5, 1894, and the map having been filed July 11, 1895. This office is of the opinion that, as the company is the only loser by its delay, there is no objection to the approval of the application. It is therefore recommended that the map be approved subject to all valid existing rights, and that the approval be of a date subsequent to that of the Mesilla Co.'s maps.

The diagram in the Rio Grande Dam Co.'s statement filed January 20, 1896, shows the relative locations of the various dams with sufficient correctness for the purposes of the present questions, though the dams at 3 and 4 are in fact so close that they would, for the scale of the diagram, be shown as one line.

There appears to have been a controversy as to filing of papers by Wm. E. Baker for the Mesilla Co. in the local land office on January 18, 1896, the register refusing to receive them because offered after 4 o'clock. The question involves a matter of a few minutes, and as the papers were filed on the 20th and within the proper time, it is not necessary to go into the controversy.

Very respectfully,

2 papers attached:

S. W. LAMOREUX,
Commissioner.

1st. This case to be held until Oct. 15-'96 for filing of brief by Mr. McGowan. (Signed) J. P. Dated Sept. 22-96.

2d. Earnest D. Owen, 916 Stock Exchange Building, Chicago, Ill., Atty. Mesilla Valley Land and Irrigation Co.

Col. Anson Mills, Commissioner, to the Secretary of State.

INTERNATIONAL WATER BOUNDARY COMMISSION,
El Paso, Tex., November 25, 1896.

Hon, SECRETARY OF STATE,

Washington, D. C.

SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith the report of the joint commission on the investigations into the distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande and the construction of a dam and reservoir near El Paso, Tex., with the following inclosures:1

1. Letter of Mr. E. P. Ripley, president of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., submitting a proposition to remove his roadbed from the proposed reservoir.

2. Letter of Mr. J. Kruttschnitt, general manager of the Southern Pacific Railway Co., making a similar proposition with reference to his roadbed.

[Enclosures omitted.-Agent's note.]

3. Letter from Messrs. Magoffin, Zimpelman & Crosby, and a separate letter from Mr. Magoffin, naming a price upon about 7,000 acres of land to be submerged.

4. Joint report of the engineers of the respective countries regarding the technical investigations on the subject, with accompanying appendixes and maps.

In explanation of the large excess of the present estimates, compared with that of the preliminary investigations made in 1889, I beg to make the following remarks:

First. President Ripley has increased Mr. Follett's estimate about $98,000 for the removal of the Santa Fe road. Mr. Ripley, however, claims $48,000 as compensation for increased maintenance by the increase of the number of bridges, etc., over the many ravines.

I am satisfied, however, and I believe that Mr. Ripley will be so satisfied, that the maintenance of these trestles will be no greater from year to year than the present cost of riprapping against the encroachments of the river and ballasting in the soft bottom lands. I am of the opinion that on further examination Mr. Ripley will be willing to remove his road at Mr. Follett's estimate. However, I have thought best to place his figures in the estimates to insure a sufficiency of funds.

Second. Mr. J. Kruttschnitt's (general manager of the Southern Pacific Railway Company) estimates are more difficult of explanation, because he has given no items, and has made a larger increase over Mr. Follett's estimates. However, there is no doubt but the principal increase is due to a necessary new bridge. When Mr. Follett made his estimate there was an old wooden bridge, about worn out, which the road was contemplating moving, and has since replaced by an iron and stone structure at large cost. This will have to be torn down and a new one built of larger dimensions, some 22 feet higher, and while Mr. Kruttschnitt does not state so, I think he has made an estimate for a very expensive bridge, for otherwise I think the road could be moved for something very near Mr. Follett's estimate. However, I have thought best in this case also to place the amount at Mr. Kruttschnitt's figures.

Third. The increase in the estimate for the condemning of the land is partly accounted for by the fact that the limekiln, which was estimated by Mr. Follett at $1,000, has since become a very valuable plant, supplying the Kansas City smelter at this place. There are many valuable buildings and works, which probably cost about $30,000 or $40,000, all of which will probably have to be submerged, and then farther above there is a brick factory which cost several thousand dollars. The land itself (about 27,000 acres) is not worth over $3 or $4 an acre in the public market, and the title

to about 10,000 acres to be submerged in New Mexico is on unconfirmed grants, the title probably still resting in the United States, in which case it would cost nothing; but in this case also I have thought best to estimate that it would have to be bought and paid for, and that in the course of condemnation the owners would get larger prices for their land than it is actually worth.

Fourth. Regarding the dam proper, it is the most disappointing feature in the whole investigation, for the reason that the bedrock was found so much farther below the surface than was anticipated, entailing extraordinary expense. The depth ranges from 44 to 87 feet across the gorge, 500 feet wide, filled with sand and gravel through which the water readily percolates, and it is not at all probable that open cofferdams could be sunk to that depth, as the pressure would be from two to three atmospheres, at the bottom about 40 pounds to the square inch, which would force the water and fine sand through underneath faster than it would be practicable to pump it out; hence it will be necessary to hold the water and sand back by pneumatic pressure in closed cofferdams or caissons, or some other similar method, which is the principal cause of the great increase in expense of the dam over the former estimate. Of course the increased depth of the bedrock increased the total height of the dam, largely increasing the number of cubic yards of masonry. Mr. Follett estimated 47,000 cubic yards; this estimate calls for 93,000 cubic yards. Mr. Follett's estimated cost was $4.50 per yard; the present engineers have just about doubled it. This increase in the expense of the masonry is understood to provide for the expense of the caissons and cofferdams, and is about $400,000, which ought to be amply sufficient. I think some of the engineers' estimates are excessive, but taking it all in all, I do not believe the estimate as a whole to be so.

I consider the description (on p. 7 of the engineers' joint report) of the land proposed to be ceded to Mexico as too indefinite and uncertain to be incorporated in a treaty, for the reason that it takes as its initial point the "middle" of a very small railroad bridge across a ravine, which bridge is to be removed and the locality submerged by the waters of the reservoir, and makes no specific connection with the international boundary. I would suggest as a better description the following: Beginning at a point where the parallel of 31° 47′ intersects the middle of the deepest channel of the Rio Grande; thence west through the initial monument, No. 1, of the international boundary line between the United States and Mexico, and along said parallel (the boundary) about 1,312 feet; thence due north along the meridian to its intersection with the deepest channel of the Rio Grande; thence down said deepest channel of the Rio

Grande with its meanders to the place of beginning, containing about 100 acres.

This estimate is a very large sum, indeed, and I doubt very much whether Mexico has been injured by the United States in depriving them of their vested rights in the water to that extent, but it is such a problematical question that it will be utterly impossible to ever arrive at any degree of accuracy as to how much they have been injured. It is certain, however, that they have been wronged pecuniarily to a very large extent, and the future will continue to entail more in a progressive ratio until the matter is settled.

My first impulse was to insist that Mexico should share a portion of the pecuniary burden; but, in the first place, the Mexican commissioner would not agree to this, which would compel separate reports; and, in the second place, if Mexico did share in the expense she would expect to share in the control of the construction, and as a double administration between any different people would invariably prolong the work and increase the cost-it is particularly so in this case-where the methods of the two peoples are so different. I think, therefore, even if Mexico were willing to share to the extent of $400,000 or $500,000, under a joint construction, it would be economical for the United States to take it alone and bear all the burden. With a wide-awake and practical American engineer this dam should be completed within a period of two years at the cost named. With a joint administration with Mexico, I dare say both time and cost would be much increased. I felt, therefore, constrained to join Mr. Osorno in the report I have submitted above.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ANSON MILLS,

Colonel, Third Cavalry, U. S. A., Commissioner.

[Enclosure.]

JOURNAL.

EL PASO, TEX., November 25, 1896.

The engineers having signified their readiness to submit their joint report, as required in the joint journal of August 17, on the distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande (Bravo) and the proposed international dam above El Paso, Tex., the joint commission met at 10 a. m. at the office of the United States commissioner for the purpose of receiving their report thereon and the final consideration of the questions submitted to the joint commission in the agreement between the Secretary of State for the United States and the Mexican minister at Washington, dated May 6, 1896.

The engineers for each Government then presented to the joint commission a joint report duly signed by each, which is appended hereto and described as follows:

First. The joint report of the two engineers of this date.

Second. The subreport of Civil Engineer W. W. Follett on the part of the United States.

Third. Topographical map of the river and lands adjacent at the point selected for the international dam and showing boundaries of land proposed to be ceded to Mexico.

Fourth. Sketch showing borings taken in the bed of the Rio Grande above El Paso.

The commissioners, after due investigation and consideration of the reports and maps described, proceeded to determine the three questions submitted to them in the agreement between the two Governments, the first of which reads as follows:

"The amount of water of the Rio Grande taken by irrigation canals constructed in the United States of America."

From the very elaborate statistical report of Civil Engineer Follett the commission find that prior to 1880 there were in Colorado 511 canals taken from the Rio Grande and its tributaries, irrigating about 121,000 acres of land; that this number of canals and amount of land irrigated has kept increasing year by year, many of the canals being enlarged during the same period, so that the number of canals at this date has increased to 925, irrigating 318,000 acres of land; and that in New Mexico there were, prior to 1880, 563 canals taken from the Rio Grande and its tributaries, irrigating 183,000 acres of land, and at the present time there are 603 canals, irrigating 186,000 acres of land.

These results show an aggregate of 1,074 canals taken out in Colorado and New Mexico prior to 1880 and 1,528 taken from the river and its tributaries at this date, showing an increase of 454 canals and of 196,000 acres irrigated in the State of Colorado and Territory of New Mexico. This shows quite accurately the increase for the past 16 years. There are no reliable records available showing the increase in the preceding years, but they were doubtless on a more rapidly increasing ratio.

It will also be observed that the greatest increase during these 16 years was in the State of Colorado, the number of canals and acres irrigated remaining almost stationary in New Mexico for that period, but this is easily accounted for by the fact that the appropriation of water in Colorado has rendered such a scarcity in New Mexico that little further increase of canals and acreage was profitable.