United States to study the question of the equitable distribution of the waters, and proceeded: "But the efforts which our Government, efficiently seconded by that of the United States, has made to remedy the critical situation in which the inhabitants of Ciudad Juarez are placed owing to the scarcity of water would be entirely fruitless if the company entitled The Rio Grande Irrigation & Land Co., (Ltd.)' should be permitted to construct a dam, as it proposes, near Elephant Butte in New Mexico, * * * "If the proposed Boyd dam is built, the international dam which the inhabitants of Ciudad Juarez have petitioned for as the only remedy for their already desperate situation will be rendered useless, as there is no doubt that the accumulation of the waters of the Rio Bravo at the former dam will not leave even a small quantity for the second dam, and my clients will find themselves subjected to the unavoidable necessity of abandoning their homes or of buying the water which is so indispensable to their existence at the price that any speculating company may be pleased to fix." (S. Doc. 229, 55th Cong. 2d Ses. p. 3.) This protest was referred by the department on August 8, 1896, to Colonel Mills for his suggestions. Under date of November 17, 1896, Colonel Mills in a long report on the protest stated, "that the flow will not be sufficient to supply the proposed international reservoir here (El Paso) and allow for the supply of the proposed reservoir of the Rio Grande Irrigation Co. (Ltd.) at Elephant Butte, in New Mexico, or any other similar reservoirs in New Mexico, and but one of these schemes can be successfully carried out." Colonel Mills therefore suggested that— "if practicable the approval of the reservoir of the Rio Grande Land & Irrigation Co. (Ltd.) at Elephant Butte be canceled or withdrawn, and, if not practicable to cancel or withdraw the same, that such executive or legislative restriction be placed upon it as to prohibit it from using any part of the flow of the river to which the inhabitants of either bank of the river below may have a prior right by appropriation, and that some prompt and efficient remedy be provided the possessors of these prior rights by appropriation in case the company should use any water to which the inhabitants referred to are entitled." (S. Doc. 229, 55th Cong. 2d Ses. p. 13.) The Mexican complaint and Colonel Mills' report thereon were referred to the Secretary of the Interior with a view of ascertaining whether there was any legal power to cancel the rights of the company, but he replied that he had no right to revoke the approval.* Secretary Olney then referred the matter to the Secretary of War, requesting him, if he found that the Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation 3 1 [See ante, p. 250.-Agent's note.] 2 [See ante, p. 253.-Agent's note.] [See ante, p. 272.-Agent's note.] 4 [See ante, p. 277.-Agent's note.] Co. were building a dam across a navigable river of the United States. in a manner that would obstruct or impair the use of that river as a highway of commerce, to take such measures under section 10, of the act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426-454), and section 3 of the act of July 13, 1892 (27 Stat. 88-100), as would be most effective to open the river and keep it open to navigation.1 7 The Secretary of War, after taking the opinion of various officers of the War Department, requested the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether there was any way for the United States authorities to prevent the construction of the company's dam on the Rio Grande, which he asserted was a navigable stream. Solicitor General Conrad replied, under date of April 24, 1897, stating that the remedy of the United States was by injunction under the acts beforementioned and that upon being advised that the obstruction was contemplated or in course of erection, he would at once order proper proceedings to be instituted by the United States district attorney. The Chief of Engineers telegraphed Colonel Mills as to the status of the work of construction, and upon being advised that the company had already started work, the Secretary of War on May 4, 1897, requested the Attorney General to instruct the United States district attorney to institute proceedings. Accordingly, in the same month a bill was filed in the District Court of the Third Judicial District of New Mexico against the Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co. to restrain the defendant from constructing the proposed dam at Elephant Butte and from appropriating the waters of the Rio Grande for purposes of irrigation, on the ground that such construction and appropriation were in violation of the seventh article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the fourth article of the treaty of 1853 with Mexico, the convention with Mexico of December 26, 1890, and the act of Congress of September 19, 1890, chapter 907. Later the bill was amended so as to make the English company an additional defendant. The case was twice carried to the Supreme Court of the United States (174 U. S. 690; 184 U. S. 416) and remanded to the lower court, and upon the second remand the Government filed a supplemental bill alleging that the time within which the company should construct its works under the license given it by the Interior Department had expired and prayed for a forfeiture of the company's charter. Such supplemental bill was upheld and relief given by the several courts of New Mexico, and was finally upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a decision handed down December 13, 1909. 1 [See ante. p. 295.-Agent's note.] 3 [See ante, p. 313.-Agent's note.] [See ante, p. 325.-Agent's note.] [See ante, p. 325.—Agent's note.] [See ante, p. 328.-Agent's note.] The English company has presented a claim through diplomatic channels for alleged damages done by reason of the revoking of its charter, and the British embassy has been insisting upon the inclusion of this claim in the convention for the arbitration of pecuniary claims now in course of negotiation. Although a number of bills were introduced to authorize the construction of the international dam at El Paso, and one of them, at least, was favorably reported from committee, and although the Mexican Minister addressed the Secretary of State on several occasions urging the construction of the dam in accordance with the recommendations of the joint commission, Congress failed to give its authority for the project. After the company's charter had been forfeited in the Territorial court, however, the officers of the Reclamation Service inquired into the feasibility of the various reservoir sites on the Rio Grande. They reported adversely to the El Paso project, but recommended the construction of a dam about one-half mile below the Elephant Butte site. Congress authorized the construction of a dam at the latter site by the Reclamation Service and it is now in course of construction and is known as the Engle Dam. On May 21, 1906, a convention was concluded between Mexico and the United States providing for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande through the Engle Dam after its completion. The delivery of this water to Mexico satisfies the Mexican claims as to the use of the Rio Grande and the claims for damages of their citizens growing out of its use by American citizens. 1 Such is the history of the case which has aroused the ire and brought down the malediction of Boyd, not only upon General Mills, but upon everyone and everybody who has had anything to do with the case and who did not see things in the same light as Boyd. Now what are the alleged charges? The attached petition sent by Mr. Lawshe contains the same charges that Boyd has, as stated before, on many occasions made to this department and to the President. A perusal of the petition shows that it is in substance a protest against the course which has been pursued and brought to a successful issue by the Federal Government in order to provide for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande so as to solve the many and serious difficulties growing out of the use of those waters by American citizens for irrigation purposes. The actions of the Government in that respect have been upheld in three decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States is obligated by solemn international treaty to carry out the project which is the result of the Government's course, and the matter is not therefore now subject to review in this or any other department. 1 [See ante, p. 110.-Agent's note.] The first mention of General Mills in the attached petition is contained in paragraph numbered 10, which reads as follows: "In 1888 Gen. Anson Mills inaugurated his scheme to build, wholly at the expense of the United States, a great International' storage reservoir at El Paso, Tex., to provide free water for certain lands (on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande) in the El Paso Valley, just below the southern boundary of New Mexico, such reservoir and lands to have (under a special act of Congress) a prior right to the waters of New Mexico's Rio Grande catchment area.” This paragraph contains not a single word which can be construed as a charge against General Mills. It might be well, however, to call attention to two phrases which were inserted with the object of reflecting upon General Mills. The first is that General Mills, in 1888, inaugurated his scheme to build an international dam" wholly at the expense of the United States." This is incorrect, as will appear from the printed copy of General Mills' proposal of December 10, 1888, to the Secretary of State (printed as H. Doc. 125, 54th Cong. 1st sess.), in which he proposed "that the legislative authorities of the two nations be asked to appropriate, after complete investigations and estimates have been made, money sufficient to complete the work." It was not until the joint commission's report of November 25, 1896, was made that General Mills suggested that the United States bear all of the expense. He explains his reasons for this, first, as a recompense to Mexico for damages her citizens had suffered by the use of the waters by citizens of the United States; second, in order that the work of construction could be undertaken solely by the United States, unhampered by Mexican participation in the work, which General Mills believed would prolong the undertaking and make it more expensive. The second phrase which is intended to reflect upon General Mills lays stress on the fact that he proposed to provide free water for certain lands in Mexico. A sufficient answer to this, without further comment, is that the United States Government, by its treaty of May 21, 1906, with Mexico, has recognized Mexico's right to a certain amount of free water, to be supplied through the Engle Dam, thus showing that this Government believes, Boyd's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, that Mexico is entitled to said free water. Paragraph numbered 11 of Boyd's petition reads: 16 Shortly after the inception of the Elephant Butte enterprise, Gen. Anson Mills suggested to the then Secretary of State that the Secretary of the Interior be requested to make No further grants for reservoirs in New Mexico, and that, if practicable, the approval of the reservoir at Elephant Butte be canceled or withdrawn. Gen. Anson Mills reported that the flow of the Rio Grande will not be sufficient to supply the proposed international reservoir here (El Paso) and allow for the supply of the proposed reservoir at Elephant Butte or any similar reservoirs in New Mexico.' (Sen. Doc. 229, P. 12.)" This is true so far as it goes, but by the omission of facts which were well within the knowledge of the framer of the petition (as is shown by his reference to official documents) the statement is misleading and conveys a false impression. The records of this department show, as pointed out on page 5 supra, that General Mills' suggestions were only made upon the direct request of this department which had received a protest from the Mexican Government asking that the works of Boyd's company be suspended. (See also p. 5 supra for the reasons of the Mexican Government in asking a suspension of work of Boyd's dam.) The next charge is contained in paragraph numbered 13, which reads: "In promoting his international dam scheme, Gen. Anson Mills intrigued with Mexican officials and landowners and assisted in creating, presenting, and pressing at Washington bogus claims, against the United States, for damages, amounting in the aggregate to over $35,000,000. These claims find no warranty in fact, nor in international law, nor in the treaties between the two republics." The only information in this department concerning General Mills' alleged “intrigues" are statements of Boyd's which he attempts to substantiate by inferences from newspaper clippings and General Mills' testimony before committees of Congress (see S. Doc. 154, 57th Cong. 2d sess. pp. 76-77, 87). The fact is, however, that the Mexican claims were presented and pressed by the duly accredited representatives of the Mexican Government at this capital, and this department could not do otherwise than regard them as bona fide. Any other course would have involved an investigation by this Government into the workings of the foreign office at Mexico, an absurd and impossible proposition. It will be noted that the framer of the paragraph arrogates to himself the privilege of passing upon the facts, the international law, and the treaty stipulations involved in the claims. However, and by whom inspired, this Government has recognized that the claims of Mexico have some foundation, whether in fact, in law, or by treaty, by agreeing to give Mexico in the treaty of May 21, 1906, a certain amount of the water of the Rio Grande, in return for a waiver of said claims. The next charge is contained in paragraph numbered 14, which reads: "Failing in his attempts to mislead the then Attorney General and Secretary of the Interior (1895-96), Gen. Anson Mills subsequently, in 1897, advised the Federal departments that the Rio Grande is a navigable stream in New Mexico and that the Elephant Butte Dam |