to '64. Is that the case?— A. Yes, sir.

Q. How old were you in '60?-A. Thirteen years of age.

Q. Do you think you could remember well at that age that there were no changes whatever in the succeeding years to '64?—A. No, there were no noticeable changes opposite the ferry.

Q. But there might have been some changes, might there not?— A. Probably there could be.

Q. Please describe the destruction of the bank on the Mexican side that you spoke of in your former testimony. Describe the size of the pieces of earth that you saw fall into the river?-A. When the river made the alarming change it carried away pieces of earth, one yard, two yards, etc., constantly, in intervals of a few minutes.

At the time of these changes the people would be standing on the banks watching a piece going down, and somebody would call look out, there is more going to fall, and they would have to jump back to keep from falling into the river.

Q. In this way the river tore off all the earth from the fields, did it not?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. About how deep did it cut down in tearing it away?-A. As the river made the curve, of course the volume of water was then deeper. When the river was washing away the land, which was composed of two kinds of earth, sand and, on top, clay, the water would wash the sand easily and then the weight of the clay, being one or two yards deep in places, would cause it to fall in. Under the clay was all sand, and I do not know how deep it was. current was very deep.

The

The Mexican Commissioner then asked the following question: Q. This work of destruction took place only during the great flood? did it not?-A. Yes, sir.

The United States Commissioner then asked the following questions:

Q. What became of these large pieces of earth that fell into the river?-A. They would go under the water and disappear.

Q. What was going on during this time on the opposite or American bank?-A. The sand banks would advance this way. Q. Under the water?-A. It was under water when the river was high. When the river was low you could see it.

Q. Did you ever, in any of the changes that you have noticed in the river after the flood had subsided, recognize anything on the United States side that you had formerly seen on the Mexican side, trees, houses, etc.?-A. Yes, sir. Cotton-wood trees and one pear tree lodged in the sand.

the sand frequently. All killed.

I could observe these trees in

Q. Referring to the pear tree. Please describe about where you saw it when standing on the Mexican side?-A. The pear tree was about where the smelter is.

Q. Please describe about where it lodged on the American side? A. Right on the sandbar that the river was leaving when it was coming this way.

Q. Above or below where it was taken from?-A. Oh! Far below.

Q. How far below?-A. As I do not know who owned the pear tree I can not tell how far it was.

Q. If you saw it standing on the Mexican side before it was torn away and afterwards saw it deposited on the sand bar on the American side you ought approximately to state the distance between the place you had seen it standing and the place where you afterwards saw it on the sand bar?—A. I did not say that I