to 
 
 Pass /T/ ^ 
 Book ^ 6<^ 
 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
 
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 International 
 Boundary Commission 
 
 UNITED STATES AND 
 MEXICO 
 
 DIVERSION OF RIO GRANDE BY 
 AMERICAN RIO GRANDE 
 LAND AND IRRIGA- 
 TION COMPANY 
 
 United States of America et"" 
 
 al., Complainants, 
 
 versus 
 
 American Rio Grande Land 
 and Irrigation Company, 
 
 Defendant. . 
 
 Suit in 
 Equity No. 4L 
 
 DECREE AWARDING DAMAGES 
 TO COMPLAINANTS 
 
 (PUBLISHED BY AMERICAN SECTION) 
 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
 
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 International Boundary Commission 
 
 UNITED STATES AND 
 MEXICO 
 
 Relating to the 
 
 Diversion of Rio Grande by American 
 
 Rio Grande Land and Irrigation 
 
 Company near Horcon 
 
 Ranch, Tamaulipas, 
 
 Mexico. 
 
 Brig. Gen. Anson Mills, Fernando BeltrAn y Puga, 
 
 U. S. Army (Retired), Comisionado Mexicano. 
 
 American Commissioner. 
 
 E. Zayas, 
 \V. W. FOLLETT, , . „ ,, 
 
 Ingeniero Consultor. 
 Consulting Engineer. 
 
 Wilbur Keblinger, M. N. Velarde, 
 
 Secretary. Secretario. 
 
ft nv T>. 
 
Brownsville, Texas, October 24, 1906. 
 The Honorable, The Secretary of State: 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to enclose herewith Joint Journal of this 
 Commission, in Spanish and English, in the case presented by the 
 Mexican Commissioner known as the "Horcon Ranch Case." 
 
 This case was also brought to the attention of the Department by 
 the Mexican Embassy and was referred to me in the Department's 
 letter of October 12, 1906. 
 
 Our investigation has disclosed the fact that the American Rio 
 Grande Land and Irrigation Company some time last Spring became 
 aware of a threatened banco cut-off in the Rio Grande on Mexican 
 soil, which cut-off would take the channel of the river away from the 
 site selected by them for a pumping station, and they made endeavors 
 extending over a period of three months, assisted by the Mexican 
 owners, to prevent this cut-off, but finally became convinced that it 
 was impossible to stop the erosion of the soft soil, and knowing that 
 their works would be removed from the channel of the river and a 
 sufficient supply of water for their pumping plant they determined 
 in the early part of June to resort to the opening of another cut-off, 
 by artificial means, below their pumping works, being perfectly aware 
 that this latter artificial cut-off would carry the erosive current away 
 from the point where the natural cut-off would in a short time be fully 
 accomplished if no action was taken. As soon as the Mexican authori- 
 ties were apprised of this work they sought in several ways to prevent 
 or restrain it, and the Mexican Consul in Brownsville on July 1, 
 1906, addressed a communication to Mr. Silver, as President (he is 
 really the General Manager) of the company, warning him that the 
 work was in violation of the Treaty, a copy of which is submitted 
 with the proceedings. Later on Mr. Mendiola, as engineer of the 
 Department of Public Works of Mexico, visited the location and 
 reported of what was being done to his Government, when the Secre- 
 tary of Foreign Relations requested the Mexican Commissioner, Mr. 
 Puga, to call a meeting of the Joint Commission to take up the case. 
 
 The American Commissioner was notified on July 9th and he im- 
 
iiKdiatcl) srm lii^ (.nnMiltiii;; l-".n,:L;iiR'ci\ t(>i;iihcT with tlit- Mexican 
 Coiisultiiii^ l-'.n^inc'iT. t<> tlu' place to inaki' an cNaniiiiation and rcpnit. 
 The Joint l-'iii^iniiTs r<.-|i(>rtc<l that the work had so far i)r»)}^resse<I 
 that it \\:is then heynnd coiitiol. espeiially a^^ the unprecedented hi.i;h 
 water in the ri\er had entiivly siirn»nnded the wofks and no suitahle 
 detailed examirati" mi could he niadi- nnti! the watei- ii-ceded. There- 
 npon tlie C"onlnlis^ione^s posipctned the nieelini; until ( )ctoher 17th. 
 when it a^>^eiuhled in this cit\'. 
 
 'I'he ('I'UiiniNsi.iners \isite<l the locaht\. exaniineil it thoioui^ldx' and 
 asidi- iri'Mi the o iilence in the record there was cnuchisixe prmit" <i|' all 
 that had heen done. 
 
 This is a novel ca>>e and is withoiu precedent in the workings of the 
 Commissi' Ml and has ]iresented many emharrassments to hoth Com- 
 missioners, for while there was no (|uestion hut that tiie Irrijj^atioii 
 Company had committed an act in direct violation of the Treaty there 
 was a .^reat douht in the minds of hoth Commissioners as to what 
 remedy could he applied under the treaties undei" which we are work- 
 iuii". and hoth hesitated to enunciate any judmnient a.i^ainst the irrij^^a- 
 tion c<Mnpan\' initil we were acKised as to our authority in the ])remises, 
 kiiowin<4 that it would not oidy l)e futile to q;i\e a judii^mcnt that could 
 not he executed, hut that such a judgment unexecuted would he air 
 encoura.i;ement to other w roni^doers. 
 
 The joint ComiuissiiMi had in s<Mue respects a parallel case in that 
 known as the "rrolest of the Citizens of I'd I'aso. Texas, and ju.are/.. 
 Chihuahua. .Mexico, a.nain.^t I'nduly Troiectini;" Jetties." opposite 
 those cities. The case was a lonj; and perplexinj^ one and is treated 
 of in our piiiUed report ( Proceeding's of the International (Water) 
 l>oundar\' Commi->Nion. Cnite<l States and Mexico. pai;es 14'^ to 
 W)7. inclusixe). In this case the Joint Commission j^ave judi^ment 
 of the works in the ri\er opjiosite I'd !\'iso as iniduly projectini;^ in the 
 river in violation of treaty and ordered their retuoxal. ( )ur deeisioiT 
 was considered h\' hi>th ( "io\ erniuents and after a lenj.^thy corre- 
 spondence the Mexican .Secretary of l'()rei;.^n Relations directed the 
 removal of the c<indemned works. This appears to he a j)arallel ease, 
 illustratini^ our autliorit\' to order restitution. sa\e that in this case the 
 obstruction was ])laced hy an oft'cial of the .Mexican (lovernment : in 
 fact it was a public work of Mexico. In the present case of the "Ilor- 
 con Ranch" the wron<^- has been committed by a priwate corporation, 
 chartered, we understand, bv the State of Texas, and we he>^itate to 
 
enter anv judgment against them, either for indemnity for the injury 
 done to private individuals or the two Governments for causing a 
 change in the river designated as the international boundary, fearing, 
 as has been stated, that we would be unable to execute judgment, and 
 Ave ha\e therefore submitted the matter for full information as to the 
 scope of our authority and jurisdiction under present treaties between 
 the two countries.* 
 
 It may not l)e improper for me to state here that it will be difficult 
 to determine what restitution or example should be made in this case. 
 The Mexican Commissioner suggested that they be required to return 
 the river to its old channel, and this, if practicable, would probably 
 be the best course to pursue, but in mv judgment, and in the judgment 
 of the Consulting Engineer, this would not be reasonably practicable, 
 as depending on circumstances of the rise and fall of the river and the 
 shifting character of the soil; and besides, it would cost se\'eral hun- 
 dred thousands of dollars to restore the river to its former bed. if 
 feasible. 
 
 Several photographs of the locality will be forwarded in a few days 
 to be attached to the proceedings. 
 
 My address will be El Paso, Texas, until the 5th of November, after 
 "which I will advise you. 
 
 I have the honor to be, Sir, very respectfully. 
 
 Your obedient servant. 
 
 Anson Mills, 
 Bric/adicr General, U. S. Army, retired, Coiiiiiiissioner. 
 
 *See pages 21-22. 
 
(Trlc^Tair > ( 'I'r.in^l.ititMi. ) 
 
 I-'.l. I'ASd. Ti XAS. July 9, 19<)(). 
 BkICADIKR liKNKRAL A.NSON MlLLS, 
 
 r. S. HoiMiARV Commission, 
 W'ashtiijilon, D. C 
 Secretary l-'orciKn Aftairs informs im- today in briif: I'rojjrictor of Ranch 
 llorcon -44 kilometers above Matamoros com|)lains that Rio (Jrande Irrigation Com- 
 pany is making; lar^c cut diverting river and meiiacinj^ ranch. Inspector Mendiola 
 ofticialiy conlirms as making immediate case for boundary Commission, which 1 
 present In means of this messajje. Please reply promptly. 
 
 I'"kR\ANIiO BkLTR.\N Y PfCA, 
 
 Mcx tea n Co m in issio ner. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 \VAsniN(.T0N. U. C, July 10. 1906. 
 
 U. S. Col.I-KCTOR CK ClSTOMS, 
 
 lirmcnsiiUc, Texas. 
 The Mexican Government complains through Captain Meiidiula and their Secre- 
 tary of State that the Rio Grande Irrigation Company is making large cut in river 
 oppo>ite llorcon Ranch, thirty miles above Brownsville, diverting river and menacing 
 Mexican territory and requesting immediate action by commission. Can you secure 
 reliable information a.= to nature of this work and whether it probably really menaces 
 the Mexican bank and answer today; collect Government rate. 
 
 Anson Mills, 
 Commissioner. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 I'lKouNsviLLi:, Tkxas. July 10, 190(). 
 BoiNHARY Commission, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 .Manager* Rio (irande Irrigation Company slates they are not diverting 
 river and menacing Mexican Territory but arc building a levee to keep high water 
 olT tluir properly. 
 
 In.iv W. \'ann. Colli'itor. 
 
 (Telegram, i 
 
 W\siilN(,ToN. D. C, /i</.v 10, 1906. 
 Mr. I-KRNANtlO Br.LTRAN Y PlCA, 
 
 \fcxican Boundary C(<mmissioncr, 
 V.\ Paso, Texas. 
 As a precautionary measure I suggest that Consulting Mngineers l"oIIett and 
 Zayas proceed at once to the location and examine work and telegraph joint opinion 
 
 *Mr. S. P. Silver. 
 
to each of us as to the seriousness of complaint and emergency for immediate action 
 by Commission. If they report meeting urgent I will proceed to meet you on the 
 ground immediately on receipt of their report. Two somewhat similar complaints 
 heretofore made : One by citizens of Reynosa, opposite Hidalgo, which was not sus- 
 tained, and another at Columbia, near Laredo, opposite coal mine, which was found 
 to be quite insignificant. If this is at all similar, as we have very little money this 
 year, and as we are obliged to proceed to the lower river within a few months, post- 
 ponement seems desirable unless great interests would be compromised. If you 
 concur in above recommendaiion telegraph me and I will direct Mr. Follett to 
 proceed at once. 
 
 Anson Mills, 
 Commissioner. 
 
 (Telegram.) (Translation.) 
 
 El Paso, Texas, July 10, 1906. 
 
 Brigadier General Anson Mills, 
 
 U. S. Boundary Commissioner, 
 Washington, D. C. 
 I accept provisionally your idea. I am deliberating now about it since article 
 four of the convention is very concise in this. I request you to order Mr. Follett to 
 see me before going. I am ignorant of his residence. Zayas was changing to 
 San Antonio and I telegraphed him of our decision. 
 
 Fernando Beltran y Puga, 
 
 Mexican Commissioner. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Brownsville, Texas, July 15, 1906. 
 Brigadier General Anson Mills, 
 U. S. Commissioner, 
 
 International Boundary Commission. 
 Washington, D. C. 
 We make the following report to the Joint Commissioners: 
 
 Owing to the river being at high water mark, we had difficulty in reaching the 
 work of the American Rio Grande Land and Irrigation Company located on Sheets 
 twenty-four and twenty-five of Commission maps and complained of by owners of 
 Horcon Ranch. After making as complete an examination of the work as the high 
 water permitted we are of the opinion that although said work is of considerable 
 importance, the situation is not sufficiently threatening and urgent as to demand 
 immediate action by the Commission, but that the interests affected by said work 
 will not suffer by delaying action until the condition of the river in October or later, 
 during low water, will permit complete examination. The cut-off which caused the 
 complaint is already made and nothing can now be done to stop the water. 
 
 W. W. Follett, 
 E. Zayas, 
 ConsuUina, Engineers. 
 
Oit>'lu-r IJ, 19116. 
 Bkigadikk (jknkrai. Anson Mills. 
 ('. ^'. L'oiiiiiiiisioiirr. 
 
 United Stales mid Mexican {Water) Houudary Commission, 
 WasliiiiKtoii. 1). C. 
 Sir: Rcfcrriiij^ to Mnir litur of tlu' i4tli ultimo ;mtl to prcvitms corrcspoiuk-ncc 
 relative to a eaual cm liy the Rio (iramle Irrigation Company ami the overflow of 
 the llorcoii Kamh, 1 have the honor to enclose herewith, for the Commission's 
 consideration of the ca^e, wiun it shall meet on October 15th, copies of tlie jtapers 
 listed lel«>w. 
 1 am, sir, 
 
 \'oiir oliidient servant, 
 
 i-.iiiif Root. 
 Knclosures : 
 
 l""rom Mexican I'lmhassy, Septenilier 1(1. 19()(i. 
 i-rom Interior Department. October 9, 19()6.* 
 
 ( Translation. ) 
 
 Mmkassv ok Mi..\k<i to iiii Cnitiid Statis oi- Amikk a. 
 
 Washincton. Sef'lemher 10, 19(X3. 
 
 IloNoRAHLi: Sir: By s|)ecial direction of my Ciovernment I have the honor to 
 inform you that, as shown in the memorial appeiuled to this note, the residents of 
 the Horcon Ranch are ct)mplaining of the damage done to their corn and cotton 
 fields by the o\erllow of the Rio (Jrande caused by tlie canal works canied on by 
 the "Rio Grande Irrigation Co." 
 
 My Government further instructs me to call on your good offices to the end that 
 action be taken i)y the proper authorities to cause the said company to close the 
 intake of the canal, to prevent greater difficulties, umil the Mixed Commission can 
 meet for the investigation and settlement of the (piestion of diversion of the river 
 through the opening of tlu- said cmal. without prejudice to the ri^^hts of the i)arties 
 aggrieved. 
 
 I take pleasure in renewing to you. iloiiorable Sir. the assurances of my very 
 high consideration. 
 
 Halimno Davalos. 
 
 ♦Omitted. 
 
(JOINT JOURNAL.) 
 
 Brownsville, Texas, 
 October 18, 1906. 
 Re — Diversion of Rio Grande by x\meri- 
 
 can Rio Grande Land and Irrigation 
 
 Company, near Horcon Ranch, Ta- 
 
 maulipas, Mexico. 
 
 The Joint Commission met at 12 m. 
 
 The Alexican Commissioner presented 
 the following comnumication from the 
 Department of Foreign Relations of 
 Mexico : 
 
 "Mexico City, July 3, 1906. 
 
 "The Department of Communications 
 in a note. No. 5, of the 2d instant, ad- 
 vises this Department as follows : 
 
 " 'On the 30th ultimo Engineer Manuel 
 Mendiola advises this Department by 
 telegraph as follows : "I have the honor 
 to advise that, complying with my in- 
 stuctions, Mr. Perciviche went to in- 
 spect the work of the American Com- 
 pany opposite Horcon Ranch, situated 
 forty-three kilometers above Matamoros, 
 and informs me by telegraph that 'Oppo- 
 site Horcon Ranch, going up river, the 
 Rio Grande has a bend towards Mexico, 
 followed by another towards Texas. In 
 the tirst bend the Rio Grande Irrigation 
 Co. has constructed on the American 
 side a cut in order to change the course 
 of the Rio Grande at this place and con- 
 tinues deepening it, the cut being now 25 
 metres wide, 5 metres deep and 570 
 metres long. The cut connecting these 
 bends, if the water continues to rise, will 
 produce the change of the course of the 
 Rio Grande at this place, leaving the 
 bend cut off towards the Mexican side, 
 and the current will destroy the right 
 bank of the river on the Horcon land. 
 In the other bend above mentioned there 
 is only 35 metres of land left for the 
 Rio Grande to cut it towards Texas by 
 the natural avulsion of the current.' " 
 
 "Which I have the honor to transmit 
 to you for your information, to the end 
 that proper action may be taken, advis- 
 ing you that this Department has tele- 
 graphed Engineer Mendiola instructing 
 him to go at once personally to the place, 
 make an inspection and report immedi- 
 ately all the details, and at his conven- 
 ience to meet with the Chief of the 
 Boundary Commission in order to ar- 
 range with him the necessary data to be 
 taken at the place where the work has 
 been done. 
 
 "I advise you of this matter in order 
 that there mav be an immediate meeting 
 
 Brownsville, Texas, 
 Octuhre 18 de 1906. 
 
 La Comision Mixta se reunio a las 
 12 M. 
 
 El Comisionado Mexicano presento la 
 siguiente comunicacion de la Secretaria 
 de Relaciones Exteriores de Mexico : 
 "Mexico, Julio 3 de 1906. 
 
 "La Secretaria de Comunicaciones en 
 oficio numero 5, de 2 del actual, me dice 
 !o que sigue : 
 
 " 'El Ingeniero Manuel Mendiola dice 
 a esta Secretaria por telegrafo, con 
 fecha 30 del pasado : 
 
 " 'Tengo el honor de comunicar a 
 usted que, cumpliendo con mis instruc- 
 ciones, Perciviche paso a inspeccionar 
 trabajos Compafiia Americana frente 
 rancho Horcon, que esta a cuarenta y 
 tres Kilomitros arriba de Matamoros 
 y mc informa esta via lo siguiente : 
 Frente rancho Horcon rio arriba tiene 
 Bravo una vuelta saliente hacia Mexico 
 y luego otra dirigida a Texas. En la 
 primera esta ya construido lado ameri- 
 cano por "Rio Grande Irrigation 
 Company" para desiviar curso Bravo 
 por este lugar y lo continua profundi- 
 zando un tajo veinticinco metros ancho 
 cinco hondo y quinientos setenta largo. 
 Comunicando recodos dicha curva resul- 
 tando que si sigue subiendo cambiara 
 curso Bravo por ese lugar quedando 
 cortada hacia Mexico esa curva y co- 
 rrientes destruiran entonces margen de- 
 recha terrenos Horcon. En la otra 
 curva arriba mencionada faltan treinta 
 y cinco metros para que Bravo la corte 
 Texas por avulsion natural corriente.' " 
 
 " 'Lo que tengo el honor de transcri- 
 bir a usted para su conocimiento y fines 
 a que haya lugar, manifestandole que ya 
 se telegrafia al Senor Ingeniero Men- 
 diola ordenandole pase personalmente 
 desde luego a inspeccionar el lugar de 
 que se trata e informe con todo detalle 
 sobre el particular a la mayor brevedad 
 y tal vez convendria que se pusiera de 
 acuerdo con el Jefe de la Comision de 
 Limites para que se precisaran los datos 
 necesarios que deban tomarse en el lugar 
 en que se hacen las obras. 
 
 "Lo que translado a usted a fin de que 
 a la ma>ur brevedad promueva la reu- 
 nion de la Comision Mixta, para que 
 se e.'-tudie el presente caso y se dicte su 
 resolucion." 
 
 "Reitero a usted mi consideracion." 
 (Firmado) "Mariscal." 
 
'<i tlu- Joint (."ominissidii for iiivcstiga- St- lia ntardado liasta csta fccha la 
 
 tioii and report on this case. accion de la Coniision Mixta respecto a 
 
 "Reiteratinjj ajjaiii niy consideration, esta nota, <klii<io a (|ue las altas a^uas 
 
 etc., etc. del Rio ISravo lialiian hecho antes im- 
 
 '"M-VRiscAl.." |)ractieal)le el exanun del terreno. 
 
 Action l>y the Joint Connni>sion npon l.os C'oniisionados convinieron en |)ar- 
 
 this conununication has i)een delayed nn- tir desdc lueno al Kanclio del llorcon 
 
 til this tiate owiiiv,' to the iinpracticahil- para hacer un exanien i)ersonal de las 
 
 ity of exaniinin).j the Rronnd hy reason condiciones actualcs, con lo cnal se 
 
 of the hi}.jh water in the Rio (Irande. levanti) la sesion. 
 
 The Connnissioners ajjreed to proceed 
 
 at once to tiie site of the llorcon Ranch 
 
 and make a personal examination of the 
 existing? conditions. 
 
 Tile Connnission tlien adjonrned. Hkownsvii.lk. Tkx.\.s, 
 
 Oituhrc 20 de 1906. 
 
 La Comisii'tii Mixta se reunio en cl 
 
 ICdillci.i Inderal a las 10 A. M. 
 
 liRow.NsviLLK, Tkx,\.s. La Comisii'in Mixta, inclnycndo .i los 
 
 Octithcr 20. 1906. Ingenieros Consultores y a Jos Secreta- 
 
 Tiie Joint Commission met at the I-'ed- rios y acompanada por el Senor Manuel 
 
 eral Hnildinj.,' at 10 o'clock a. m. .M. Mendioja, liiKeniero del Miiiisterio 
 
 The Joint Connnission, includinij the de Comunicaciones y Ohras Pi'il)licas de 
 
 Consnltinj^ I'jiKinccrs and Secretaries, Mexico, paso ayer el dia visitando y 
 
 and accompanied hy Mr. Manuel M. examinando las ohras sohre (|ue versa 
 
 Mendiola, luiKineer in the Department esta (pieja y el terreno adyacente a 
 
 of Connnunications and Public Works of ellas. 
 
 Mexico, spent yesterday visitinij and ex- La ohservacion hizo evidente que las 
 
 amining the works complained of and ohras dennnciadas en la presentacion del 
 
 the river adjacent. caso hccha por el Comisionado Mexi- 
 
 I'rom ohservation it was evident that cano. se>j;^un instrucciones del Ministeria 
 the works ciimplained of in tiic statement de Relaciones ICxteriores de su pais, 
 of the case from the Department of I'or- han determinado por comi)leto un corte 
 ei).;ii Relations of Mexico and presented que caml)ia el curso del Rio. 1^1 cambio 
 to the Conmiission hy the Mexican Com- lia sido tan complete ([ue ya no corre 
 missioner had comi)lelely accomplished a ni una gota de agua por cl caucc anti- 
 cut-off — chaiiRiiiR the course of the river. gno, pues su extremo superior se ha 
 
 The cut-ofF was so absolute that no llenado con el azolve hasta varios pies 
 
 l)article of water was runninsj through sohre el actual nivel del agua en el 
 
 the old river hed, its upper end being en- rio. 
 
 tirely tilled with silt for many feet above Se pidio a los Ingenieros Consultores 
 
 the then level of the river. (|ue lo mas pronto posible hicieran un 
 
 The Consulting luiginecrs were re- cnxpiis aproximado de la localidad, ba- 
 
 (piested to make as soon as convenient .-ado en los i)rimitivos mapas de la 
 
 an approximate sketch map of the local- Coniision y destinado ha usarsc en el 
 
 ity, based upon former surveys of the suresivo desarrollo de esta caso. 
 
 Connnission. for use in the further pro- J-ji seguida el Comisionado Mcxicana 
 
 ceedings of this case. jjresento al Capitan Mendiola quien 
 
 The Mexican Commissioner then pre- despnes de prestar la necesaria protesta 
 
 sented Mr, Manuel M. Mendiola. who, rindio su testimonio en la forma 
 
 being duly sworn, testified as follows: siguiente : 
 
 I-!xamination by the Mexican Com- Kxamen por el Comisionado Mexi- 
 
 missioner. cano. 
 
 y. What is your name, where do you F*. ,; Conio se llama usted, doiule 
 
 reside, and what is your occupation? reside y cual es su ocupacion ? 
 
 .\. Manuel M. Mendiola; Civil V.n- R. NTanuel M. Mendiola; Ingeiiiero 
 
 gineer in the Department of Conmiuni- Civil del Miiiisterio de Comunicaciones 
 
 cations and Public Works of Mexico, y ( )bras Publicas de Mexico, ocupacion 
 
 which occujiation necessitates my travel- (me re(|uiere que viaje a lo largo de la 
 
 ing along the northern border of Mex- frontera norte de Mexico, sin residencia 
 
 ico. having no |)ermanent residence. permanentc. 
 
 10 
 
Q. What was your first knowledge of 
 the work complained of by the owners 
 of the Horcon Ranch? 
 
 A. My first information was a tele- 
 gram from the Department of Public 
 Works ordering me to proceed to the 
 Horcon Ranch and inspect the work- 
 done by an American Company on the 
 Texas side, just opposite this ranch. I 
 did not then know the location of the 
 Horcon Ranch and telegraphed my Sec- 
 retary who informed me of its location 
 and stated that the work complained of 
 was a canal being opened up by Rio 
 Grande Land and Irrigation Company 
 and making a cut-ofif in the river. I 
 was then ordered to proceed at once to 
 the site of the work and report by tele- 
 graph. 
 
 Q. About what was the date of your 
 instructions from your Department? 
 
 A. They were dated the 2d of July, 
 and I left El Paso, Texas, on July 4. 
 1906, and reached Horcon Ranch on the 
 '8th of the same month. 
 
 Q. According to the information you 
 were able to gather at the Horcon Ranch 
 what was claimed to be the object of 
 this work? 
 
 A. The people at the Horcon Ranch 
 informed me that they were told by the 
 men employed on the work that they 
 were only building a levee to protect 
 their own land from overflow. 
 
 Q. What was the state of the work 
 when you arrived there ? 
 
 A. The canal was already cut from 
 one bend in the river to the other and 
 was about 700 metres long, 10 metres 
 wide and 5 metres deep. The water was 
 running through it to the depth of one 
 metre although the river was low. 
 
 Q. Did you go there in an official ca- 
 pacity and with instruments? 
 
 A. Yes. I had a steel tape and a small 
 hand level. 
 
 Q. Did the employees of the American 
 Company notice your presence there? 
 
 A. Only the foreman on the work; I 
 did not talk with any of the officials of 
 the Company. 
 
 Q. Did you say anything to the fore- 
 man regarding the work? 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. Do you believe that the cut-off has 
 caused a change in the condition of 
 the river? 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Do you believe that such a change 
 could have been accomplished in so 
 short a period of time if the Company 
 had stopped the work in July? 
 
 11 
 
 P. iCual fue la primcra noticia que 
 tuvo usted de la obra de que se que j an 
 los propietarios del Rancho del Hor- 
 con? 
 
 R. Mi primera noticia fue un tele- 
 grama del Ministerio de Obras Publicas 
 ordenandome me dirigiera al Rancho del 
 Horcon e inspeccionara la obra hecha 
 por una compahia Americana en el lado 
 de Texas y enfrente de ese Rancho. No 
 sabia yo entonces donde se hallaba el 
 Rancho del Horcon y telegrafie a mi 
 Secretario quien me informo de su ubi- 
 cacion y me dijo que la obra a que se 
 referia la queja era un canal que estaba 
 abriendo la "Rio Grande Land and Irri- 
 gation Company" haciendo un corte en 
 el rio. Despues se me ordeno marchara 
 desde luego al sitio de la obra y que 
 informara por telegrafo. 
 
 P. i Hacia que fecha recibio usted esas 
 instrucciones de su Ministerio? 
 
 R. Estaban fechadas el 2 de Julio y 
 sail de El Paso, Texas, el dia 4 de 
 Julio de 1906, llegando al Rancho del 
 Horcon el dia 8 del mismo mes. 
 
 P. i Segun los informes que pudo 
 usted recoger en el Rancho del Hor- 
 con, cual se pretendia ser el objeto de 
 esta obra ? 
 
 R. La gente del Horcon me informo 
 que les habian dicho los hombres em- 
 pleados en ella que solamente estaban 
 haciendo un bordo para proteger sus 
 terrenos contra las inundaciones. 
 
 P. i Cual era el estado de los trabajos 
 cuando usted llego alii? 
 
 R. El canal estaba ya excavado de 
 una vuelta del rio a la otra y tenia cerca 
 de 700 metros de largo, 10 de ancho y 5 
 de profundidad. El agua estaba co- 
 rriendo por el con una profundidad de 
 un metro, aunque el rio estaba bajo. 
 
 P. ^; Pue usted alii con caracter oficial 
 y llevando sus instrumentos? 
 
 R. Si. Llevaba una cinta metalica y 
 un nivelito de mano. 
 
 P. I Notaron la presencia de usted los 
 
 empleados de la Compania Americana? 
 
 R. Solo el capataz del trabajo; no 
 
 hable con ninguno de los empleados 
 
 superiores de la Compania. 
 
 P. ^;Dijo usted algo respecto a la obra 
 al capataz? 
 R. No. 
 
 P. Cree usted que el corte ha causado- 
 un cambio en la condicion del Rio? 
 R. Si. 
 
 P. I Cree usted que hubiera podido 
 verificarse semejante cambio en tan cor- 
 to periodo de tiempo si hubiera suspen- 
 (Hdo sus obras en Julio la Compaiiia? 
 
A I iliink ihc action of the river K. \a cn-o (luc la accion del Rio lia- 
 
 woiiM have accom|)lishc(l the change hria pnulucido el cainhio sin iiiii^una 
 
 witliout further work. ohra jKisterior. 
 
 Q. Ditl you notice any destruction in V. ^ Note usted en su ultimo viaje. 
 
 tlie hanks of the river on your !:i>t trip. el 19 de (Jctuhre. alj^'una destruccion en 
 
 the l^tii of Octoher? las inarKcnes del Rio? 
 
 A. Yes: to a certain extent, in tin R. Si; hasta cierto j)unto. en donde 
 
 regular chainiel of the river connected el antij{Uo cauce tlel rio se une con cl 
 
 by the cut-o(T. corte. 
 
 Q. Can you i)oinl out on the sketch P. ,; Puede usted senalar en el cro(|uis 
 
 where such destruction has taken i)iace ? <'n donde sc ha veriticado csa deslruc- 
 
 ( The Mexican Connnissioner then in- cion ? 
 
 troduced the sketch niaj), aijproxiniately ( [•'.] Coniisionado Mexicano prcsento 
 
 showiui; the Rio (Irande in the vicinity arpii un cro(|uis (pie inuestra aproxiina- 
 
 of the liorcon Ranch, as ])rei)ared liy tiie daniente al Rio (irande en la proximidad 
 
 (."onsultinu h".n);ineers. and marked "I^x- del Rancho del ilorcon y que sc ha mar- 
 
 hiliit A.")* cado Anexo "A.") 
 
 A. ^'es; the destruction is in the hank R. Si; la destruccion esta en la mar- 
 
 of the river on the Mexican side at a jifen del Rio del lado Mexicano en un 
 
 l)oint o|)|)osite the lower i iid of tlie cut- ])unto opuesto a la extremidad inferior 
 
 ofT and down the river. del corte y rioahajo de ella. 
 
 Examination by the Anurican Com- I'.xamen i)or el Coniisionado Ameri- 
 
 niissioner. cano. 
 
 Q. Did you at any time durini; your P. ,;Tuvo usted alyuna vez, durante 
 
 first two visits to the works have any sus dos primeras visitas a las ol)ras. 
 
 conversation with Mr. Davis who is in alyuna convcrsacion con Mr. Davis, en- 
 
 charjie of the work of the Rio Cirande carjj;ado de los traliajos de la "Rio 
 
 Land and !rri).jation Company? (Irande Land and Irrii^ation Company"? 
 
 A. Xo. sir; 1 was not acquainted with R. N'<>. .Senor; no lo conocia entonccs. 
 
 him at that time. Otra pre^unta del Coniisionado Mexi- 
 
 ICxaniination l>y the Mexican Com- cano. 
 
 niissioner. P. ,; Csted o su Inpeniero .^yudantc. 
 
 Q. Did you f)r your assistant engineer tuvieron alguna convcrsacion con cl 
 
 liavc any corresjiondence with the fore- capataz de los homhres (pie cstahan ha- 
 
 niaii of the men makiii^^ the cut-off? ciendo el corte? 
 
 A. The f<irenian asked my assistant R. VA cajiataz preyunto a mi .Ayu- 
 
 if his eniploynient as foreman of such dante si -su empleo como sohrestantc 
 
 work would ent.iil u\^(>u him any respon- de esa ohra le tracria alguna responsa- 
 
 sihility, as if such was the case he would l)ilidad. jiues si tal era cl caso alian- 
 
 give up his position. I told him that as donaria su emiileo. Lc dije que no crcia 
 
 he was a subordinate of the Company 1 cpie ))udiera hacerscle a el responsabic 
 
 did not believe he could l)e held respon- supuesto (pie era S(')lo uin enipleado de 
 
 siblc. la compania. 
 
 The Commission tlieii .idjourned. La Comision Mixta kvanto eiiseguida 
 
 su sc.sion. 
 
 BR()WN.SVII,LF.. Tk.xa.s, 
 
 October 22, 1906. Hkownsvillk. Tkx.\.s. 
 
 The Joint Commission met at the I"ed- Ocluhrc 22 dc 19()6. 
 
 oral P.iiildinj; at 10 o'clock a. m. La Comision Mixta se reunio en cl 
 
 The Mexican Commissioner jireseiited JMliticio bederal .t las 10 .X. M. 
 
 the follnwiuK witnesses, all of whom LI (.Omisionado Mexicano j)resenti') 
 
 were duly sworn : los sii;uientes testigos, a quines .sc Ics 
 
 Testimony of Dr. M. P-arra^an. tonn) la deltida |)rotesta. 
 
 Lxamination l)y liie Mexican Coin- Testimonia del Doctor M. Rarraijan. 
 niissioner: b'xamen jior el C'oinisionado Mexi- 
 co. What is your name, where do you cano. 
 reside and what is your occupation? p. ,; Cuales son cl nombre. la residcn- 
 
 .•\. M. HarraKan ; Brownsville. Texas. cia y la ocupacion de usted. 
 and am Mexican Consul at Brownsville. k' M. Barracan. Brownsville. Texas, 
 V sov el Consul Mexicano vii Bri>wns- 
 
 ♦Sce page 36. ville. 
 
 12 
 
Q. When you first had knowledge of 
 the work being done by the American 
 Rio Grande Land and Irrigation Com- 
 pany did you notify the officers of that 
 company that there was a Boundary 
 Commission, duly organized under 
 treaty between the United States and 
 Mexico, and that the work they were 
 doing was contrary to said treaty ? 
 
 A. 1 communicated with the president 
 of the company at Lonsboro, Texas, and 
 informed him that he must suspend op- 
 erations until he received permission 
 from the two governments, as the work 
 he was doing was contrary to the Treaty 
 between the two countries. 
 
 Q. When did you write this commu- 
 nication ? 
 
 A. About the first part of July, 1906. 
 
 Q. Did the company answer your com- 
 munication ? 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 (The Mexican Commissioner pro- 
 duced a copy of the communication re- 
 ferred to, which is attached hereto and 
 made a part of the record, and marked 
 "Exhibit B.")* 
 
 Testimony of Joaquin Argiielles. 
 
 Examination by the Mexican Commis- 
 sioner : 
 
 Q. What is your name, where do you 
 reside and what is your occupation? 
 
 A. Joaciuin Argiielles ; Matamoros, 
 Mexico, and am a municipal officer of 
 Matamoros. 
 
 Q. Do you own property in Mexico, 
 on the Rio Grande, adjoining the Hor- 
 con Ranch ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What is the name of your prop- 
 erty ? 
 
 A. La Ll^nion Ranch. 
 
 Q. Did the cut-off made by the Amer- 
 ican Rio Grande Land and Irrigation 
 Company cause you any damage? 
 
 A. It deprived my property of the use 
 of the water of the river. 
 
 Q. It was not the water I referred to 
 — did the cut-off cause the destruction 
 of any of your land? 
 
 A. It only took the water from the 
 land, it did not destroy it. 
 
 Q. When you saw that a cut-off was 
 being made on the American side did 
 you attempt a like cut-off on the Mexi- 
 can side? 
 
 A. Two or three days before the river 
 changed its course some of the neigh- 
 bors attempted to make a cut-off to pre- 
 
 *See page 22. 
 
 P. iCuando supo usted por primera, 
 vez de la obra que estaba haciendo en el 
 rio la "Rio Grande Land and Irrigation 
 Company" notifico usted a los Directores 
 de ella que existia una Comision de 
 Limites, debidamente organizada por un 
 Tratado entre Mexico y los Estados 
 Qnidos, y de que la obra que estaban 
 haciendo era contraria a los Tratados? 
 
 R. Fuse una comunicacion a Lons- 
 boro, Texas, al Presidente de la Com- 
 paiiia y le adverti que debia suspender 
 sus trabajos hasta que obtuviesen per- 
 miso de los dos Gobiernos, porque la 
 obra que hacian era contraria a los Tra- 
 tados. 
 
 P. ^:Cuando puso usted esa comunica- 
 cion ? 
 
 R. A principios de Julio de 1906. 
 
 P. iContesto la comunicacion de 
 usted la Compafila? 
 
 R. No, Senor. 
 
 (El Comisionado Mexicano present6 
 aqui una copia de dicha comunicacion 
 y se ad junto a esta acta, con la letra 
 "B," para que forme parte de ella.) 
 
 Testimonia de Joaquin Argiielles. 
 
 Examen por el Comisionado Mexi- 
 cano. 
 
 P. ^;Cuales son su nombre, residencia 
 V ocupaci6n ? 
 
 R. Joaquin Argiielles; Matamoros,. 
 Mexico; empleado municipal de Mata- 
 moros. 
 
 P. iTiene usted propiedades en Mex- 
 ico, en el Rio Grande, cerca del Rancho 
 del Horcon ? 
 
 R. Si. Senor. 
 
 P. iComo se llama su propiedad? 
 
 R. Rancho de La Union. 
 
 P. iLe causo a usted algiin perjuicio 
 el tajo hecho por la "American Rio 
 Grande and Irrigation Company"? 
 
 R. Privo a mi propiedad del uso del 
 agua del rio. 
 
 P. No me referia al agua, sino a que 
 si el tajo produjo destrozos en su te- 
 rreno. 
 
 R. Solo le quito el agua; no lo 
 destrozo. 
 
 P. iCuando ustedes vieron hacer ese 
 corte en el lado Americano, intentaron 
 otro parccido en el Mexicano? 
 
 R. Dos 6 tres dias antes del cambio 
 del rio, algunos vecinos trataron de 
 hacer otro corte para impedir el daiio- 
 
 13 
 
viiit (111 (l.iMia.Ljc tlwit ininlit In- causcil 
 liy reason <<{ tin- ciit-olT on tlu- AiiuTican 
 side 
 
 Q. State wliat tlama.nc has l)ien sus- 
 taiiiid l>y your |)ri>i)iTty hy reason of 
 the lack of water in tlie ahaiulonecl bed 
 of the river? 
 
 A. We are dainaj^ed by hick of water 
 for the inhaliitaiits. the stock and for 
 agricidtiiral jjurposes. 
 
 Testimony of I)esi<ierio Cantii. 
 
 Examination by tlie Mexican Commis- 
 sioner. 
 
 Q. Wliat is your name, where do you 
 reside and what is your occupation ? 
 
 A. Desiderio Cantu : Ilorcon Ranch : a 
 farmer. 
 
 Q. Have yon any land in Mexico on 
 the Rio (irande, and if so, what is its 
 name and locati(Hi ? 
 
 A. ^'es ; I own land called Ilorcon 
 Ranih. in Sectii>n 15 of the Jurisdiction 
 of Matamoros. 
 
 Q. Has the cut-off made by the 
 American Rio Grande Land and Irri- 
 gation Company caused any destruc- 
 tion to your land? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. lias the lack of water in the old 
 river bed caused anv damage to vour 
 land? 
 
 A. ^'es, sir. 
 
 Q. What damage? 
 
 .\. I am unable to properly irrigate my 
 land on account of the scarcity of water. 
 
 Q Was an attempt made to make a 
 cut-ofT on the Mexican side so that the 
 river would not change by reason of 
 the cut-f>fT on the .Xnurican side? 
 
 .\. Yes, sir. 
 
 y. What prevented the accomplish- 
 ment of this work? 
 
 A. Some of the neighbors on Las 
 Pelad.is Ranch objected to it. 
 
 Q. When work was commenced on 
 the American side what was your un- 
 iler-t.tnding as to its object? 
 
 .\. I was given to understand that it 
 was a levee to protect their land. 
 
 Q. Who informed you of thi^? 
 
 A. The peo|)le who were employed by 
 the American comjiany to make the 
 cut-ofT. 
 
 Testimony of Geronimo Ra/an. 
 
 Kxamination by the Mexican Connnis- 
 *>ioner : 
 
 Q. What is your name, where do you 
 reside and what is your i>ccupation? 
 
 A. Geronimo Hazan, Ranch La Bolsa; 
 a farmer. 
 
 O. .\rc vou the Kwiur of La Pmlsa 
 Ranch? 
 
 (|Ue podia causar el hecho en el lado 
 .\merican<>. 
 
 r. ,;I)iga usted (pie mal ha sufrido su 
 propiedad por la falta del agua en el 
 cauce abandonado del rio? 
 
 R. Los perjuicios (pie causa la falta 
 del agua se extieiiden a los habitantes, 
 el ganado y la agricultura. 
 
 iestimonio de Desiderio Cantu. 
 
 Lxamen por el Comisionado Mexi- 
 cano. 
 
 P. ftCual es el iiombre de usted, 
 donde reside y cual es su ocupaci<')n ? 
 
 R. Desiderio Cantu. Rancho del Ilor- 
 ci'm. Labrador. 
 
 P. i Posee usted tierras en M(}xico, 
 en cl Rio Grande y, en ese caso, ouno 
 se Hainan y donde estan ? 
 
 R. Si; soy dueno del Rancho del llor- 
 C(')n, de la Seccion 15 de la Jurisdiccion 
 de Matamoros. 
 
 P. iHa causado algi'in destrozo en sus 
 tierras el tajo construido por la "Ameri- 
 can Rio Grande Land and Irrigation 
 Company" ? 
 
 R. Si, Sci'ior. 
 
 P. ,; La falta de agua en el cauce vie- 
 jo. le origina algi'in perjuicio a su te- 
 rrene? 
 
 R. Si, Senor. 
 
 P. ,:Cual? 
 
 R. Que ya no puedo regar conve- 
 nientemente mi tierra i)or la cscasez del 
 agua. 
 
 P. ,; Se liizo en el lado Mcxicano al- 
 gi'in inteiitn para hacer en el otro corte 
 (|ue imi)idiera (pie el rio se desviara por 
 el tajo Americano? 
 
 R. Si, Senor. 
 
 P. ;Que inipidio la ejecucion de esa 
 obra? 
 
 R. Algunos vccinos del Rancho de 
 Las Peladas se opusieron a ello. 
 
 P. Cuando sc empczaron los traba- 
 jos del lado Americano ,;qu(!' se les dijo 
 a ustedes epic teiiian por objeto? 
 
 R. Se me dio a entender que estaban 
 haciendo un horde para defender su te- 
 rrene (de la Compania). 
 
 P. ,:Ouien le informo a listed de eso? 
 
 R. La geiite einpUada en el tajo por 
 la Comi)ania. 
 
 Testimonio de Gen')nimo Hazan. 
 
 Kxamen por el Comisionado Mexi- 
 cano. 
 
 P. ,; Conio sc llama usted. donde re- 
 side y dial es su ocupacion ? 
 
 R. Geronimo Pazan. Rancho de La 
 Bolsa. Labrador. 
 
 P. ,; l-ls usted dueno del Rancho de 
 La Pl.lsa? 
 
 14 
 
A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Has the cut-off made by the Amer- 
 ican Rio Grande Land and Irrigation 
 Company caused the destruction of your 
 land? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Has the scarcity of water in the 
 abandoned bed of the river caused you 
 anj' damage ? 
 
 A, Yes. 
 
 Q. What damage? 
 
 A. The damage is caused on account 
 of my horse stock being unable to ob- 
 tain water. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether any work 
 was done on the Mexican side of the 
 river to prevent the river from changing 
 its course by reason of the cut-ofT on 
 the American side? 
 
 A. 1 do not know of any. 
 
 Q. When the work was commenced on 
 the American side what were you told 
 they were going to do? 
 
 A. They (the company) did not tell 
 me anything, but I was informed that 
 they were going to build a levee. 
 
 Examination by the American Com- 
 missioner: 
 
 Q. You have stated that the cut-of¥ 
 injures you because it deprives your 
 horses of water. Is not the cut-ofif 
 above your ranch — Las Bolsa? 
 
 A. Yes. sir ; but my horses graze up 
 above the cut-off. 
 
 Q. Do you own the land where your 
 horses graze above the cut-off? 
 
 A. Yes, sir ; I have a community in- 
 terest in it. 
 
 Testimony of Primitivo Hinojosa. 
 
 Examination by the Mexican Commis- 
 sioner : 
 
 Q. What is your name, where do you 
 reside and what is your occupation ? 
 
 A. Primitivo Hinojosa; La Palma 
 Ranch ; a farmer. 
 
 Q. Are you the owner of any land in 
 Mexico, in the vicinity of Horcon 
 Ranch ? 
 
 A. Yes ; La Bolsa Ranch. 
 
 Q. Did the cut-off made by the Amer- 
 ican Rio Grande Land and Irrigation 
 Company on the American side cause 
 the destruction of any of your land? 
 
 A. No; there was no destruction of 
 my land, but it injured my crop by 
 causing the river to overflow, and I be- 
 lieve it will ultimately destroy my land. 
 
 Q. Will the scarcity of water in the 
 abandoned bed of the river cause you 
 any damage? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether any attempt 
 
 R. Si, Seiior. 
 
 P. iHa causado destrozos en sus te- 
 rrenos el tajo hecho por la "American 
 Land and Irrigation Company"? 
 
 R. Si. 
 
 P. La falta del agua en el lecho vie jo 
 ile ha causado a usted algun perjuicio? 
 
 R. Si. 
 
 P. iCual? 
 
 R. El perjuicio consiste en que mi 
 caballada no tiene ya agua que beber. 
 
 P. I Sabe usted si se hizo en el lado 
 Mexicano alguna obra para impedir que 
 el rio se cambiara por el tajo hecho del 
 lado americano? 
 
 R. No se de nada. 
 
 P. Cuando se empezo la obra del lado 
 Americano ique le dijeron a usted que 
 se estaba haciendo? 
 
 R. A mi no me dijeron nada; pero si 
 supe que iban a hacer un bordo de 
 defensa. 
 
 Examen por el Comisionado Ameri- 
 cano. 
 
 P. Ha dicho usted que el tajo le per- 
 judica porque deja a sus caballos sin 
 agua; ino esta el tajo mas rio-arriba 
 que el Rancho de La Bolsa ? 
 
 R. Si, Senor; pero mis caballos pas- 
 tan arriba de donde sale el tajo. 
 
 P. iEs de usted el terreno en que 
 pastan sus caballos, arriba del tajo? 
 
 R. Si, Senor ; son terrenos de comu- 
 nidad. 
 
 Testimonio de Primitivo Hinojosa. 
 
 Examen por el Comisionado Mexi- 
 cano. 
 
 P. iComo se llama usted, donde re- 
 side y cual es su ocupacion ? 
 
 R. Primitivo Hinojosa. Rancho de 
 La Palma. Labrador. 
 
 P. I Posee usted terreno en Mexico, 
 cerca del Horcon? 
 
 R. Si; el Rancho de La Bolsa. 
 
 P. iHa causado algun destrodo en su 
 terreno el tajo hecho del lado Ameri- 
 cano por la "American Land and Irri- 
 gation Company"? 
 
 R. No; no ha destruido mi terreno; 
 pero perjudico mis cosechas, porque hizo 
 que el rio las inundara y creo que al fin 
 tambien destruira mis tierras. 
 
 P. iLe causa a usted perjuicio la 
 falta de agua en el cauce viejo? 
 
 R. No. 
 
 P. i Sabe usted de algun intento del 
 
 15 
 
]''Xr I ^\'T'\'^''^'''''"'''\''' '^"'" -^'^-^i^-'"'. para haccr u.n, tajo 
 
 a cm-o»T lo prevent tlu- cha.mn- n. t k- ,,,,0 in.pi.li.ra al ri., ca.nl.iar p..r d nie 
 
 rix.r l.y rcaM.n uf tlu- cnt-.fT .„. tlu- sc- hi/., rn d la.l.. AiiuTican.,' 
 
 Anuruan ^uk.^ ,, .,, 
 
 A. N\>. '< •'^' 
 
 U. What prr\iiili<l tlu- aicomplish- '' -' 'Jm imp'<li" <|in-- m- liiiiira :•■ 
 
 imiit of iliis cut-uiT? H. Xo se. 
 
 ;V u','"„"";| ■""'"•. r , • . '*• ':'>'i""" a "'^tc.I alKo Ins tral.a- 
 
 y WIni tlu- cm-niT was lK-n,« mkkU- ja<|..rcs <|iu- !iicic-r..ii c-l tajn AuK-ricano 
 
 on tlu- AnurK-an suU- .lul tlu- worknu-n s.-l.n- su ol.JHo. cnan.lo cnii.c-xaron a 
 
 cn^aKi-d Ml such work make any state- hacerlo? 
 
 mint to von as lo its ohji-ot? 1. c- 1 ■ .... 
 
 ^ A. vc.; „„., .,„, ,iu, „an„« ,,„'*i„^'i;';,;:nsr" "'•''" ""'""'" "" 
 
 Examination liy tlu- Aimriran (.oni- ■•-xamon por d Comisionado Anu-ri- 
 
 missioiur: cano. 
 
 Q. Vkw Iuvc statu! that yon lidievc ''• I la dicho ustc-d (|Ut- cree (|ue d tajo 
 
 tlu- oni-olT will in the fntiire <lestroy destruira en lo fnliiro sns tierras ^quc 
 
 yonr laiul. What is your n-ason for ra/«'.n tiene para creerln? 
 
 thinking so? 1^ (^-r^.,, ^^^^^. ]^ corricnte del rio hara 
 
 A. I liduve that the current ot tin- ,|ue mi tcrreno se vava rompiendo a 
 
 river will cause my land alonj; tlu- h,iir,nuo raido (por derruml.es sucesi- 
 
 banks of the river to cave in. vos). 
 
 Testimony nf Xatividad Cantn. lestinionio de Xatividad Caiitti. 
 
 r.xamniation Iiv the Mexican Connnis- i- 1 r- - - 1 m • 
 
 ^j,,„^.^. <..iii ». iiiim> l-.xaiiuM iior el Coniisionaflo Mexi- 
 
 Q. What is vonr name, where do von ^' ,',' , ■ , , •, • 
 
 reside and what is vour occui.ation ■'" ' '•'*'«'' "'''•' ^" noml.re. residencia 
 
 A. Xatividad Cant'u; La Holsa Ranch; > ompacion ? 
 
 a farmer. R. Xatividad Cantn. Rancho de La 
 
 (J. .\re you the owner of any land I'oNa. Lal.rador. 
 
 mar the I I'orcon Ranch in Mexico? p. ; Ivs usted dueno dc alKini terreno 
 
 A. \es; 1 have an interest in La l'.o!- m Mexico, cerca del Ranch., del Hor- 
 
 sa Ranch. .-.in ? 
 
 L). Has the cut-off on the American ,.; s;. ^ i,„ereses en el Rancho 
 
 side ma.Ie hy the American Ri.. (.ran.k- ,|^. | ,, p.ol^a 
 
 Land and Irrijration f..mpanv caused ,, " ,,' '" , , • , 
 
 anv de.structi..n of vour land?' P ;lla caiisado a kuii destro^o en 
 
 A. Since making the cut-..fT ..n the V" '!'"'''"'" '"' .*'''^"! '''"'' '^'- '^l j 
 
 American side mv lands have heen ..ver- \>"^rK:»";' P'"". la "American Ri.. C.rande 
 
 n.nvn with water: the water cmiiiR '•'"'•• '''"'' Irrmatu.n Company ? 
 
 int.. the houses. The current in the R- Hcsde tpie se hizo el tajo .\meri- 
 
 river ate into the l.anks and caused cano mis terreiu.s han estad.) iinmdados, 
 
 them t<. drop int.. the water. entrando el a(j;ua hasta las casas. La 
 
 Q. Is the water still on y.nir laiuP crriente del ri.. ha comido los ha- 
 
 .\. Pan of tlu- land is still under rrancos y los ha hecho caer al agua. 
 
 ^^ater. y> ; Hav t.xlavia agua en su terreno? 
 
 g. Did the scarcity of water in the ^ j'arte <le d esta aim inun<lado. 
 
 al.and.ined Led of the river cau-c vou ,. i , • • • - 1 r 1. 
 
 any ilamage^ ' • '- '-^' causa algun perjmci.. la falta 
 
 A. Ve.s; it' was a watering i.Iace for '"^' ''«"■'' '"" ''^ '''''''''' ahand.mad..? 
 
 my animals, and as 1 own cows I am '^ '*^'' P<>rque alii hahia sido siempre 
 
 damageil to that extent. el.revadero y, com., tengo vacas. resiento 
 
 Q. Do y..u kiu.w if the Mexicans '■•i^c perjuici... 
 
 made an attempt t<. make a cut-off on P. ,: Sahe listed si l..s Mexicanos in- 
 
 the Mexican side to jjreveiit the river tentar.m hacer un taj.. en el la<lo Mexi- 
 
 fn.m changing its c. mrse hy reas. .n ..f can... para impedir (pie el rio camhiase 
 
 the cut-off on the American side? p, .r i-I del lado .\mericano? 
 
 A. They attempted such a work, luit R. Inieiitaron la ohra. pero la al.an- 
 
 al-anfloned it. d..naron. 
 
 (J. D<. you know wh\ tlu- work was P. ,;Sal)e usted i.or .jiu- la ahando 
 
 abandoned? naron? 
 
 16 
 
A. The \v(irk was abandoned by rea- 
 son of the o1)jection of the owners of 
 the Las Paledas Ranch. 
 
 Q. When the cut-off was being made 
 on the American side did you have any 
 information as to what it was intended 
 for? 
 
 A. The workmen engaged in making 
 the cut said it was going to be a 
 levee. 
 
 Testimony of Chester B. Davis. 
 
 Examination by the Mexican Commis- 
 sioner : 
 
 Q. Please state your name and resi- 
 dence? 
 
 A. Chester B. Davis My residence is, 
 temporarily, Lonsboro, Hidalgo Coun- 
 ty, Texas. 
 
 Q. What is your profession ? 
 
 A. An engineer. 
 
 Q. What is your connection with the 
 American Rio Grande Land and Irri- 
 gation Company? 
 
 A. Engineer in charge. 
 
 Q. Have you a map of the region in 
 which you planned your works and can 
 you show it to us? 
 
 A. I have no map with me. 
 
 Q. Did you make a survey? 
 
 A. Only generally; there was no speci- 
 fic plan. 
 
 Q. Do you find this sketch, marked 
 "Exhibit A," approximate, and will you 
 give us an explanation of the general 
 plan of your works in connection with 
 this case? 
 
 A. The sketch map is closely approxi- 
 mate. The proper execution of the 
 compan3's plan necessitated the con- 
 struction of a pumping station at or near 
 the place marked "B" on the sketch, 
 along the north bank of the river, near 
 Esterito ranch. An examination of the 
 river adjacent thereto revealed the fact 
 that a natural cut-off was possible or 
 probal)le at or near the point marked 
 "A"' on the sketch, up stream from the 
 proposed station, which cut-off, if it oc- 
 curred, would render of little or no 
 value the site which the company wished 
 to use. A determined effort was made 
 to revet the shore on the southerly side 
 of the neck at or near the impending 
 cut-off, and a very considerable expen- 
 diture of money was made in trying to 
 hold it against the river. This work 
 extended over a period of some three 
 months. The neck at the point "A" at 
 
 R. La obra fue abandonada por la 
 oposicion de los duenos del Rancho de 
 Las Peladas. 
 
 P. Cuando se estaba haciendo el tajo 
 Americano ituvo usted algunos in- 
 formes sobre el fin a que se le destinaba? 
 
 R. Los trabaj adores empleados en el 
 decian que iba a ser un bordo de de- 
 fensa. 
 
 Testimonia de Chester B. Davis. 
 
 Examen por el Comisionado Mexi- 
 cano. 
 
 P. Sirvasc usted decir su nombre y 
 su residencia. 
 
 R. Chester B. Davis. Mi residencia 
 temporal es Lonsboro, Hidalgo County, 
 Texas. 
 
 P. iCual es la profesion de usted? 
 
 R. Ingeniero. 
 
 P. iCual es su conexion con la 
 "American Rio Grande and Irrigation 
 Company" ? 
 
 R. Soy su Ingeniero Director. 
 
 P. I Posee usted algun piano de la 
 region en el cual haya proyectado sus 
 obras y puede usted ensenarnoslo? 
 
 R. No traigo conmigo ningun piano. 
 
 P. i Pero hizo usted algun levanta- 
 miento ? 
 
 R. Solo de un modo general : no hubo 
 ningnn piano detallado. 
 
 P. iCree usted aproximado este cro- 
 quis, marcado Anexo "A," y quiere us- 
 ted darnos por medio de el una explica- 
 cion del plan general de sus obras rela- 
 tiva a este caso? 
 
 R. El croquis es bastante aproximado. 
 La ejecucion apropiada de los planes de 
 la Compania exijia la construccion de 
 una estacion de bombas en el lugar 
 marcado "D" en el croquis, 6 cerca de el, 
 a lo largo de la margen norte del rio 
 y cerca del Rancho del Esterito. Un 
 examen de la parte adyacente del rio, 
 revelo el hecho de que era muy posible 
 6 que se produjera naturalmente un corte 
 en el rio en el punto marcado "A" en 
 el dibujo, 6 cerca de el, aguas-arriba 
 de la propuesta estacion de bombas. Tal 
 corte, de verificarse, convertiria en — de 
 poco 6 de ningun valor el sitio que la 
 Compania deseaba usar. Se hizo un 
 esfuerzo decisivo para revestir la ribera 
 en la parte sur de la garganta eii que 
 amenazaba el cambio y se gasto una 
 considerable cantidad de dinero en tratar 
 de defenderla contra el rio. Esta obra 
 se extendio a un periodo de tiempo de 
 cerca de tres meses. La garganta en el 
 punto "A." en donde amenazaba el cam- 
 bio, resulto ser de arena muy fina cast 
 movediza, facilmente atacada por la co- 
 
 17 
 
the inipiiuliiig cut-off proved to be of 
 very line s.iml, almost a quicksand, 
 which was very easily eroded I)y cur- 
 rent or wave action, and it was prac- 
 tically impossible after an exiiaustion of 
 all (he means availal)le to hoKl the revet- 
 ment in place and to i)revent the l)anl< 
 from cuttin>j severely. These results, in 
 my opinit)n, were a^^ravated l)y reason 
 of the fact that there was a difference 
 in the river's elevation between the hi^h 
 side and low side of the neck approxi- 
 matiiifjr 12 inches. The neck was so nar- 
 row, it hc'wii less than 1(K) feet in width 
 at various points alonjj it. that the water 
 passing throujj;h the neck from the upi)er 
 river kei)t this line and almost quick- 
 sand almost saturated, it bein^: robbed 
 of all its stability, and the company was 
 forced to al)andon further work and 
 effort to prevent the cut-off at this 
 point. This work was done with the full 
 consent and approval of Senor Solis. the 
 owner of the property, which was under 
 Mexican jurisdiction. 
 
 The Company has expended larj^e 
 sums of money in building various por- 
 tions of its irrigation system; all look- 
 ing to the erection of the pumping plant 
 near the point "B," referred to above, 
 practically all of which investment 
 would be lost or of little use to the com- 
 pany if the cut-off, now almost inevita- 
 ble, was permitted to occur at the point 
 markeil "A," since the river would fol- 
 low a channel entirely remote from the 
 pumping site. To protect itself against 
 such a result a neck of land at or near 
 the point marked "C" was cut through. 
 the neck "C " being on land owned by 
 the company and under American juris- 
 diction. 
 
 Q. Of course, when you took charge 
 of the work you knew that the Rio 
 Grande was the boundary between the 
 United States and Mexico? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you know of the existence of 
 any treaties between the two countries 
 regarding said boundary? 
 
 A. Generally. 
 
 Q. Have you read them? 
 
 A. I never saw a copy, nor read a 
 copy, until after the work was com- 
 pleted. 
 
 Q. While the work was progressing 
 had you any warning as to |)robablc in- 
 ternational comi)lications as a result of 
 such work. Any official warning? 
 
 A. 1 do not recall any warning or ofli- 
 
 rriente y la accion de las olas, y se 
 cncontro practicamen te imposible, dcs- 
 pues de agotar todos los recursos que 
 habia a mano, conservar en su sitio el 
 revestimiento e impedir (|ue el barranco 
 fuera seriamente atacado. Segun me 
 [larece, este resultado se agravo por el 
 liecho de existir una diferencia de nivel 
 de cerca de doce pulgadas en el rio entre 
 la parte aha y la baja de esta garganta 
 <|ue estan estrecha (|ue tiene menos de 
 KK) pies de ancho en varios de sus pun- 
 tos, i)udiendo pasar el agua a traves de 
 ella desde la parte superior del rio y 
 conservando casi saturada esta arena 
 tina y UKJvedi/.a ; tal cosa la privaba por 
 completo de su estabilidad y obligo a la 
 Compania a abandonar toda obra o es- 
 fuerzo po>terior por im|)edir el cambio 
 en este sitio. Los trabajos (|ue alii se 
 hicieron se emprendieron con pleno con- 
 seiitimiento y la aprobacion del Sefior 
 Si)lis. i)ropietario del terreno que esta 
 en jurisdiccion mexicana. 
 
 La Compania habia gastado ya gran<les 
 sumas de dinero en construir varios 
 tramos de su sistema de irrigacion. todos 
 basados en la ereccion de una planta de 
 iiombeo cerca del punto "B" antes ci- 
 tado. Practicamcnte se habria perdido. 
 o habria sido de poca utilidad para la 
 Compania, todo ese gastossi se hubiera 
 permitido que se verilicara en el lugar 
 marcado "A" el cambio ya casi inevita- 
 ble, supuesto que el rio seguiria un 
 cauceci)mi)let;imente lejano del lugar de 
 Iximbeo. Para protejerse ct)ntra tal re- 
 sultadfi se liizo un corte a traves de la 
 parte estrecha del terreno en que se halla 
 el punto marcado "C." quedando toda 
 la faja "C" en terreno de proi)iedad de la 
 Compania y de jurisdiccion Americana. 
 
 P. 5 Por supuesto. cuando usted totno 
 a su cargo la obra sabia que el Rio 
 Cirande es la fronti-ra entre Mexico y 
 los Kstados Unidos? 
 
 R. Si. Senor. 
 
 P. ,; Sabia usted la existencia de cier- 
 tos tratados entre los dos paises respecto 
 a esta frontera? 
 
 R. De un modo general. 
 
 P. ; Los habia usted Icido? 
 
 R. Nunca vi ni lei un ejemplar de 
 ellos sino hasta despues de que la obra 
 estaba hecha. 
 
 P. ,;Tuvo usted durante la ejecucioii 
 de la obra alguna advertencia en cuanto 
 a la j)r<ibabilidad de comidicaciones in- 
 teniacionales coino resultado de dicha 
 olira : alguna advertencia oficial ? 
 
 R. N'o recuerdo de ninguna notifica- 
 cion o advertencia oficial. Estoy seguro 
 
 18 
 
cial notification. I am certain that none 
 •ever came to my department. 
 
 Q. When you began the work did 
 you authorize Mr. Silver or your fore- 
 man to make a statement about its ob- 
 ject? 
 
 A. Mr. Silver is the business manager 
 of the company and is not under my 
 authority. 
 
 Q. Can you tell us whether your com- 
 pany lias a charter, and if so from 
 what government? 
 
 A. I understand that it is organized 
 tinder the laws of the State of Texas, 
 "but I have no personal knowledge as I 
 am not an officer of the company. 
 
 Examination by the American Com- 
 missioner : 
 
 Q. Has the company a map of the 
 land and proposed work to your knowl- 
 •edge? 
 
 A. There never has been a survey 
 made from which could be produced a 
 inap of the river as it now is. There 
 are in the office of the Engineering De- 
 partment of the company a copy of the 
 portfolios of maps issued by the Bound- 
 ary Commission, which is used as a 
 general guide, and some surveys were 
 made which would determine the shore 
 line in the vicinity of the point marked 
 ■"B," and down stream in the vicinity of 
 the point marked '"D," and on the Amer- 
 ican side of the river only. 
 
 Examination by the Mexican Commis- 
 sioner : 
 
 Q. What was the reason for selecting, 
 exclusively, the point marked "B" for 
 the pumping station ? 
 
 A. There were several reasons : The 
 banks and bed of the stream at that 
 point are very favorable for the pur- 
 pose ; perhaps more so than at any other 
 point in miles. Immediately adjacent 
 to and north of the north bank is a 
 large lagoon which the company has 
 converted into a reservoir with a super- 
 ficial area approximating 350 acres, 
 -which it intends to use as a sedimenta- 
 tion basin to prevent the filling up of 
 its main canal by sediment, which would 
 ■otherwise be deposited in them and had 
 very nearly completed that work ; and 
 another reason is, that at this precise lo- 
 cation there was a sufficient bed of very 
 hat-fl r]ay to form a most excellent foun- 
 dation. The shores and land adjacent 
 to the river along the company's front 
 on the river are mostly fine sand and 
 
 19 
 
 de que ninguna llego nunca a mi depar- 
 tamento. 
 
 P. iAutorizo usted, cuando empezo 
 sus trabajos, a Mr. Silver 6 a su capataz 
 para hacer algunas aserciones respecto 
 al objeto de ellos? 
 
 R. Mr. Silver es el Gerente de la 
 Compania y no esta bajo mi dependen- 
 cia. 
 
 P. i Puede usted decirnos si su Com- 
 pafiia tiene alguna concesion oficial y 
 de que Gobierno ? 
 
 R. Entiendo que esta organizada bajo 
 las leyes del Estado de Texas; pero no 
 tengo un conocimiento personal de ello 
 porque no soy imo de los Directores de 
 la Compaiiia. 
 
 Examen por el Comisionado Ameri- 
 cano. 
 
 P. i Segun lo que usted sabe, tiene la 
 Compaiiia algun piano del terreno y de 
 las obras proyectadas? 
 
 R. Nunca se ha hecho ningun levan- 
 tamiento del que pueda tomarse algun 
 piano del Rio en su actual estado. Hay 
 en las oficinas del departamento de in- 
 genieria de la Compania un ejemplar de 
 los atlas de pianos publicados por la 
 Comision de Limites que se usa como 
 guia general, y se ban hecho algunos 
 levantamientos que podrian determinar 
 la linea de ribera en la proximidad del 
 punto marcado "B" y rio-abajo en las 
 cercanias del punto marcado "D" y solo 
 del lado Americano del Rio. 
 
 Examen por el Comisionado Mexi- 
 cano. 
 
 P. iQue razon para elejir para esta- 
 cion de bombas exclusivamente el punto 
 marcado "B"? 
 
 R. Hubo varias razones ; los hordes y 
 el cauce del Rio en ese punto son muy 
 favorables para el objeto, tal vez mas 
 que cualquiera otro punto en varias 
 millas a la redonda. Inmediatamente 
 junto a la margen norte y al norte de 
 ella, hay una gran laguna que la Com- 
 pania habia convertido en una presa 
 cuya area aproximativa as de 350 acres 
 y que trataba de usar como vaso de 
 sedimentacion para impedir el azolve do 
 su canal principal a causa del sedimento, 
 que de otra manera se depositaria en el; 
 esa obra estaba casi concluida ya. Otra 
 razon es que en ese lugar precisamente 
 hay una capa de barro muy duro bas- 
 tante para formar una excelente cimen- 
 tacion. Las margenes del rio y el te- 
 rreno adyacente a ellas a lo largo de la 
 propiedad de la Compania, esta formado 
 principalmente de arena fina y movediza 
 dificil, si no imposible, para una buena 
 
(|iiicksai)(l, making fuiiiKlatiniis ditViciilt. 
 if not impossililc. And also, tlu' liciKht 
 of tlu- hank with reference to the aver- 
 age hiyh water is such that a jniniijinf,' 
 station couhl he l)uilt without fear of 
 innnilation. At no point west of point 
 'ii," witliin a (hstance of two miles, 
 was the liank known to he suitahle, 
 most of it heinjj; l)elow the level of hi^h 
 water. 
 
 IJ. Was ilic selection of this cnt-ofT 
 tleterinined In the economy of the loca- 
 tion or for other reasons? 
 
 A. Primarily I suppose it was influ- 
 enced hy economic conditions. It was 
 the narrowest point; material seemed 
 suitahle and the conditions seemed to 
 warrant the lielief that it would ulti- 
 mately straij^hten itself ami harmonize 
 with the channel below. 
 
 Examinatii'ii hy the American Com- 
 missioner : 
 
 Q. Who is the President of yt)ur 
 Company ? 
 
 A. Mr. Thomas W. Carter, of St. 
 Louis. 
 
 Q. .\re connnunications addressed to 
 him at Lonshoro, Te.xas. forwarded to 
 him ? 
 
 A. Lonshoro is not a postofhce and 
 mail is never delivered to us there, hut 
 if so addressed is sent to the branch 
 Dead-Letter Office of the Postofficc De- 
 partment at San .\ntonio, Texas, and 
 from there is returned to the writer. 
 
 Q. Vou met the Consulting iMifrjueers 
 of this Commission about July 14th. did 
 you not ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did the company continue the 
 work on this lower cut-olT after the visit 
 of the Consulting LuRinecrs? 
 
 A. Yes, sir; its work was confined to 
 efforts to prevent erosion of the Mex- 
 ican bank and to cause the river to har- 
 monize with the channel below. 
 
 The Connnission then adjourned. 
 
 cnneiuacion. .\dema>. la altura del ha- 
 rranco respecto a las altas a^uas ordina- 
 rias es tel (|ue podria construirse alii 
 una estacion de homheo sin temor de 
 inundacii'm. V.u nin>;una parte al ocste 
 del punto "]{," dentro de ima distancia 
 de dos mill.is, estaha la margeii a |)rop6- 
 sito |)ara la instalacion, (piedando la 
 ntayor i)arte de ella debajo del nivel do 
 las altas aguas. 
 
 P. ; La localizacion del corte fue de- 
 terminada unicamente i)or la economia, 
 o hubo otras razones? 
 
 R. Yo creo que de un modo funda- 
 mental .se dehio a las condiciones econo- 
 micas. Kra un sitio angosto ; el mate- 
 rial parecia conveniente y las condi- 
 ciones apoyaban la creencia de que el 
 norte se enderezaria por si misnio, en 
 ultimo resultado, armonizandose hacia 
 abajo con el cance del Rio. 
 
 h^xamen por el Comisionado .\meri- 
 cano. 
 
 P. ,;Quien es el PresideiUe de la Com- 
 jjafiia de nsted ? 
 
 U. .\lr. Thomas W. Carter, de Saint 
 Loiiis. 
 
 P. ,:Las comunicaciones que se Ic diri- 
 jen a Lonshoro, Texa.s, les son entrc- 
 gadas? 
 
 R. Lonshoro no tiene oficina de co- 
 rreo y nunca .se nos entrega corres|)on- 
 dencia alii sino que la que va asi diri- 
 gida se pasa a la Seccion de correspon- 
 dencia sohrante de la Ohcina de Corrcso 
 de Sail .\nlonio, Texas, y de alii se 
 devuelve ii (|uien la envio. 
 
 P. ; Recibio nsted a los Ingenieros 
 Consullores de esta Comision hacia el 
 14 de Julio, no es verdad? 
 R. Si. Senor. 
 
 P. ,;Continuo la Compai"iia su trabajo 
 en este corte despues de esa visita de 
 los Ingenieros Consultores? 
 
 R. Si, Senor. Su obra se limito a 
 esfuerzos jjara impedir la erosion de la 
 margen Mexicana y para obligar al Rio 
 h armonizarse con el cauce antiguo situ- 
 ado mas ahajn. 
 
 La Comision Mixta Uvanto enseguida 
 su sesion. 
 
 Rrow.n'svii.lk, Tkx.\.s. 
 Oclohcr 24. 19(")6. 
 The J<jint Commission met at 10:30 
 a. m. at the I*"ederal litiilding. 
 
 The Joint Commission having care- 
 fully considered the state of the works 
 done on the Rio Grande hy the .Ameri- 
 can Rio Cirande Land and Irrigation 
 
 1 '. K( »W .\ S V I I.I.K. T V X .\ s . 
 
 Octuhrc 24 dc 1906. 
 
 La Comision Mixta se reimii) a las 
 10.10 A. M. en el Kdificio I'ederal. 
 
 llabieivlo estudiado cuidadosamente 
 la Comision Mixta las ohras luchas en 
 el Rio Cirande por la ".American Rio 
 Grande Land and Irrigation Comiiany." 
 segiin el estado dc ellas ohservado clu- 
 
Company, as observed by it during its 
 visit to that place on the 19th instant, 
 and having listened to the sworn testi- 
 mony of the several witnesses, connected 
 by reference to the approximate sketch 
 map of the locality prepared by the Con- 
 sulting Engineers, and attached hereto, 
 find the following facts : 
 
 That the said American Rio Grande 
 Land and Irrigation Company did 
 wrongfully and knowingly cause a 
 change in the current channel of the 
 Rio Grande where it constituted the 
 boundary line between the United States 
 of Mexico and the United States of 
 America, by artificial means, and in di- 
 rect violation of Article III of the Con- 
 vention of November 12. 1884. between 
 the two Governments, and if said Article 
 III is applied the change in the running 
 channel of the river produces no altera- 
 tion in the boundary line, which still 
 continues in the old bed of the river. 
 
 The Commissioners are of opinion 
 that indemnity should be made for this 
 wrong, but they do not understand that 
 the Treaties under which it was organ- 
 ized and under which this investigation 
 was conducted confers upon it jurisdic- 
 tion over the title to land, damage to 
 property, the control of riparian rights 
 or the enforcing of reparation for 
 wrongs by offenders for changing the 
 channel of the river where it consti- 
 tutes the boundary. 
 
 Nevertheless, as this is a novel case, 
 wherein it appears that some example 
 should be set and a precedent estab- 
 lished in order to deter others from 
 similar wrongs, we submit the question 
 to the better judgment of our respective 
 Governments for instructions as to fur- 
 ther proceedings. 
 
 The Consulting Engineers took photo- 
 graphs at the points marked E, F, G, H, 
 and / on the sketch map herewith, 
 which will be forwarded to be attached 
 to the papers herewith and made a part 
 of the record as soon as received from 
 the photographer. 
 
 The Commission then adjourned. 
 
 Anson Mills. 
 
 Wilbur Keblinger. 
 
 Fernando Beltran y Puga. 
 
 Cesar Canseco. 
 
 rante la visita a la localidad hecha el 
 dia 19 del actual ; despues de escuchar 
 el testimonio juramentado de los diver- 
 sos testigos, conectandolo y refiriendolo 
 al croquis aproximado del lugar prepa- 
 rado por los Ingenieros Consultores y 
 aqui ad junto, dicha Comision resuelve 
 lo siguiente : 
 
 Que la referida "American Rio 
 Grande Land and Irrigation Company" 
 causo a sabiendas e ilegalmente un 
 cambio en el curso normal del Rio 
 Grande en la parte en que forma la 
 lines limitrofe entre los Estados Uni- 
 dos Me.xicanos y los Estados Unidos 
 de America, usando para ello de medios 
 artiliciales y violando directamente el 
 A.rticulo III de la Convencion de No- 
 viembrc 12 de 1884 entre ambos Go- 
 biernos. Que, si se aplica diche Arti- 
 culo III, el cambio citado no produce 
 alteracion en la linea limitrofe, que con- 
 tinua estando en el locho antiguo del 
 Rio. 
 
 Los Comisionados opinan que dobe 
 hacerse alguna reparacion por este mal ; 
 pero no creen que los Tratados segiin 
 los cuales esta organizada la Comision 
 y se ha conducido esta investigacion les 
 concedan derecho de dictaminar en lo 
 relativo a titulos de propiedad de tierras, 
 estimacion de perjuicios a las propie- 
 dades y determinacion de los derechos 
 de los riberenos, ni de imponer a las 
 personas que hayan cometido la ofensa 
 de cambiar el curso del Rio en donde 
 sirve de linea limitrofe la obligacion 
 material de reparar el mal hecho. 
 
 .Sin embargo, siendo este un caso de 
 caracter completamente nuevo en la 
 Comision y por el cual aparece la ne- 
 cesidad de hacer un ejemplar y estable- 
 cer precedentes que impida a otras per- 
 sonas cometer ofensas analogas, some- 
 temos tal decision al mejor criterio de 
 nuestros respectivos Gobiernos en de- 
 manda de instrucciones respecto a nues- 
 tros posteriores procedimientos. 
 
 Los Ingenieros Consultores tomaron 
 varias fotografias. en los puntos marca- 
 dos "E," "F," "G." "H," "I," sobre el 
 croquis adjunto, las cuales seran remi- 
 tidas, tan pronto como las entregue el 
 fotegrafo, para que se adjunten a este 
 expediente y fornien parte de el. 
 
 La Comision Mixta levanto enseguida 
 su sesion. 
 
 Fernando Beltr.an y Puga. 
 
 Cesar Canseco. 
 
 Anson Mills. 
 
 Wilbur Keblinger. 
 
 21 
 
(Traiivlation.) 
 
 Kxhihit n. 
 
 CONSLLATK OF TIIK UN'ITF.D 
 STATKS OF MFXICO. 
 
 Brownsvillk, Tkxas. yi(/.v 1. 1906. 
 
 HavinR seen the works you are earry- 
 iuK on, on both sides of the Rio (irandc, 
 witli the apparent intention of diverting 
 the cliannel of this international stream, 
 I hereby notify you that such work must 
 be discontinued until permission is ob- 
 tained from both j^overnnients — the 
 United Slates and Mexico — inasmuch 
 as such diversion, althouijh its object 
 may be fiighly commemiable, is contrary 
 to existing treaties l)etween the United 
 States and Mexico, and tlie regulations 
 of the Hiiundary Commission created 
 thereunder. 
 
 lIoi)in).j that the matter may be given 
 your immediate attention, I have the 
 honor of assuring you and your com- 
 pany of my most distinguished consid- 
 eration. 
 
 (Signed) Mgu B.\rr.\gan. 
 
 To Mk. S. p. Silvkr. 
 
 President of the Rio Grande Lond 
 and Irrigation Co.. 
 Sam I'ordyce, Texas. 
 
 A true copy : 
 
 WiLiuR Keiimngkr, 
 Seeretiiry, I'. S. Section. 
 
 International Boundary Commission. 
 
 Anexo "B." 
 AI margen un menibrete 
 
 "Consulado 
 Mexicanos 
 
 Xuinero 1. 
 
 (jue dice : 
 dc los F!!stados Unidos 
 en Brownsville, Texas." 
 
 Urownsvii.lk, Tkxas, 
 Julio 1° de 1906. 
 ilabiendo visto los tral)ajos que por 
 su cueiita estan llevando a cabo sobre 
 aml)as margenes del Rio Bravo, con el 
 osten.>-il»le ol)jeto de desviar la corricnte 
 de dicho Rio "Internacional," con toda 
 atencion y resjjeto prevengo a usted que 
 delien sus|)enderse los trabajos mientras 
 tanto no olitengan el permiso de ambos 
 Gol)iernos, Mexico y los Kstados Uni- 
 dos, i)uesto que la olira que estan ustcdcs 
 practicando desvia la corriente del Rio 
 que es Internacional, y tales trabajos 
 aim cuando scan con noble objcto, pug- 
 nan con nuestros tratados internacion- 
 ales y con el pacto hecho entrc las 
 Comisiones de Limites del Rio Bravo 
 nombradas por esta Nacion y la Repii- 
 blica de Mexico. 
 
 Esperando ser atendido en este im- 
 portante asuiito, tengo el honor de pro- 
 testar a usted y a todos los demas miem- 
 bros de la Conipania mi distinguida 
 consideracion. 
 
 Kl Consul, 
 (I'irmado) Mic.if.l Barruian, 
 Rulirica. 
 .'\l Senor S. P. Silvkr. 
 
 Presidenle de la Contf<ania Rio Grande 
 Land and Irrigation. 
 Sam Fordyce. Texas. 
 Fscopia : 
 Brownsvillk, Tkxas, 
 
 Oetuhre 24 de 1906. 
 Cksar Canskco, 
 Sei retario .Me.vieano. 
 
 El Paso, Texas, .Wnember 5, 1906. 
 The Honorable, the Secretary of State. 
 
 Sir: Referring to my letter of October 24th last, forwarding proceedings ..f tlie 
 "Horcon Ranch Case," I have the honor to enclose herewith four photographs wliich 
 are a part of those proceedings and should be attached thereto. 
 1 liave the honor to be, Sir, 
 
 \'^ery respectfully. 
 
 Your obedient servant. 
 
 .\ns()N Mills, 
 Brigadier General, ('. S. .Irmy. Retired, American Commissioner. 
 Enclosures : 
 
 F'our photographs. 
 
to 2 Z 
 
 
 H W > 
 
 ■Ho ?: 
 
 > K o 
 tt '^ ^ 
 
 AO en * 
 
 "-^^ S 
 
 a o 
 
 o 2 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 W 
 
 w 
 
 n 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 5< 
 
 w 
 
 W 
 
 
El Paso, Texas, Nor ember 8, 1906. 
 The Honorable, the Secretary of State. 
 
 Sir ; I have the honor to enclose herewith a Journal setting forth an opinion 
 of the Mexican CommissioTier regarding the lack of jurisdiction of this Commission 
 in certain cases under existing treaties, and my reply thereto, with the request that 
 if the Department deems it advisable it be considered in connection with the instruc- 
 tions asked for in the Joint Journal in the "Horcon Ranch Case," transmitted to the 
 Department with my letter of October 24, 1906. 
 I have the honor to be, Sir, 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Anson Mills, 
 A 1)1 erica n Co mm issio iier. 
 
 (JOINT JOURNAL.) 
 
 El Paso, Texas, November 7, 1906. 
 At the conclusion of the regular busi- 
 ness of the Joint Commission the Mexi- 
 can Commissioner stated that he de- 
 sired to present certain questions to the 
 American Commissioner which had been 
 suggested to him as a result of the re- 
 cent investigation by the Commission of 
 the Horcon Ranch case, as follows : 
 
 That the questions involved in that 
 case brought more directly to the atten- 
 tion of the Commissioners, in the first 
 place, the uncertainty of their jurisdic- 
 tion and of their authority in matters 
 pertaining to the awarding of damages 
 and making reparation on account of 
 works wrongfully constructed in the Rio 
 Grande ; in the second place, the unde- 
 niable fact that in the near future ques- 
 tions will undoubtedly be raised, owing 
 to the rapid development of the border 
 region, affecting the physical condition 
 of the Rio Grande, i. e., irrigation sys- 
 tems deriving their water supply from 
 the Rio Grande, which questions are 
 not clearly within the jurisdiction of 
 this Commission under the Treaty of 
 March 1, 1889, creating it. 
 
 Such irrigation systems affect the 
 physical condition of the river in two 
 ways: (1) by the consumption of its 
 perennial flow, and (2) by the changes 
 wrought in its banks and channel by the 
 subsidiary works which are necessarily a 
 part of such systems, as has been the 
 case in the Horcon Ranch complaint. 
 
 Article I of the Convention of 1889 
 puts under the "exclusive" jurisdiction 
 of the Commission all questions of what- 
 ever kind that may arise along the Rio 
 Grande border liable to affect the boun- 
 dary line, and the Rio Grande being the 
 
 El Paso, Texas, Noviembre 7 de 1906. 
 
 Una vez despachados los asuntos or- 
 dinarios de la Comision Mixta, el Comi- 
 sionado mexicano manifesto que deseaba 
 someter al Comisionado americano las 
 siguientes ideas, que le han sido suge- 
 ridas por el resultado de las recientes 
 investigaciones que esta Comision hizo 
 en el caso del Horcon : 
 
 La materia tratado en dicho caso trajo 
 prominentemente a la atencion de los 
 Comisionados : en primer lugar, lo in- 
 cierto de su jurisdiccion y de sus facul- 
 tades en puntos tales como la otorga- 
 cion de danos y perjuicios a causa de 
 obras ilegalmente ejecutadas en el Rio 
 Grande; en segundo, la seguridad de 
 que, debido a! rapido desarrollo de la 
 region de la frontera, se presentaran 
 muy pronto a su estudio cuestiones que 
 afectan indudablemente a las condiciones 
 fisicas del rio (como son las empresas 
 de irrigacion en que se intente utilizar 
 sus aguas), pero que parecerian no estar 
 comprendidas con entera claridad dentro 
 de la jurisdicci6n asignada a esta Comi- 
 sion en el Tratado de Marzo 1° de 1889, 
 que la creo. 
 
 Tales sistemas de irrigacion afectan 
 de dos maneras las condiciones fisicas 
 del rio: (1), despojandolo de sus aguas 
 percnnes; (2), produciendo cambios en 
 sus margenes y en su curso con las 
 obras accesorias que necesariamente for- 
 man parte del sistema, siendo esto pre- 
 cisamente lo que paso en el paso del 
 Horcon 
 
 El articulo I de la Convencion de 1889 
 pone bajo la jurisdiccion "exclusiva" de 
 la Comision todas las cuestiones de cual- 
 quier genero que de algun modo puedan 
 afectar a la linea divisoria a lo largo 
 del Rio Grande : siendo asi que tal linea_ 
 
 27 
 
Iioundary line all matters afTictinj^ the 
 river also alTect, if'so fiicto. the hoviii- 
 tlary ; s<> that all irri^atiiij^ works are 
 iiiuler the exclusive jiirisilicliuii of the 
 Ititernationnl Houiulary Coinmissioii. 
 However, the sitecitieations ami provi- 
 sions of the reiiiaininK articles of the 
 Convention are confined to the most 
 simple cases, i. e., where avnlsion has 
 lieen created l)y natural and artificial 
 means, which leaves the Commissioners 
 in iloul't regarding the more comjili- 
 cated and less clear <iueslions, such as 
 those which inclnde irrij^ation schemes. 
 
 The Mexican Connnissioner also 
 stated that the dilVicnlties arising ont of 
 these (juestions would he greatly in- 
 creased if the governments of the Ixirder 
 states were conceded the ownership of 
 the waters of the Rio Cirande— an inter- 
 national river — as the l*'ederal authori- 
 ties in both countries would be left with- 
 out control of the waters, concerning 
 the Use of which the\ are bound to- 
 gether by solenm treaty. 
 
 The Mexican government has already 
 given this matter its attention and has 
 taken over the absolute control of said 
 waters, and, therefore, no trouble is to 
 be hx)ked for from the Mexican side. 
 
 In the case of the Horcon Ranch in- 
 vestigation, however, it was understood 
 that a charter had been granted by the 
 State of Texas to the .Xnurican Rio 
 Grande Lan«l and Irrigation Company, 
 giving them certain riglits to the in- 
 ternational water, wliicii may establish 
 a serious i)recedent. 
 
 To which the .American Connnissioner 
 replied that he appreciated the perti- 
 nency of the remarks of the Mexican 
 Commissioner an<l is of the opinion that 
 he has stated correctly the present status 
 of the conditions under the treaty; that 
 as he understands it, the Mexican Com- 
 missioner desires instructions from the 
 two governments as to whether the fol- 
 h)wing powers are conferred upon the 
 Connnission by existing treaties and in 
 wh.it manner they could be executed, 
 if within the meaning of said treaties: 
 
 (a) — to restrain a contemplated viola- 
 tion of the treaty l>y a jirivate individual 
 or corporation ; 
 
 (b)— to punish for a violatifm already 
 committed : 
 
 (c) — to award <lamages to persons 
 injured by the violation; and 
 
 (d)— to regulate the use of water for 
 irrigating purposes, and if so, to what 
 extent. 
 
 esta constituida por el misnio rio, todo 
 lo que afecte a este afectara tambien, 
 if>so facto, a la linea y, j)or consiguiente, 
 las obras de irrigacion, por afectar al 
 rio. sc- hallan bajo la jurisdiccion imica 
 de la Comision Internacional de Limites. 
 
 Sin embargo, las reglas y provisiones 
 de los restantes articulos de la Convcn- 
 cion citada se concretan a los casos mas 
 simpli s. (|Ue son acpiellos en que se ha 
 l)rodiKido ima avidsii'm por medios na- 
 lurale> o artificiales : esto deja a los 
 Comisionados en duda respecto de cues- 
 tiones m.ns comi)licadas y menos claras, 
 como lo son las (pie incluyen planes de 
 irrigacion. 
 
 V.\ Comisionado nuxicano indico, 
 ademas, (|ue las dificultades iidurentes a 
 estas cuestiones aumentarian notable- 
 mente si se reconociera a los I'^stados 
 fronterizos jurisdiccion sr)bre las aguas 
 del Rio (irande (que es internacional), 
 (|ucs en tal caso los (iol)iernos b'ederales 
 (le amlios paises i)erderian todo dominio 
 sobre Unas aguas en relacion a cuyo uso 
 se encuentran ligados eiitre si por Tra- 
 tados solenmes. V.\ (iobierno mcxicano 
 ha j)rovisto ya a esto reservandose en su 
 lado el dominio al)soluto de esas aguas 
 y. por tanto, no habra ninguna diticultad 
 de parte de Mexico ; pero por la investi- 
 gacii'm del caso del Horcon se puede 
 (leducir que el h'stado de Texas ha ex- 
 tcndido una concesion a la ".\merican 
 Rio (irande Land and Irrigation Co." 
 cediendole ciertos derechos sobre las 
 aguas c;n cuestion y tal cosa podria esta- 
 l)lecer, de ser cierta. un precedente muy 
 serio. 
 
 HI Comisionado americano contesto a 
 esto <iue reconocia la pertinencia de las 
 observaciones del Comisionado mcxicano 
 y que encontraba muy correctamente de- 
 finido ])or el el estado actual de la situa- 
 cion en relacion con los Tratados; que. 
 segun ha jxidido cntender. desea cl 
 Comisionado mcxicano (|ue la Comisi«'>n 
 tenga de ambos Cmbiernos instruccioncs 
 sobre si los Tratados vigentes le con- 
 ceden facultades en los siguientes puntos 
 y. en ese caso, de que manera puede 
 ejercerlas: 
 
 (a) — i)ara impedir una violacion de 
 los Tratados intentada por un indivi- 
 duo o una corporacion ; 
 
 (b)— para imponcr alguna pcna por 
 violaciones ya cometidas; 
 
 (t-)_para otiiryar rindemni/acioncs 4 
 las pers<Mias perjudicadas por la violacii'm : 
 
 (fj) — para intervenir en cl uso del 
 agua para irrigacion ; en tal caso. en 
 (pie terminos. 
 
 28 
 
The American Commissioner is in 
 doubt whether the treaty contemplaled 
 conferring upon the Commission such 
 extended powers as those enumerated ; 
 that while Article I of the Treaty of 
 1889 gives an "exclusive" jurisdiction to 
 the Commission over all matters affect- 
 ing the boundary line, the following Ar- 
 ticles do not set forth the necessary 
 procedure to carry it into effect, but 
 in fact limits it ; that in his opinion the 
 instructions asked for in the "Horcon 
 Ranch case" covers the most important 
 points outlined above, but that he will 
 forward the statements of the Mexican 
 Commissioner to his Department with 
 the request that they be considered in 
 connection with the questions raised in 
 the "Horcon Ranch Case" proceedings, 
 pages 11 and 12 of the record in that 
 case, if his Department deems it expe- 
 dient.* 
 
 The Commission then adjourned. 
 
 Anson Mill.s. 
 
 Wilbur Keblinger. 
 
 Fernando Beltran y Puga. 
 
 Cesar Canseco. 
 
 El Cnmisionado americano no se sien- 
 te seguro de que en el Tratado de 1889 
 se haya intentado conferir a la Comi- 
 sion poderes tan extensos como son los 
 enumcrados, pues, si bien el articulo I 
 de dicho Tratado da a la Comision una 
 jnrisdiccinn exclusiva sobre los asuntos 
 que afecten a la linea limitrofe, los 
 siguientes no establecen los procedimien- 
 tos necesarios nara hacer efectivo el 
 primero, sino que, de hecho, lo limitan. 
 En la opinion del mismo Comisionado, 
 las instrucciones solicitadas en el acta 
 final del caso del Horcon abarcan los 
 principales puntos de los anteriores; 
 pero, no obstante, enviara a su Departa- 
 mento la presente exposicion del Comi- 
 sionado mexicano suplicando que, si asi 
 se estima conveniente, se la tome en con- 
 sideracion a la vez que se estudian las 
 consultas formuladas en las actas del 
 caso del Horcon, paginas 11 y 12 del 
 expediente (americano) relativo. 
 En seguida se levanto la sesion. 
 
 Fernando Beltran y Puga. 
 
 Cesar Canseco. 
 
 Anson Mills. 
 
 Wilbur Keblinger. 
 
 April 20, 1907. 
 Brigadier General Anson M^lls, U. S. A., Retired, 
 
 American Coiiimissioiier, Iiitcniational (Water) Boundary 
 
 Coiniiiission, United States and Mexico, Washington, D. C. 
 .Sir: Referring to your letters of October 24th and November 5th and 8, 1906, 
 in relation to the diversion of the waters of the Rio Grande by the American Rio 
 Grande Land and Irrigation Company, near Horcon Ranch, I have now to inform 
 you that those letters and their enclosures have been referred to the Attorney 
 General, for his mformation, with the request that he give this Department his 
 opinion as to whether the present statutory provisions enable the findings of your 
 Commission to be given effect. 
 
 A copy of an opinion on the subject by the Solicitor for the Department of 
 State is enclosed herewith, for your information. It is upon the recommenda- 
 tions made in the Solicitor's opinion that the Department has asked for the 
 Attorney General's opinion. 
 
 1 am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 Robert Bacon, 
 Acting Secretary. 
 Enclosure : Opinion of the Solicitor for the Department of State, April 10, 1907. 
 
 April 10, 1907. 
 Dear Mr. Adee: The facts in the Horcon Ranch case appear to be as follows: 
 The course of the Rio Grande near the Horcon Ranch forms two loops. The 
 natural course of the water appeared to be about to form a cut off, whereby the 
 
 *See pages 21-22. 
 
 29 
 
■upper loop would liavc lucn cliniin;it<(l. Tlu- rcMilt nf iliis would have bcfU 
 to dcprivi- Auu'ricaii riparian propritlurs abutting on the upper loop of the water 
 whicli they h;id heretofore <'njoyeil for use and irrijjation. To counteract the 
 threatened dani^er, the American proprietors du(,' an artificial channel across the 
 neck of 'he lower loop, and naturally deprivinj^ the Mexican riparian proprietors 
 abutting on the lower loop of the water wiiich they had heretofore been accus- 
 tomed to use. 
 
 This so-called Horcon Cut ( 'tT was a clear violatit^n of our treaties with 
 Mexico, as will appear later, and has been found to be such by the International 
 Water Boundary Commission. The Commission, however, feels uncertain as to 
 the exact .scope of its authority in the premises and the measures which it is cm- 
 powered to take, in or«ler to make reparation for the violation of treaty rights, 
 and the injiiry to tlie Mexican property owners. The Commission has therefore 
 agreed to report to tli.' iwo governnu'iits :m>l rr(|uest instructions as to these 
 point. > 
 
 Sul)sec|UeiUly. tlie (."onimissioners discussed the general questions involved in 
 considering the jurisdiction of the Commission, and agreed to request their re- 
 spective governments to instruct them si)ecit"ically as to the powers of the Com- 
 mission according to the treaties: 
 
 (a) "To restrain the contemplated violation of the treaty by private indi- 
 viduals or corporations; 
 
 (b) "To punish for a violation already committed; 
 
 (c) "To awaril damages to persons injured l)y tlie violation; and 
 
 (d) "To regulate the use of water for irrif^ating ])uri)o>es and. if so, to what 
 ■extent." 
 
 The .\merican Commissioner noted that the instructions asked for in the 
 Horcon Ranch case covered substantially the questions now sulmiittcd, but con- 
 sented to forward these questions to be considered by the Department in connection 
 with that case, if the Department should so desire. In order to give any adequate 
 answer to the questions propounded by the Commissioners, and involved in the 
 Horcon Ranch case now pending l)cforc them, it will be necessary to consider 
 in some detail the treaty provisions between the United States and Mexico, gov- 
 erning the Rio (Jrandc as an international boundary line. 
 
 .Article Vll of the treaty of C.uadalupe-l lidalgo jirovides as follows: 
 
 The river (iiia, an<l the jiart of the Rio Bravo del Norte lying below the 
 .s(njthern boundar\ of Xew .Mexico, l)fing, agreeably to tlie fifth .\rticle, divided 
 in tht middle of the Ikavo below said boundary shall be free and common to the 
 vessels and citizens of both countries; and neither shall, without the cimscnt of the 
 other, construct any work that may impede or interrupt, in whole or in part, 
 the exercise of this right; not even for the puri)ose of favoring new methods of 
 Navigation. ****** The Gadsden Treaty of 1853, .•\rticle IV, modifies the 
 terms of .Article Vll of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo to conform to the new 
 boundary line established by the latter treaty. It ])r'>vides, however, that the 
 provisions of .\rticle VH shall remain in force as apidicable to that portion of 
 the Rio firande which remains international boundary line. 
 
 Article 111 of the Boundary Convention of 1SS4 contains the foUowmg 
 provision : 
 
 N'o artificial change in the navigable course of the river, by buibling jetties, 
 piers or obstructions which may tend to deflect the current or produce deposits 
 
 30 
 
ot alluvium, or by dredging to deepen another than the original channel under 
 the treaty, when there is more than one channel, or by cutting waterways to shorten 
 the navigable distance, shall be permitted to affect or alter the dividing line as 
 determined by Article I hereof and under the reservation therein contained; but 
 the protection of the banks on either side from erosion by revetments of stone or 
 other material not unduly projecting into the current of the river shall not be 
 deemed an artificial change. 
 
 It will be noted that while this Article specifically provides that no artificial 
 change resulting from the constructing of jetties, piers, etc., shall be permitted 
 to alter the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, and while the 
 clear inference from the article is that such jetties and piers and obstructions as 
 ■would tend to alter the course of the river are prohibited, there is no express 
 prohibition of such constructions. The meaning of Article IIT, however, is made 
 perfectly clear when considered in connection with Article V of the Boundary 
 Convention of 1889, which refers to "work * * constructed, in either of those 
 rivers, such as are prohibited by Article III of the convention of November 12, 
 1884, * * ." This gives us an authoritative interpretation of the meaning of 
 Article III, supra. 
 
 Returning again to the boundary convention of 1889, we find the following 
 pertinent provisions : 
 
 All differences or questions that may arise on that portion of the frontier 
 between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico where the 
 Colorado and the Rio Grande Rivers form the boundary line, whether such differ- 
 ences or questions in the bed of the aforesaid Rio Grande and that of the Colo- 
 rado River, or of works that may be constructed in said rivers, or of any other 
 cause affecting the boundary line, shall be submitted for examination and decision 
 to an International Boundary Commission, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction 
 in the case of said differences or questions. 
 
 When owing to natural causes, any change shall take place in the bed of the 
 Rio Grande or in that of the Colorado River, in that portion thereof wherein those 
 rivers form the boundary line between the two countries, which may affect the 
 Taoundary line, notice of that fact shall he given by the proper local authorities 
 on both sides to their respective Commissioners of the International Boundary 
 Commission, on receiving such notice it shall be the duty of the said Commission 
 to repair to the place where the change has taken place or the question has arisen, 
 to make a personal examination of such change, to compare it with the bed of the 
 river, as it was before the change took place, as shown by the surveys and to decide 
 -whether it has occurred through avulsion or erosion, for the effects of Articles 
 I and II of the convention of November 12, 1884; having done this it shall make 
 .suitable annotations on the surveys of the boundary line. 
 
 Article V, already referred to, reads in full as follows : 
 
 Whenever the local authorities on any point of the frontier between the United 
 States of America and the United States of Mexico, in that portion in which the 
 Rio Grande and the Colorado River form the boundary line between the two 
 countries, shall tliink that works are being constructed, in either of those rivers, 
 such as are prohibited by Article III of the Convention of November 12, 1884, or 
 by Article VII of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo of February 2, 1848, they shall 
 so notify their respective Commissioners, in order that the latter may at once 
 submit the matter to the International Boundary Commission, and that said 
 
 31 
 
(.'iiiiiiiii>-i<iii mav piocicd. in aiiorilaiur with tin- i»r<>\ isiiiii> «.|' tin- f<>ren<iiiij{ ar- 
 ticlo, to (U'ciilc wlutlirr tlu- work is anions llu- miinlKT (if thoM- wliich arc ponnittctl, 
 or of thosi- \vhii!i arr prohiliitcd In tlv- stipulations of those troalics. 
 
 Tlu- Commission may iirovisionally siispmd tin- construction of the works 
 in (|iicstion jicndinij the invcstiKati(«n of the matter, and if it shall fail to a^ree 
 on this point, the works >-hall he suspended, at the nistance of one of tiie two 
 Governments. 
 
 It is tlu n lore s ■( n liiat the -o-ialled llorcon Cut o(T amonnis to a "waterway 
 to shorten the n;i\ i^ahU' ilistaiice" forh'ddeii h\ Article III. of ilie convention of 
 
 It aisn api)ears that hy .\rticle I of the latter convention, any (picstitin con- 
 cerninij this cnt-o(T heinjj; one which "«rows out of altercations * in the bed 
 of the * Rio (Irande and also of works ''" constructed in said river," is 
 therefore one proper to he sulnnitted for examination to the International I'.oun<i- 
 ary Commission, which h.is "exclusive juris<liction" over Mich cases. 
 
 h'inally, inasmuch as it is specifically provideil that the Conmiission may 
 suspend the construction of any wiirk peiidiiiff its examination, it would have hecn 
 within the coini)etencc of the Commission to susjjend work upon the llorcon 
 Cut-olT. had the Commission passe<l upon the acts hefore the work was completed. 
 
 The (piestion now arises as to the authority of the Commission after having 
 prtdiounced the cut-ofF a violation nf the tre.ity to i)rocee<l to fjive redress fur such 
 violation. 
 
 It would seem that the treaty proviiles no method wherehy the decisions of 
 the Conmiission could he enforced exce|)t throuj^h an ajipeal to the ordin.iry judicial 
 process providinjf for vindicating riijhts secured hy treaty. 
 
 In other words, the houndary convention of 18,^9 has set up a si)ecial commis- 
 sion with authority to decide a certain kind of (|ucstion. Once this Commission 
 has deciiled a (|Uestion, as it were, in the convention, and is entitled to the sanction 
 of any other treaty jirovision, and anyone violatinp; it or refusing to ohcy any order 
 made hy the Commission within its jurisdiction,, is in the position of refusing to 
 recognize rights secured hy treaty, and is liahlc to the regular processes of the 
 law for securing redress in such a case, hut the treaty provides no methrid whereby 
 the Commission itself may execute its decisions. In the present instance, the Com- 
 mission has pron'ninced the llorcon C ul-ofT a violation of the treaty. Its decision 
 in this resjiect is hy .Article I made exclusive, and it would seem conclusive. It 
 rem.iins for the (iovernment or jirivate parties interested to sue upon this decision 
 in the i)roper hVderal or .State Courts, very much as suit may he brought upon 
 a judgnunt. ♦ * * 
 
 .1. M. S. 
 
 i )i I'VRT.Mi NT OK Statk. W \S II I N(. I o\ . July 2u. 19l)7. 
 HKKiAiiiiK Ijkmkai. .\.\son Mm.ls, I'. S. .\., Rcliicd, 
 
 .Imrricmi Mcuthcr of the I iitcnialioital {H'alcr) lUmtuhiiy 
 
 Comiitissicit. I'nili'd Stales diid .Ui'.ritu. !l\isliiiti;ti>ii. /). C. 
 
 Sik; I enclose herewith, for your information, pages J3(> to J54, inclusive, of 
 the advance sheets of the "Opinions of the Attorney (ieiieral," containing a copy 
 of .\ttoriiey (jeneral Bonaparte's letter of May lOth last, giving his o|>inion as to 
 whether the present -talutory provisions enable the lindings of your Commission to 
 be given effect, in the matter of diversion, near llorcon Ranch, of the waters of 
 the Ri" (irande by the \mericaii Rio 'irande Land and Irrigation Comiiany. 
 
 32 
 
I also enclose herewith, for your confidential information, a copy of the De- 
 partment's letter to the Attorney General, of the 22d ultimo, expressing the opinion 
 that it is desirable to institute and maintain a suit against the offending corpora- 
 tion, to compel the restoration of the river channel as it was. 
 
 I am. Sir, your obedient servant, Robert Bacon, 
 
 Acting Secretary. 
 
 MEXICAN BOUNDARY— DIVERSION OF THE RIO GRANDE. 
 
 The authority of the International Water Boundary Commission, under the conven- 
 tion of 1889 (26 Stat., 1512) with Mexico, is restricted to the determination of 
 questions respecting the boundary alone, and does not extend to the adjudication 
 of private rights and liabilities. 
 
 The Conmiission having found that the American Rio Grande Land and Irrigation 
 Company, by the construction of its works, which changed the channel of the 
 Rio Grande at a point forming the boundary line between the United States 
 and Mexico, violated the stipulations of that treaty, the judgment is binding upon 
 both countries, and the Commission is functus officio as regards the carrying: 
 into effect of their decision. 
 
 The Federal statutes (sec. 563, Rev. Stat., and act of August 13, 1888, sec. 1 ; 25 Stat.^ 
 433) provide a right of action and a forum to citizens of Mexico who have been 
 injured by the action of the irrigation company. 
 
 It is the duty of the United States to vindicate the injury done to Mexico regarding: 
 the boundary line, and to that end the United States may proceed by bill in 
 equity to obtain mandatory relief in some appropriate form to compel the 
 restoration of the status quo ante. 
 
 Opinion of Attorney General Harmon (21 Op., 274) distinguished. 
 
 Department of Justice, May 16, 1907. 
 
 Sir : Your letter of April 20th submits certain findings of the International! 
 Water Boundary Commission, and requests my opinion as to whether or not the 
 present statutory provisions enable the findings of the Commission to be given effect. 
 
 The Commission investigated a complaint by the Mexican authorities in relation) 
 to the diversion of the waters of the Rio Grande by the American Rio Grande Land 
 and Irrigation Company on the American side near Horcon Ranch, Mexico, and 
 found : 
 
 "That the said American Rio Grande Land and Irrigation Company did wrong- 
 fully and knowingly cause a change in the current channel of the Rio Grande where 
 it constituted the boundary line between the United States of Mexico and the United 
 States of America, by artificial means, and in direct violation of Article III of the 
 convention of November 12, 1884, between the two governments, and if said Article 
 III is applied, the change in the running channel of the river produces no alteration 
 of the boundary line, which still continues in the old bed of the river. 
 
 "The Commissioners are of opinion that indemnity should be made for this 
 wrong, but they do not understand that the treaties under which it was organized 
 and under which this investigation was conducted confers upon it jurisdiction over 
 the title to land, damage to property, the control of riparian rights, or the enforcing" 
 -of reparation for wrongs by offenders for changing the channel of the river where 
 it constitutes tlie boundary." 
 
 The boundary convention of 1889 with Mexico gives to the InternationaF 
 Boundary Commission exclusive jurisdiction to decide the differences and questions- 
 growing out of natural or artificial changes in the beds of the Rio Grande and 
 Colorado rivers where they form the boundary line between the United States and 
 
 33 
 
Mexico. Tin- .•lutliority i)f tlu- 0)mnii><sii>n iindi-r that tri-aty is restricted to the 
 dctenuinutioii of iiui-^tiotis re>-|K-i-liii>{ tlu- huiindary alone, and does not extend to 
 the adjudication i>l priv.iti- rinliis and iiahilities. The Commission has found here, 
 within its juris(hctioii. that the American Rio (Irande Land and Irrigation Company, 
 hy the construction of its works chanKinK tlie channel of the river, violated the 
 sti|)ulations of that treaty, wliicli refers to and incorporates the sti|)uIations of 
 earlier treaties. 
 
 I'.otli Conmiissioners havinj.; agreed to this tindinjr or decision, tluir judgment is 
 hiiidiiijj; uptm I'oth countries l)y the express provision of Article VIII of that treaty. 
 Manifestly the Commission is fuiiclus nfRcio in this matter, and the (luestion is, how 
 can their decision he carried into effect ? 
 
 The (|uestion of suspending the construction of ijrohiliited works, which is au- 
 thorized and directed hy the treaty, does not arise here, hecause it appears from the 
 report of the joint envjineers that the work had pro^ressd so far as to Ik- beyond 
 control. 
 
 .\s to iiuUnuiity for injuries wiiich may have heen caused to citizens of Mexico, 
 I am of opinion that existing statutes provide a right of action and a forum. Sec- 
 tion 563, Revised Statutes, clause 16. gives to district courts of the United States 
 jurisdiction "of all suits brought by any alien for a tort only in violation of the 
 law of nations or of a treaty of the L'nited States." The act of August 13, 1888, 
 amending and superseding earlier laws (25 Stat.. 433. sec. 1), gives to the circuit 
 courts of the L'nited States "original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the 
 several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity ♦ * * 
 in which there shall be * * * a controversy between citizens of a State and 
 foreign states, citizens, or subjects, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive 
 of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid [$2.1X)()1." 
 
 I rei)eat that the statutes thus provide a forum and a right of action. 1 can not, 
 of course, undertake to say whether or not a suit under either of the foregoing 
 statutes would be successful. That would depend upon whether the diversion of the 
 water was an injury to substantial rights of citizens of Mexico under the principles 
 of international law or by treaty, and could only be determined l)y judicial decision. 
 In a case where the diversion of water for irrigation occurred within the l'nited 
 States above the jKiint where the Rio (irande becomes the international boundary. 
 Attorney General Harmon held that the L'nited States is under no obligation or 
 liability by treaty or the principles of international law, but he did not consider a 
 diversion, as here, wlure the river is tlie bi'undary. nor tlie liability of private 
 parties in such case. 
 
 As to the public tort, so to speak — ^thai is. the injur\ to Mexico in respect to the 
 boundary line by changing the channel of the river — I incline to the view that a 
 treaty of the L'nited States, which is part of the supreme law of the land, having 
 been violated, a remedy exists to redress that wrong. The L'nited States owes the 
 <iiUy and has the right of vindicating the treaty. It can hardly Ik doubted that in a 
 proper case calling for prevention the L'nited States may proceed by bill in equity 
 to obtain an injunction, and that in a case like the present, where the prohibited 
 thing has been done, the United States may proceed in the same way to obtain 
 mamlalory relief in souie appropriate form to compel the restoration of the status 
 quo ante. 1 t'md provision for this course in the act of 1S88. already referred to. 
 That act gives jurisdiction to the circuit courts of the Lhiite<l States of all suits of a 
 civil nature at connnon law or in equity in which the United Slates are plaint itTs or 
 
 34 
 
petitioners. I am of the opinion that the limitation of jurisdictional amount in that 
 act does not apply to such suits. 
 
 Whether, in view of all the circumstances and the efifect upon the various 
 Mexican as well as American interests involved, it is wise or expedient for the 
 United States to file a bill against the oflfending corporation to compel the restora- 
 tion of the river channel as it was is not a matter for me to determine, although it 
 is undoubtedly that the question whether legal proceedings should actually be un- 
 dertaken is finally referable to me. Awaiting an expression of your views upon 
 this point, I have the honor to remain. Very respectfully, 
 
 Charles J. Bonaparte. 
 
 The Secretary of State. 
 
 June 22, 1907. 
 The Honorable, The Attorney General. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th 
 ultimo, giving your opinion as to whether the present statutory provisions enable 
 the findings of the International (Water) Boundary Commission, United States 
 and Mexico, to be given efifect, in the matter of the diversion, near Horcon Ranch, 
 of the waters of the Rio Grande by the American Rio Grande Land and Irriga- 
 tion Company. 
 
 In reply I have the honor to say that, under all the circumstances, the Secretary 
 of State is of the opinion that it is desirable to institute and maintain a suit against 
 the offending corporation to compel the restoration of the river channel as it was. 
 The magnitude of the pecuniary interests involved appears to the Secretary of 
 State to be quite unimportant as compared with the observance of good faith 
 on the part of the United States and the public evidence that will be given of the 
 purpose of the Government to insist upon the observance by citizens of the United 
 States of the treaty with Mexico as a part of the supreme law of the land. 
 
 I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 Alvey a. Adee, 
 Acting Secretary. 
 
 At the request of the Department of State the Department of Justice, 
 through the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, 
 brought a suit in equity against the American Rio Grande Land and 
 Irrigation Company in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern 
 District of Texas, and on the 5th day of December, 1911, the court 
 decreed, first, that the defendant company should transfer to the Mexi- 
 can complainants all of the land cut-off by the unlawful diversion; 
 second, that the defendants pay to the Mexican complainants the sum 
 of five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars for the damages occasioned to all 
 the Mexican owners ; third, that the defendant pay to the United States 
 two thousand ($2,000.00) dollars to cover cost and expenses incident 
 to surveying and marking the international boundary in the old river 
 bed; and fourth, that as a penalty for violating the treaties the de- 
 fendant pay to the United States the sum of ten thousand ($10,000.00) 
 dollars. 
 
 A copy of the bill, answer and decree follow: 
 
 35 
 
lULL 
 
 i\ iiii-: cikci'iT conrr oi nil-: lxitrd states i\ .\xi> 
 
 I'OR rill'. S()iriii:i<.\ distkict oi' tI':xas, 
 
 r.i<« )\\ .\s\ iLi.i". i)i\ isiox. 
 
 1 N IvjITl V. X'o. 41. 
 
 Tiir: r.Mii:!) Si.\ti:s ok Ami-.uka. i;t ai.s., Co^if'hiiiiant. 
 
 Z'S. 
 
 Till". Amiuua.n 1\1(i (Ikandi, I, and iK: I ukii.aiio.n Com i-ann', Ih-jituiant, 
 To the 1 lotiorabh' Jiidijcs nf saiii Court: 
 
 I. 
 
 Conic the I'nitcd States of AiiK-rica. thrtiuj^h Lock Mcl)anicl. 1".><1., 
 I'liitod States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, h\- and at 
 the chrection of the Attorney ( icncral of the I'nited States; and also 
 conies SefK)!' Don Adclherto A. Ar^ueiies, Trustee, a resitlent and citizen 
 of the City of II. .Mataiiioros. in the State of Taniauli()as. and Republic 
 of Mexico, joiniii}.,' herein as coinplainant. the I'nited States of America 
 conscntinjj thereto, in full and "general representation of all of the rights, 
 interests, claims and (Iemand> of all citizens of the Republic of Mexico, 
 and of all claimants and owners of the lands and properties situated in 
 Mexico claimed to have suffered damage, he being thereunto duly au- 
 thorized and designated so to act, and especially empowered to receive, 
 distribute and convey, as such trustee, full title to and possession of any 
 award of damages, either in land or money, or both, which niav be ar- 
 judged to him as Trustee coiii])lainant herein, said Trustee being the 
 representative in particular of the following named persons, claimants- 
 and owners of land claimed to have been damage<l, they being residents 
 and citizens of tlu- .'^^tate of Tamaulipas, Republic of Mexico, to wit: 
 Lie. Joaquin Arguelle>. Lie. Jose Argiielles, Sehorita (.dnsuelo .\rguelles, 
 Don Manuel Caiitu and .'^chores De^iderio Cantu. Ignacio Laiitu. ICmilio 
 Zamora, b'elicitas (larcia. IVimitivo Ilinojosa. Reducindo ( )livares, 
 Geroninio llazaii. Ignacio Castaneda. Jorge Cantu. Julian Caiuii. Xativi- 
 dad Cantu, Jose .Angel Hernandez, Santos tantu, lialtazar Lopez, and 
 the Senoras Manuela ( iarza X'iuda de Cantu, I'etra Cisncr«)s N'iuda de 
 Hinojosa, b'rancisca l-'rau^tra \ inda ile I'az.in. Aiitoiiia Rodriguez \ iuda 
 <le Cantu. ami .\ntonia (Iarza \ iuda de liernandez, and brings this their 
 bill against the .\nierican Rio (Irande Land & Irrigation C"onipany, a 
 corporation, organized under and by virtue of the laws of the State of 
 
 36 
 
Texas, having its ofifice and principal place of business at the town of 
 Mercedes, in Hidalgo County, Texas, in said Southern District, of which 
 Company John F. Shepley, a resident of St. Louis, Missouri, is the 
 President, and upon whom service of subpoena may be had ; and for cause 
 of complaint your orator respectfully represents : 
 
 II. 
 That defendant is the owner and in possession of a large tract of 
 land situated in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties, Texas, comprising fifty 
 thousand acres, more or less, called the Capisallo Land District, being 
 parts of those original Spanish grants designated as the "Llano Grande" 
 now in Hidalgo County, Texas, and the "La Feria," now in Cameron 
 County, Texas, situated in said Southern District of Texas. That said 
 Capisallo Land District has for its Southern boundary the Rio Grande 
 River, which river also forms the International Territorial boundary line 
 between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico. 
 That a map of said Capisallo Land District is attached hereto, marked 
 "Exhibit A," and prayed to be taken and considered as a part hereof. 
 
 III. 
 
 That it is defendant's purpose to develop, cultivate and utilize its 
 lands by the establishment of an extensive system of irrigation, and to 
 that end has cleared its lands, built canals, reservoirs, roads, towns, 
 bridges, a complete electrical power station and constructed on the bank 
 of the Rio Grande River, in Hidalgo County, Texas, in the "Llano 
 Grande" Grant, and within the said Capisallo Land District at the site 
 50 marked and shown on "Exhibit A" a pumping station, and there in- 
 stalled very powerful engines, together with mechanical appliances neces- 
 sary to draw and lift into its canal system from the Rio Grande such 
 quantities of water as are desirous for irrigation. 
 
 IV. 
 
 That during the months of June and July, 1906, the defendant 
 Company, and its servants,- agents and employes, they then and there 
 acting with the knowledge and approval of the defendant, did wrong- 
 fully, unlawfully and knowingly, by artificial means, cause a diversion 
 and change to be made in the current channel of the Rio Grande where 
 it constituted the boundary line between the United States of Mexico 
 and the Llnited States of America, some hundreds of yards below the 
 site of the pumping station, at that point in Hidalgo County, Texas, in 
 said Capisallo Land District, shown and indicated on the map drawn by 
 W. W. Follett, Consulting Engineer to the International (Water) Boun- 
 
 Z7 
 
dary L'oinniission, hereto attached, niarkeil "lixhihil I'.' and prayed to 
 be taken and considere<l as a part hereof, such divei>ii>ii and change 
 beinj^ contrarv to tlie provisions ,>\ existinj^ treaties hetueen the said 
 L'niteil States of America and the said United States of Mexict). par- 
 ticularlv heinj; contrarv and in violation of the provisions of Article \\l 
 of the r.ountlarv (. onventii in Treaty between llie two said ( iovernmetits, 
 CLincludcd Xo\(.inl)cr \2, 1SS4, as follows, to wit: 
 
 "Art. 111. Xo artificial change in the navigable course of the 
 river, bv buibling jetties. i)iers, or obstructions which may tend to 
 delleci the current or produce deposits of allu\ium, or by dredg- 
 ing to deepen another than the original channel under the Treaty 
 when there is more than one channel, or by cutting waterways to 
 shorten the navigable distance. >hall be permitted to affect or alter 
 the dividing line as determind by the aforesaid COmmissicjiis in 
 1852 or as determined by Article I hereof and under the reserva- 
 tion therein contained ; but the protection of the banks ou either 
 side from erosion by revetments of stone or other material not un- 
 dulv projecting into the current of the river shall not be deemed 
 an artilicial change." 
 
 And particularly being contrary to and in violation of Article \' of 
 the Boundary Convention Treaty between the two said governments, 
 concluded March 1. 1889, as follows, to wit: 
 
 ■'Art. \'. Whenever the local authorities on any i)oint vi the 
 frontier between the I'nited States of America and the I'nited 
 States of Mexico, in that portion in which the Rio (Irande and the 
 Colorado River form the boundary between the two countries, 
 shall think that works are being constructed, in either of th<:)se 
 rivers, such as are prohibited by Article ill of the Convention of 
 Xovember IJ. 1884. or by Article \ II of the Treaty of ( iuadalupe 
 Hidalgo of l'"ebruary 2, 1848, they shall so notify their respective 
 Commissioners in order that the latter may at once submit the 
 matter to the International boundary Commission, and that said 
 Commission may proceed, in accordance with the provisions of the 
 foregoing article, to examine the case, and that it may decide 
 whether the work is among the number of those which are per- 
 mitted, or of tho>e which are prohibited by the stipulations of 
 those treaties. 
 
 The Commission may provisionally suspend the construction of 
 the works in quotion pending the investigation t»f the matter, anti 
 if it shall fail to agree on this point, the works shall be sus- 
 pended at the instance of one of the two ( "lovernments." 
 
 And likewise contrary to the StatiUes and to International Law. 
 That such wrongful and imlaw ful diversion and change in the channel 
 of said Rio (Irande by defrndant. aforesaid, forming as it then did the 
 natural boimdarx line between the two said countries, established and 
 
 38 
 
fixed by treaty, even though the boundary itself be not thereby changed, 
 constitutes an act in contempt and in violation of the sovereign authority 
 and power of the two said Governments and distinctly violative of their 
 treaties and the statutes, having been so declared and found by the 
 International (Water) Boundary Commission, after due hearing as pro- 
 vided by Articles VII and VIII of the International Boundary Conven- 
 tion of 1889, as shown by the following extract from said findings: 
 
 " * ''^ * That the American Rio Grande Land and Irriga- 
 tion Company did wrongfully and knowingly cause a change in 
 the current channel of the Rio Grande where it constituted the 
 boundary line between the United States of American by artificial 
 means and in direct violation of Article III of the Convention of 
 November 12, 1884, between the two Governments, and if said 
 Article III is applied, the change in the running channel of the 
 river produces no alternative of the boundary line, which still 
 continues in the old bed of the river. 
 
 The Commissioners are of opinion that indemnity should be made 
 for this wrong, but they do not understand that the treaties under 
 which this investigation was conducted confers upon it jurisdic- 
 tion over the title of the land, damage to property, the control of 
 riparian rights, or the enforcing of reparation for wrongs by 
 offenders for changing the channel of the river where it consititutes 
 the boundary." 
 
 Which said finding and the Journal of the International Boundary 
 Commission, certified copy of which is attached hereto, and marked Ex- 
 hibit "C," No. 1163 — "C" No. 1164, and prayed to be taken and con- 
 sidered as part hereof. 
 
 VI.* 
 
 That by virtue of the terms and effect of existing treaties the two 
 said Governments, and particularly the Government of the United States 
 of America, complainant, became obligated, and all persons, corporations 
 and inhabitants within its territorial limits, particularly the American 
 Rio (jrande Land and Irrigation Company, defendant, became similarly 
 obligated, to vindicate, maintain, and continue in full force and effect 
 each and every provision, duty, obligation and requirement set out or 
 implied in the said existing treaties. That by the force and effect of law 
 and the said treaties, complainant, the United States of America, and the 
 said defendant became especially obligated to recognize and maintain the 
 Rio Grande as the boundary line between the two countries, as in the 
 treaties declared ; but with wilful and reckless disregard thereof the said 
 defendant did, during the months of June and July, 1906, as aforesaid, 
 
 *Attention is called to fact that in certified copy this section is numbered VI, 
 there being no number V. 
 
 39 
 
wronjjfully and unlaw fully cause ti) he cxcavat^'I a icrtaiu i.ana! or 
 troiicli and cau>f(l to be divcrti-d into said cliauiR-l the natural c<iui>c and 
 till' ontin- l)()dy of tlu' watcrtlow of the Rio (iramk-, thus artihi-ially con- 
 ihutiui,' sanu- over the lands of defendant for a di•^tanee nf alxiut eij^htecn 
 juuulreil feet, across the neck of a lonj^ bend in said river, creating a 
 new river bed at that ])oint several hundred yards below the punipinj^ 
 station, as shown <>n the ^aiil map i)f b'nj^'ineer I'ollett, beiu}^' Ivxhibit 
 "1>," thereby chan^Muj^' the course of the established and fi\e<l natural 
 international boundarv line and thus violatinj,' its duty to maintain said 
 natural line as re<|iiiri'(l liy llie treaties; and as a residt of its said wrong- 
 ful and unlawful acts, as aforesai<l, did inllicl injury and damage to the 
 United States of America, complainant, and to .Scnor Don Adelbertc* A. 
 Arguelles. 'J'rustee. co-complainant for the claimants .and owners of the 
 lands ojiposite the point of said diversion situated within the territorial 
 limits of the I'niled .St.ites of Mexico and State of Tamaulipas. in the 
 following particulars, to wit: 
 
 (1) To growing crops. (2) i^xpenses of constructing levees. (3) 
 Loss of land from erosion. (4) Loss of riparian rights. Which said 
 damages reasonably aggregate the sum of live thousand dollars. 
 
 The various particular items thereof an- set out and appear in the 
 report of W . W. l^tllett. Consulting ICngineer of the International 
 (Water) boundary L'ommission, dated March 3. 1908, a certified copy 
 of which is attached hereto, marked ■I'.xhibit D," Xo. 1198. and prayed 
 to be taken an<l considered as a part hereof. 
 
 \n. 
 
 In recognition nf the obligations ami dutie> imposed upmi com- 
 plainant, the I'nited .States of .America, by its treaties with the L'nited 
 State-> (if Mexico, and jxirticularly its f>bligation to maintain the fixed 
 intern.atiniial bound.iry line, to wit: The I\i" ( iramle in it^ natural course 
 and position, and because of its wrongful and unlawful change and 
 diversion in the course and current of tin- entire flow of the water of 
 sai<l river by said defendant c<>mp;iny heicinbefore spccificalK- charged; 
 tt) the end that it may obtain the relief to which it i^ iu^tK iiititled in 
 tlie premises, complainants pray the Court: 
 
 I'IRST. 
 To grant your writ of >ub])(ena directed to the said defendant, the 
 American Rio (irande Land and Irrigation C'ompany. requiring and 
 connnanding it to appear herein and to m:ike full, true, and complete 
 answer, but not under oath, to the several allegations herein contained. 
 
 40 
 
SECOND. 
 
 That the Court, by proper decree, compel the defendant, the Ameri- 
 can Rio Grande Land and Irrigation Company, to restore to its original 
 bed, course and channel the entire current and flow of water of the Rio 
 •Grande, so diverted as aforesaid, as well as in all other particulars to 
 make restoration of the status quo ante, as nearly as it may be as it 
 existed at and before the time of the wrongful and unlawful diversion 
 of the waters charged as aforesaid. 
 
 THIRD. 
 
 In the alternative, that if it should appear to the Court that it 
 is practically impossible to make such restoration, then to indemnify and 
 ■compensate the co-complainant, Sefior Don Adelberto A. Arguelles, 
 Trustee, for all of the owners of Mexican lands who have been damaged 
 by reason of the wrongful and unlawful acts of defendant, as aforesaid: 
 
 (1) That defendant be required to convey to complainant, Senor 
 Don Adelberto A. Arguelles, Trustee, by delivery of its warranty deed, 
 for the benefit of all of said owners of Mexican lands so damaged, all 
 that tract or parcel of land belonging to said defendant company that 
 was "cut-ofif," or cast upon the southern banks of the Rio Grande by 
 said wrongful acts of the defendant, as shown on said Exhibit "B" and 
 designated "U. S. Soil." 
 
 (2) That defendant be adjudged to pay to complainant, Sefior 
 Don Adelberto A. Arguelles, Trustee, the sum of five thousand dollars 
 for the benefit of all of said owners of Mexican lands so damaged, as 
 hereinbefore specified, as full compensation and settlement therefor. 
 
 (3) That defendant be adjudged to pay to complainant, the United 
 States of America, the sum of two thousand ($2,000) dollars to cover 
 costs and expense incident to surveying and marking the international 
 boundary line now represented by the former bed or channel of the Rio 
 Grande before the unlawful diversion of the stream was made by de- 
 fendant, as aforesaid. 
 
 (4) That as a penalty for violating the provisions of the treaties, as 
 aforesaid, in making, by artificial means, the unlawful change, diversion 
 and interference with the natural channel, course and flow of the waters 
 of the International boundary line stream, the Rio Grande, by reason 
 of the wrongful acts complained of, the defendant company be adjudged 
 to pay to complainant, the Cnited States of America, the sum of not less 
 than ten thousand ($10,000) dollars, or such further sum as the Court 
 in its discretion may see fit to decree. 
 
 41 
 
'lli.it C(iiii|)l;iin;int Ikivc siuh other ainl I'uiiIkt relief ;i^ to the iDmt 
 may seem nuel ;iii<l proper ami wliicli e(|uity may require, ami for costs. 
 
 Lock McDanikl, 
 I'nltiil Slatis Attorney for the 
 
 United States of Ameriea. 
 
 A. A. Akcl'kijJ'.s. 
 Trustee for all of the elaiinatits ami 
 owners of lands in Mexico claimed 
 to have been dannii^ed by defendant. 
 
 R. E. 1 1(11. 1, AN I). 
 
 .Ittorney for Co-Complainant Trustee. 
 
 42 
 
EXHIBIT "A."* 
 
 Map of the 
 
 CAPISALLO DISTRICT 
 
 of the LANDS of the 
 
 AMERICAN RIO GRANDE LAND and IRRIGATION COMPANY 
 
 situated in 
 
 HIDALGO and CAMERON COUNTIES, 
 TEXAS. 
 
 *Not printed. 
 
 43 
 
Kxiiii'.rr -v,."* 
 
 Map sliowini,^ the iiiitural course i>f the l\io Grande and Cut-off; 
 "To accompany Iveport of March 3, 1908, on 'Damages in Ilorcon Ranche 
 Case.' " 
 
 A true copy, 
 
 AxsoN Mills. 
 
 Co)>iiiiissio)icr. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 WiLiiUR Kkhlinger, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 ♦Map attached to last pajj;*-' i^ practically tlu- same. 
 
 44 
 
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 
 
 Exhibit C. No. 1163. 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 Department of State. 
 
 To All to Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greeting: 
 
 I certify that the documents hereto annexed are true copies from the files, 
 and records of this Department.* 
 
 In testimony whereof I, P. C. Knox, Secretary of State, have here- 
 unto caused the Seal of the Department of State to be affixed and my 
 (Seal) name to be subscribed by the Chief of the Bureau of Citizenship of the 
 said Department, at the City of Washington, this 2nd day of August,. 
 19C9. 
 
 P. C. Knox, 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 By R. W. Flournoy, Jr., 
 Chief, Bureau of Citizenship. 
 
 [See pages 3 to .S and 9 to 22. J 
 
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 
 
 Exhibit C. No. 1164. 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 Department of State. 
 
 To All to Whotn These Presents Shall Come, Greeting: 
 
 I certify that the document hereto annexed is a true copy from the files of 
 this Department.* 
 
 In testimony whereof I, P. C. Knox, Secretary of State, have here- 
 unto caused the Seal of the Department of State to be affixed and my 
 (Seal) name to be subscribed by the Chief of the Bureau of Citizenship of the 
 said Department, at the Citv of Washington, this 2nd day of August,. 
 1909. 
 
 P. C. Knox, 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 By R. W. Flournoy, Jr., 
 Chief, Bureau of Citizenship. 
 
 *For the contents of the annexed document the Department assumes no re- 
 sponsibility. 
 
 45 
 
DEPARTMENT OE STATE. 
 Intkrnatio.nal (Watf.r) Bouniiary Commission, Unitko Statks and Mexico. 
 
 El Paso, Texas. December 11. 1907. 
 The Honorable The Secretary of Slate, irashiiif^tnu. D. C. 
 
 Sir: I have tlie honor to transmit herewith Joint Journal, in Spanish and 
 English, of December 10, 1907, wherein the Mexican Commissioner states that the 
 parties in interest in the "Horcon Ranch Case'' are again complaining that no 
 action has as yet been taken by the two governments to make redress for the injury 
 sustained by them by reason of the change in the course of the Rio Grande made 
 by the American Rio Grande Land and Irrigation Company and requests that the 
 Commission call the attention of the two governments to the matter, to the end 
 that proper action be taken in the premises. 
 I have the honor to be, sir, 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Anson Mills. 
 American Commissioner. 
 
 46 
 
El Paso, Texas, December 10, 1907. 
 
 The Joint Commission met at the ofifice of the Mexican Commissioner 
 at 10 o'clock A. M. 
 
 The Mexican Commissioner stated that he had received a com- 
 munication from his Government in connection with the Horcon Ranch 
 Case from which it appeared that the local authorities and the parties in 
 interest are complaining again that no action had been taken by the two 
 Governments to give redress for the injury and damages sustained by 
 them by reason of the change made in the course of the Rio Grande by 
 the American Rio Grande Land and Irrigation Company; that the de- 
 cision of the Commission was to be assumed as approved as no notice of 
 disapproval had been received within the thirty days specified by the 
 treaty ; that as he had no official notice of any action having been taken 
 in this case he requested that the American Commissioner join him in 
 respectfully requesting the two Governments to take the matter up with 
 a view of some proper action in the premises, as he considered it very 
 important that the decisions of the Commission be executed as promptly 
 as practicable as such delays seriously affected the prestige of the Com- 
 mission along the border and its usefulness to the two Governments. 
 
 To which the American Commissioner replied that he had been 
 officially informed that steps were being taken by his Department, 
 through the Department of Justice, to put into effect the decision and 
 recommendations of the Joint Commission in the Horcon Ranch Case, 
 and in view of the fact that these new complaints are covered by our 
 former decision in this case (Joint Journal of October 24, 1906), he felt 
 that he could do nothing further than call the attention of his Depart- 
 ment to this new incident in the matter. 
 
 The Mexican Commissioner replied that he was satisfied with the 
 assurance of the American Commissioner that action was being taken by 
 his Government in the Horcon Ranch Case and that his intention to call 
 the attention of his Department to the recent complaints in the case was 
 also agreeable to him. 
 
 The Commission then proceeded to other business. 
 
 Anson Mills, F. R. Puga, 
 
 Wilbur Keblinger, Cesar Canseco. 
 
 47 
 
Kxliilul 1). N.. 119S. Report of luigitu-fr 1". .licit. 
 
 IXn i:i) STATKS OF AMKRICA. 
 
 1 )i;i'.\kTMi;NT OK Stati. 
 
 To all lo ll'liom Tlicsc I'rcsciils Sluill Cuiiw, Grcctiiii^: 
 
 I Certify That the document hereto annexed is a true copy fmni tlie files and 
 records of this Department.* 
 
 In testimony whereof I, C. P. Kno.x. Secretary of State, have here- 
 unto caused the Sea! of the Department of State to be affixed and my 
 (Seal) name to he suhscril)C(l hy the Chief i^f the Bureau of Citizenship of the 
 said Department, at the City of Washington, this 3rd day of Auyust, 
 
 1909. 
 
 P. C. Knox, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 By R. W. Fi^iRxov, Jr.. 
 Chief. Bureau of Citizenship. 
 
 *For the contents of the anntxed docunuiu the Dii)artment assumes no respon- 
 sibility. 
 
 48 
 
M/D EXHIBIT D. 
 
 Copy. 
 
 depart:mi-nt of state. 
 
 interxatioxal (water) boundary commissiox, united 
 states and mexico. 
 
 Treaties of 1884 and 1889. 
 
 Damages in "Horcon Ranch Case." 
 
 El P.\so. Texas, March 3, 1908. 
 General Anson Mills, 
 Commissioner, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dk.kr Gener.\l: 
 
 I beg to acknowledge receipt of j-our letter of February 14th stating that the 
 Department wished me to furnish a report as to the actual damages suffered by 
 the Mexican land owners from the Horcon Cutoff. 
 
 T have the honor of sulimitting the following report: 
 
 After receiving your letter I visited the lands in question in order to fuliv 
 inform myself as to the conditions there existing. This could not be done on 
 former visits, owing to the flood conditions of the country. 
 
 I attach hereto a map on scale of 1 :20000 which shows the Alexican ranches 
 involved. These are. in their order. Cipres, La Lcona, La LTnion, Horcon, La Bolsa, 
 Sabinito, Palmita, Sierra Mojada and La Palma. These are all small collections 
 of jacales, except La Palma. which is of more importance but was, apparently, not 
 much affected by the Cutoff. 
 
 Positas ranch at the upper end is not included, as it w^as materially benefited 
 by the change. 
 
 The damage resulting from the cutting, in July, 1906, of the Horcon bend by 
 the .-Xmerican Rio Grande Land and Irrigation Company, may be classed under five 
 heads, as follows : 
 
 1st. Damage to growing crops when the Cutoff was made. 
 
 2nd. Damage due to the cost of leveeing to keep water away from buildings. 
 
 3rd. Damage caused by the eroding away of land. 
 
 4th. Permanent damage due to increased overflow. 
 
 5th. Damage due to loss of river frontage. 
 
 1st. Damage to Grou'iag Crops. 
 
 In July, 1906, the river rose quite suddenly, jumping from gauge 4.7 at Mata- 
 moros, on July 4th. to 13.1 on July 11th. 
 
 The general overflow stage was reached at about 12 ft. or a little less. The 
 river remained above 13 ft. until Sept. 15th. The length of the flood was unpre- 
 cedented, and it came earlier in the season than usual. It was also higher than 
 ?ver 1)efore. The highest Matamoros record prior to 1906 was 13.5 in July, 1905. 
 During the 1906 flood it reached 14.2, and was 14.0 or over 44 days during the 
 overflow. 
 
 49 
 
Ill m\ npt.rt <>{ Si])!. Nili. l'>)(>. to tlu- Si-irctary of Slate. I stated that the 
 iiittiiiR: of tliis bciul had pn)l>ahly increased tlie dcptli of overflow on the Ilorcon 
 ranch lands sonu-what. possihiy six inches. I'nrther investigation confirms this 
 iipinion, so far as it applies to 1906. Since then, the river has scoured out so 
 that the flood plane is prohalily the same as Iiefnre the cutoff. This six inches 
 was on to|) of a flood which would have submerged all tlie cropping land of 
 Ilorcon and neighluiring ranches from one to three feet any way. This additional 
 six inches could not have largely increased the damage which the flood would 
 have caused without the cutoff. The rainfall here is not sufficient to raise a crop 
 and the only land planted is that which overflows. The flood water soaks into 
 the land and then a crop can he raised the next year. Tn 1903 there was only a 
 short overfltnv. and the crop of 1906 was consequently poor and the area planted 
 small. The July flood caught the crop, such as it was. partially unharvestcd. and 
 a loss resulted. T cannot see. however, how this addiitonal six inches could have 
 materially added to the loss. Tn the ITorcon. I^t Bolsa, and La Palma and inter- 
 vening ranches, there was probably some 30(1 acres under cultivation. I'ive dollars 
 per acre will easily cover the loss due to the extra six inches of overflow, or 
 $1,500.00 in all. 
 
 T will say that as a result of this long-continued overflow of 1906 a bounti- 
 ful crop was raised in 1907. There was no overflow in 1907, so that this spring 
 the land is dry and the outlook for a crop very poor. 
 
 2nd. Cost flf Leveeing. 
 
 .\round the Ilorcon and La Piolsa and intervening ranches small levees about 
 one foot in height, were thrown up to keep the water away from the houses. 
 Probably $200.00 would cover the cost of these. While our luaps made in 1898 
 show these ranch buildings all above overflow, the levels showed that the ground 
 was only 0.1 to 0.3 meters (4 to 12 inches) above the former flood planes. So 
 that the 1906 flood fwhich was. as stated above, six inches above the highest former 
 records at Matamoros") would have put the ground at the houses awash or under 
 water without the cutolT. Still it is fair to cbargr this $3¥).0() to the latter. 
 
 3r(I. /)(/(»(/^'i' /';■(>;» lirodiiif^ J.aud. 
 
 Owing to the faulty location of this cutoff, some land will be eroded awa\ 
 from the point below it. The maximum will lie some 80 acres. Its vahu' is prol)- 
 ably $20.00 per acre, or $1,600.00 in all. 
 
 4tli. I'eiiit.nient Ihiiiutge frmit liieretiseil Overfloii: 
 
 1 do not believe that any such damage will result. The channel has sCoured out 
 so that future floods will have their norm.il r.inge. 
 
 5th. Ihniui^e due to Loss of Rirer Froiitai^e. 
 
 Cipres, La Leona and La Union ranches are entirely deprived of river front- 
 age ancl Hereon i)artially so. What this loss meiins in dollars and cents it is im- 
 possible to say. Hut it could be offset by treating the piece of land cut off as a 
 banco, transferring it to Mexico, and re<iuiring the .\merican Rio (Irande Land 
 and Irrigation Company to transfer title to the Mexican government, when it 
 
 50 
 
could be divided among the ranches in such a way as to restore to each its river 
 frontage. The total area of this "banco" is about 350 acres, measuring to the 
 center of the old channel. Of this about 260 acres is fine land. At a valuation 
 of $20.00 per acre, it is worth $5200.00. This is, in my opinion, much more than 
 the value of the lost river frontage. 
 
 I took a picture of the main Horcon ranch buildings and show it on the next 
 sheet. There are two other houses like these two and three other poorer jacals. 
 Their total cost probably does not exceed $500.00. When at the point where the 
 picture was taken, I asked Mr. Cantu, who lived there, how deep the overflow of 
 1906 was in the road in front of his house, he replied "una vara y media" — four 
 feet two inches. On Sept. 6th, 1906, I was at this place when the water was the 
 highest and noted an overflow there of nine inches in the road. This was the 
 maximum. 
 
 I thus make the total actual damage as follows : 
 
 1. Damage to growing crops $1500.00 
 
 2. Cost of leveeing 200.00 
 
 3. Damage from eroding land 1600.00 
 
 4. Permanent damage from increased overflow 
 
 5. Damage from loss of river frontage (to be compensated by transfer 
 
 of land) 
 
 Total $3300.00 
 
 and the transfer of the land cut off, worth about $5200.00 
 
 I do not wish to be understood as saying that the loss of river frontage is 
 worth $5200.00 but that the transfer of this land, worth about that amount, will 
 compensate the owners of the ranches involved for their loss. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 (Signed) W. W. Follett, 
 Consulting Engineer. 
 
 Endorsements: In Equity No. 41. In the Circuit Court of the United States 
 for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division. The United States of 
 America, et als., Complainants, vs. The American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation 
 Company, Defendant. Bill in equity. Filed 13th day of Nov. 1911. C. Dart, 
 Clerk, By Frank A. Creager, Deputy. 
 
 51 
 
].\ riii". ciKcii r (•( )ik r < )i" iiii". rxrrED stati-is i-( )k iiii". 
 soiriii'-Kx Disrku T ( »i' ri:.\.\s. at r.Rowxsx ii.i.i-:. 
 
 I. C. Dart. Clerk of the Circuit C uurt of the I'liited States for the 
 Southern District of Texas, in the I'ifth C"ircuit antl District afore>ai(l. 
 do hereby certif\ the foregoins^ to be a true and correct coj))' of the 
 original bill, except as to l"lxhil)its "A" an<l "W" in cause Xo. 41 on the 
 Equity Docket of said Court, entitled ihc Cnited States of America 
 ct als. vs. The American Rio ( irande Land ami Irrigation Company, as 
 the same now appears on file in my office. 
 
 To certify which, witness my hand and the seal of said court, at 
 llrownsville, in said district, this the 30th day of December, A. D. ]*>\\. 
 
 C. Dart, 
 (Seal) CIcrh U. S. Circuit Court, Southern District of Texas. 
 
 Hy 1*"k.\\k a. Cki:.\<;i:k. 
 
 Deputy. 
 
 12 
 
ANSWER 
 
 IX THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN AND 
 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, BROVVNS- 
 MLLE DIVISION. 
 
 In Equity. X'^o. 41. 
 
 The Uxitei) Stati:s, kt als.. Complainants, 
 
 vs. 
 
 Till-: Am]':ki(a.\ Rio (iKaxdi-: La.xd & Irrigation Company^ Defendant. 
 
 To the Honorable Jiid(/es of Said Court: 
 
 X'^ow comes the American Rio Grande Land and Irrigation Com- 
 pany, defendant in the above entitled cause, and hereby expressly waiving 
 the issuance of subpena, and acknowledging service thereof, and makes 
 this its answer to the complaint of the plaintiffs, the United States of 
 America, and its co-complainant, Seiior Don Adelberto A. Arguelles, 
 Trustee, to wit: 
 
 The defendant, the American Rio Grande Land and Irrigation 
 Company, admits the cause of action and all of the material facts stated 
 in Complainants' bill and confesses judgment thereon; but touching 
 the relief sought respectfully represents that it has now l^ecome practi- 
 cally impossible to restore the Rio Grande to its original bed or channel 
 at the point of diversion, and prays the Court to enter its judgment and 
 decree granting unto Complainants, the United States of America, and 
 its Co-Complainant, Sehor Don Adelberto A. Arguelles, Trustee, the relief 
 sought in their alternative prayer, defendant agreeing to abide by and 
 fully to carry same into effect. 
 
 (Signed) Duval West, 
 Attorney for Defendant, American Rio Grande 
 
 Land & Irrigation Company. 
 
 Endorsements: In Equity No. 41. In the Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division. The 
 United States of America et als., Complainants, vs. The American Rio 
 Grande Land & Irrigation Company, Defendant. Answer of Defendant. 
 Filed Deer. 5, 1911. C. Dart, Clerk. 
 
 53 
 
i\ 'I'm-: ciRcTiT t( )iR r ( )i' riii-: i'xi'ri-:i) statics i-( )R rni-: 
 S( )rTiii:K\ DISTRICT MP ri;.\ \s. \r i',Kn\\xs\ ii.i.i-:. 
 
 J. C Dart, (.■jerk of the Circuit Cuiirl of the I'nited States tor the 
 Southern District of Texas, in the I'ifth Circuit and District aforesaid, 
 do herehy certify the forej^oini; to he a true and correct copy of the 
 original answer of defendant in cause Xo. 41 on the Equity Docket of 
 said C'ourt. entitled The I'nited States of America ct als. vs. The .Amer- 
 ican Rio ( Irande Land and Irrigation Company, as tlic same now ap])ears 
 I -n tile in my ottice. 
 
 To certify which, witness my hand and the seal of said Court, at 
 rirownsvillc. in said District, this tiie oOth day of l^eccmher. .\. D. 1911. 
 
 C. D.\RT, 
 
 ( Seal I i'lcrk [\ .V. Circuit Court. Soiitlicni District of Texas. 
 
 By Frank A. C"ri:.\(;kr, 
 
 Deputy. 
 
 54 
 
DECREE 
 
 IX THI{ CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN AND 
 FOR TFIE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, BROWNS- 
 VILLE DIVISION. 
 
 Ix Equity. No. 41. 
 
 The L"^ntted vStates, et als., Coiiiplaiiiaiits, 
 
 vs. 
 
 The AiMERicAX Rio Grande Land & Irrication Company, Defendants. 
 
 On this 5th dav of December, 1911, at Brownsville, Texas, in said 
 district, in open court, being a day of the regular term of said Court, 
 came the United States of America, complainant, by its attorney. Lock 
 ?>TcDaniel, for said Southern District, and its co-complainant, Senor Don 
 Adelberto A. Arguelles, Trustee, by his attorney, R. E. Holland, and 
 the American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation Company, defendant, by 
 its attorney, DuA'^al West, Esq., and submitted said cause for hearing 
 upon the complainants" bill and defendant's answer. 
 
 Upon due consideration thereof, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed: 
 
 Firsl. — That defendant, American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation 
 Compan}-, do convey to the complainant, Senor Don Adelberto A. Ar- 
 guelles, Trustee, by warranty deed, for the benefit of all of the owners of 
 lands situated in ]\Iexico damaged by the unlawful diversion of the Rio 
 (irande, all that tract or parcel of land belonging to said defendant com- 
 pany that was "cut-off" or cast upon the southern bank of the Rio Grande 
 by said unlawful diversion, being situated in Hidalgo County, Texas, 
 forming part of the Llano Grande grant of land and the Capisallo Land 
 District, containing 246.56 acres, more or less, particularh' descril)ed as 
 follows : 
 
 vSurvey begins at a mesciuite post marked "K," on the South bank of 
 the Rio Grande, and near what was the West Bank of that River before 
 the cut-off was made; said mesquite post lying in the Eastern portion, in 
 the north extreme eastern portion of said Banco. Said post is connected 
 with the Capisallo base line of said American Rio Grande Land & Irriga- 
 tion Company by the following courses and distances : 
 
 Beginning at a point on said base line 1,405.93 ft. north oi zero of 
 the zero point, thence following the meanders of the North bank of the 
 Ivio Grande River by the courses and bearings, N. 78 de. 05' E. 826.09 
 ft. N. 67 de. 39>^' E. 2099.58 ft. N. 63 de. 48>^' E. 1305.24 ft. N. 68 de. 
 
 55 
 
(14' !•:. 14"J.(.I ft. \. 70 (Ic. 1'" ,' i:. ]A7X.22 ft. \. 77 <k-. 1.^',' I-.. M2.m 
 
 ft. s. SI (ic. IS' ,' i-:. i().v.'»() ft. s. 4<. .ic. 07' ,' I-:. 1206.52 ft. .^. s.^ dc. 
 
 10'/ !•:. .>J5.0o ft. S. 4 .Ic. 14' W. .^20.71 ft. tlnis .-t.ihlishin},' tlu- ]...si- 
 tioii i)f tlu- iiir^tiuili- |)('«-t al)'>vr (U'^criltc-il. 
 
 Xi>\v .startiiij^f fn>ni said HH-S(|iiite ])(i>t a> the poiiu iti hcj^inninj^. ami 
 f. »il(t\viii,t; tlie nicaiKk-rs nf the old river hed the sai<l l'>atik is hounded as 
 follows : 
 
 South .^O de. 55' W. 1S7S.55 ft. .^. 44 -k-.^rees 40' W . 717.00 ft. S. 
 .-(-. de. 20' ..' W. S45.74 ft. S. t\4 de. .>2' _.' W . 551.43 ft. S. 77 <le. .v- ' ,' W. 
 1600.01 ft. S. 77 (k-. 2''' W . l(.«J').';o ft. S. 77 de. .>1 ' ,' W . Sl5.'.n ft. X. 
 7? de. 02' W. 5SS.f.S ft. X. 5 de. OSn \\. If.lS.'H) ft. X. .v de. 23!.f 
 !-:. 911.47 ft. X. 7S de. 00'/ I-:. O04.4S ft. S. 57 de. 1''' !•:. ^)00.S4 ft. S. 
 43 de. 55' I".. 551.37 ft. S. 35 de. 00' K. 604.S1 ft. X. S4 de. 22' I-.. X.U.XA 
 ft. S. S3 de. 22\/ v.. 1"3.15 fi. X. 7^ (k-. ^X-u' V.. S57."L' ft. X. 45 <le. 
 33i_.' !•:. 073.11 ft. X. ?2 de. Ol' I-.. 1355.12 ft. X. 27 de. 02' E. 52')Xy} ft. 
 X. ^' de. 01 ' j' ]•'.. 705.50 ft.; to a itoiiu at the nio>t uortlu-ru point of 
 this r>aiu"o on the southern hank of tJie said l\io ( Irande I\i\er. Thonee 
 with the meanders of the l\io (Irande S. 01 de. 5S'v4' 1'-- 437.0S ft. S. 
 (.7 de. 10' 4' K. 302.18 ht. S. 77 de. 57' K. 618.80 ft. t.. the place of he,i,Mn- 
 ninjjf. containinij in all 246.570 acres of lan<l more or le>>. 
 
 All that portion of the land lyinj;^ between the approximate said line 
 of the old river bed as shown by the polygon \'nrr)RSTr\'\\'X\'. and 
 the circuit lines of the Pianco above flescribed and containing in all one 
 Innidred and twentv ( 120) acres of land more or k-'^s. making an aggre- 
 gate total i>f 136(').57 acres. 
 
 Second. — That defendant, the American Rio (Iramk' Land iV Irri- 
 gation Companv do pay unto tlie com])lainant. Senor Don Adelherto .\. 
 Arguclles. Trustee. Five Thousand Dollars for the l)enetit of all the 
 owners of Mexican lands so damaged, and particularly for the benetit 
 of: T.ic. Joaquin Arguelles. Lie. Jose Arguclles, Scnorita Consuelo .\r- 
 guelles. Don Manuel Cantu and Scnores Desidcrio Cantu, Ignacio Cantu. 
 I'juilio Zamora. l'\4icitas Garcia, Primitivo ITinojosa. Reducindo Ojivares. 
 r.eronimo P.azan. Tgnacio Castaneda. Jorge Cantu, Julian Cantu. Xativi- 
 dad C'aJitu, Jose .\ngel TTernandez. .Santos ("antn. P.altazar Lopes, and 
 the Senoras Manuela ( larza \ iuda de Cantu. Petra C'isneros X'iuda (k- 
 llinojosa. I'rancisca I'raustra \ iuda fie I'.izan. .\ntonir) Rodriguez \ iuda 
 «lc Cantu. and Antoiu'o ( iarza \ iuda de llern.indcz. .\nd that the said 
 conveyance of >aid land and the said payment of said Five Thousand 
 l)ollar> shall he and constitute a full liquidation and settlement of all 
 damages occa^iom-d to all of the owners of Mexican lands damaged bv 
 the unlawful acts of defendant. Americrm Rio Grande Land iV Trrig.ition 
 Companv. 
 
 56 
 
Third. — That defendant, American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation 
 Company, do pa}' to the United States of America, Complainants, the 
 sum of Two Thousand ($2,000) Dollars to cover costs and expenses in- 
 cident to surveying and marking the international boundary line now 
 represented by the former bed or channel of the Rio Grande before the 
 unlawful diversion of the stream was made by defendant, as aforesaid. 
 
 Foiirtli. — That as a penalty for violating the provision of the treaties, 
 as aforesaid, in making, by artificial means, the unlawful change, diver- 
 sion and interference with the natural channel, course and flow of the 
 waters of the international l)oundary line stream, the Rio Grande, bv 
 reason of the wrongful acts complained of, that the defendant company 
 I/ay to complainant, the Cnited States of America, the sum of Ten Thou- 
 sand ($10,000) Dollars and court costs in the sum of Two Hundred 
 ($200) Dollars. 
 
 W. T. Burns, 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Endorsements: In Equity No. 41, in the Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division. The 
 United States of America, ct als.. Complainants, vs. The American Rio 
 Grande Land & Irrigation Company, Defendants. Final decree of court. 
 Filed Deer. 5th, 1911. C. Dart, Clerk. 
 
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE 
 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DECEMBER TERM. 
 
 I, C. Dart, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the Ignited States for the 
 Southern District of Texas, in the Fifth Circuit and District aforesaid, do 
 hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of final decree of 
 court in cause No. 41 on the Equity Docket of said court, entitled The 
 Lhiited States of America ct als.. Complainants, vs. The American Rio 
 Grande Land & Irrigation Company. Defendant, as the same now ap- 
 jiears on file and of record on the minutes of said court in my office. 
 
 To certify which, witness m\' hand and the seal of said court, at 
 B.rownsville. in said district, this the loth day of December, A. D. 1911. 
 
 C Dart. 
 (Seal) Clerk [J. S. Circuit Court. SoutJicm. District of Tc.vas. 
 
 17 
 
f