that were responsible for the institution of such fraudulent injunction proceedings.

(37) That when our public records reveal that it is possible for moral perverts like Anson Mills and his land-speculating associates and their complaisant official supporters so to prostitute our Department of Justice; that such a monstrous outrage of justice and of national honor and international comity as was the said final (third) decision of our Federal Supreme Court whereby that "Most august tribunal of supreme justice and bulwark of our constitutional liberties" declared that the claimant company's said lawfully acquired and admitted right to build the Elephant Butte Dam had been forfeited because such dam had not been built within the five years prescribed by law, id est, because, forsooth, such dam had not been built during the pendency of the said injunction suit, can be perpetrated in the name of our National Government; that a high official like Gen. Anson Mills can with impunity commit deliberate, wilful perjury, treasonably prostitute his official position by promoting spurious foreign claims against his own country, and by conspiring with foreign officials and land speculators to rob hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen of their chief means of maintenance; when the record of this shameful Elephant Butte Dam affair reveals that such perjury and treasonable abuse of office and such barefaced graft and gross injustice have been condoned by highest officials of our national government and by our highest legal tribunal; it is idle to expect other nations to have confidence in our protestations of high regard for justice and for national and international righteousness, or to expect our sons to love their motherland and honor the American flag and to believe that "Honesty is the best policy."

(38) That no sane person could intelligently consider the record facts cited in the said "Memorial" of the British Government and then honestly contend that the said injunction suit had not been instigated by Anson Mills with the primary object of having the flood waters of New Mexico's and Colorado's Rio Grande catchment areas reserved for the irrigation of certain privately owned lands on the Mexican side of the El Paso valley.

(39) That no sane person could honestly consider the record facts embodied in the decisions of the Supreme Court of New Mexico (in the company's favor), and in the eight hundred odd pages of the record of the said suit as three times transmitted to our Federal Supreme Court, and then honestly contend that the said injunction suit was instituted in good faith for the protection of commerce and that the said last (third) decision of the said august tribunal and bulwark of our constitutional liberties, by which last decision. the said claimants were so penalized for not doing the very thing

they had been enjoined not to do, was not a most flagrant outrage of justice and of our national honor.

(40) That, because of the so cited dishonest (official) acts of Anson Mills and of the other officials of our National Government that with Mills were responsible for such foul blot on our national honor, the United States, as such, can not in this case appear "with clean hands" before such Arbitral Tribunal.

(41) That, as the said record proofs of the dishonest purpose of the officials responsible for the filing and irregular maintenance of the said fraudulent injunction suit are irrefragable and conclusive, it necessarily follows that the United States can not honorably contest the obvious validity of such claim of the said defrauded company, nor ignore the obvious fact that the paramount issue involved in this disgraceful case, this disgusting Elephant Butte Dam affair, is confined to the question of whether or not the United States, per se, is honest enough to admit the wrong done by such dishonest officials of our National Government, and so "confess judgment in respect to this Rio Grande Claim.

"

(42) That it is plainly undeniable that the paramount issue in this shameful case is our national honor.

* * *

(43) That the plea of res adjudicata is barred by the fact that Congress has authorized such arbitration of this claim, and by the further fact that it is a universally recognized and accepted principle of international law that "The State to which a foreigner belongs may interfere for his protection when he has been denied ordinary justice in the foreign country." (Vide Secretary Evart's official dispatch to the American legation at San Salvador, March 14, 1879, Moore's Int. L. Dig., p. 252; Secretary Bayard's official dispatch to the American legation at Lima, December 17, 1887, supra, p. 253; Secretary Blaine, supra, p. 257; see also 16 Wall. 36, and 133 U. S. 514.)

(44) That international law plainly declares that the judgments of the courts of a country can not be accepted as finally determining the international obligations and liabilities of such country where such judgments are manifestly unjust. (Vide Vattal, Droit des Gens, liv. ii, c. 18, sec. 350; Wheaton's Int. L. Dig., Lawrence's edition (1863), citing Grotius de Jus., Bel. pac. lib. iii, c. 2, sec. 5, No. 1, Wheaton's Int. L. Dig., p. 671; Sir Travers Twiss' Law of Nations, Part 1, p. 36; Moore's Int. Law Digest, pp. 268, 655, and 741.)

(45) That the records reveal:

(a) That the claimant company was regularly formed under the laws of Great Britain and Ireland to carry out the said Elephant Butte Dam project.

(b) That the right to build the Elephant Butte Dam and otherwise to carry out the said project was regularly secured under the laws of New Mexico and the federal laws of the United States.

(c) That, notwithstanding that the said fraudulently intended, fraudulently instituted, and fraudulently maintained injunction suit was twice remanded by the Federal Supreme Court for retrial (retrial!), the United States completely failed, during the twelve years and more that such suit was unjustly and improperly kept pending in the courts, to adduce even the slightest shadow of bona fide evidence that sustained the allegations set up in the Government's bill, or that could have honestly been intended to warrant that any one of the nine courts that entered decisions in the said injunction suit should hold that the claimant company had not lawfully secured the right to build the Elephant Butte Dam and otherwise to carry out the said project.

(d) That not one of the said nine courts found that the claimant company had not lawfully secured such right to build the Elephant Butte Dam and otherwise to carry out the said project.

(e) That the Government's allegations that the claimant company's Elephant Butte Dam and other said works would obstruct navigation on a navigable stream under the jurisdiction of the National Government of the United States and be in violation of this country's treaties with the Republic of Mexico were not sustained by any decision of the Federal Supreme Court nor by any decision of the lower courts.

(f) That the claimant company's admittedly lawful right to build the Elephant Butte Dam and otherwise to carry out the said project was unlawfully and most flagitiously declared forfeited on the ground, and on such ground only, that such dam had not been built within the five years prescribed by law; id est, that such dam had not been built during the first five years of the pendency of the said suit to enjoin the building of the said dam.

(g) That by the very terms of such decree of forfeiture it was admitted and conceded by the court that the claimant company's right to build the Elephant Butte Dam and otherwise to carry out the said project had been lawfully acquired.

(h) That on the alleged ground that the National Government of the United States had succeeded to and acquired the said lawfully secured prior and superior right of the claimant company so to impound and appropriate the flood waters of the Rio Grande, the Department of the Interior prohibited certain appropriations of the waters of the upper Rio Grande in the State of Colorado, the claimant company's said filing on the Elephant Butte Dam and Reservoir sites having been made and officially approved prior to the applications for such water rights in Colorado.

(i) That despite such then pending injunction suit and regardless of such record and conclusive proofs of the fraudulent object of such suit, and notwithstanding the well-known fact that it would be impossible to substantiate any of the allegations set up in the government's said bill, "officers of the [United States] Reclamation Service" began began "active operations" to carry out the Elephant Butte Dam project as an "international project" (United States cum Mexico) more than six years before the Federal Supreme Court handed down its third and final decision in the said injunction suit, by which final decision the claimant company was so penalized for not doing the very thing it was enjoined not to do, and by reason of which decision it was improperly assumed that the way was made clear for the "officers of the Reclamation Service" to provide, at the expense of the United States, FREE WATER for the annual irrigation of the said privately owned lands on the Mexican side of the El Paso Valley. (See pp. 129-133 of the said pamphlet, dated May 1, 1922.)

(j) That the United States Reclamation Service continued such "active operations" and built the Elephant Butte Dam, alias the Government's international dam, alias the "Engle Dam," in brazen defiance of the protests of the British Government and of justice and international decency.

(k) That more than four years before such third and final decision of the Federal Supreme Court was handed down (in 1909) the United States (in 1905) negotiated a treaty with Mexico whereby this country undertook annually to deliver to Mexico 60,000 acrefeet of the water to be impounded by such so-called "international" (Elephant Butte) dam.

(7) That by such treaty with Mexico the people of New Mexico were and are hereafter annually to be robbed of water rights worth fully $1,200,000 a year, 6 per centum on $20,000,000, so as to provide free water for the irrigation of the said privately owned lands on the Mexican side of the El Paso valley.

(46) That the claimant company's records, duly filed under the laws of Great Britain, show that certain moneys were paid for such company's shares and debentures, and that such moneys and other moneys borrowed from the company's London bankers and otherwise obtained were expended on and in connection with the company's organization and on and in connection with the said project; and that, confronted with such irrefragable and conclusive record proofs of the legality of said company's right to build the Elephant Butte Dam and otherwise to carry out such project, and of the fraudulent purpose and character of the said injunction suit, and of the gross injustice of such decree of forfeiture, it can not honestly

be denied that it would be dishonorable in the extreme as well as absurd for counsel for the United States to affect to hold that the claimant company is not justly entitled to an award in this case which would suffice to refund in full all moneys so raised and expended on and in connection with such company's undertaking to carry out the said project, plus interest and costs, and, also, to pay proper punitive and moral damages.

(47) That such shares and debentures of the claimant company were subscribed to in all confidence in the honesty of our national government; that such confidence was brazenly and most vilely betrayed, and that such investments in the said securities were made fruitless through the dishonesty of the officials of our national government that were responsible for the said fraudulently instituted, fraudulently maintained, and unlawfully decided Elephant Butte Dam case; AND THAT THEREFORE, as Anson Mills' perjury in the premises and the fraudulence of the said suit and the gross and palpable injustice of such decree of forfeiture can not honestly be denied, it is perfectly and undeniably plain that by far the most important question involved in this disgusting and humiliating Elephant Butte Dam affair, this officially styled Rio Grande claim, is whether or not the principles of justice and a proper regard for our national honor are to be observed and to be made controlling in the conduct of our national and international affairs; whether or not in the conduct of our domestic and foreign relations the principles of common honesty and common decency which are always observed by all honorable men in their relations with their fellow men are to be observed by our national administrative officials in their official acts: that, in other words, the all-important question involved in this arbitral proceeding is, ARE WE NATIONALLY HONEST? All else is relatively unimportant.

The success of free, responsible self-government in this country is the hope of all mankind. If we do not fail to prove that justice can be made to prevail under our democratic form of government, then the world may reasonably hope for the establishment of universal justice. Unhappily, because of our vicious methods of partisan politics and of our mad worship of Mammon, respect for law and for the makers and administrators of law has been destroyed, we have become the most lawless of all the civilized nations and our judicatory system has virtually broken down. The appalling increase of crime in this country can not be stayed so long as the common people do not respect the "Majesty of the law."

Most men obey the law because they are afraid not to obey the law. Many men obey the law because they have faith (commonly but a suggestionized faith) in the intelligence and honesty of the admin