El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1899-12-13
Clear Definition Of the Gov
ernment's Stand In
the sMatter.
SECOND DAY OF TRIAL
Dispositions Of Three Old
Time Residents Of Browns
Vile As to the Naviga-
bility Of the River
Special Dispatch to. the HERALD.

Special Dispatch to the HERALD.
LAS CRUCES, N. NJ, Dec. 13.-Thi
the Elephant Butte dam case is being
considered was consumed in reading
two dispositions and IN the exami n atior
of two witnesses for the government
To the reading of the answers to the
direct interrogatories of the first depo
sition, that of Jesse Sumpter of Eagle
Pass, the court remarked that il was
unnecessary to read the answers tC
ross-interrogatories. inasmuch as i,
was shown clearly that the witness
did not know much about the aues-
! tioD.
The next deposition was that of Will
lia m Schuehardt, of Piedras Negras.
HE observations only extended three
| miles above and three miles below the
town.
Alfred ThOrnAam, United States depu-
| ty inspector of customs at Brownsville,
W as the first witness for the govern
ment. He had charge ofthe steam
boat Bessie in the latter part of 1880,
and testified about the rivers condi-
tion
The next witness was Col. James J.
Haynes, collector of customs as Lare-
do.
E. G. Roberts came up last night
with eight or ten witnesses for the
dam company. Prof. L. G. Carpent ter,
of the agricultural experiment station,
at Fort Collins, Colorado. arrived this
morning to testify for the dam COM
pany.
VEST ERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
AT the afternoon session of the
court yesterday Judge Burch for
the government made an opening state
ment of considerable length, defining
the position of the government. He
took the last paragraph of the opinion
handed down by the United States su-
preme court last May as giving the
scope and limits of the inquiry now
in progress. Three questions, ne said,
are involved.
First, what does the defendant pro-
other works does the company propose
to build, and what does it propose to
do with il when; built?
Second, what are the limits of the
navigability of the Rio G-a2de within
the meaning of the supreme court? rs
Third, will the proposed works of
the defendant company impair the
present navigability of the Rio
Grande3
There are two sources of evidence,
said Judge Burch. reg arding the pur-
pose of the defendant company. The
first is the prospectus and circulars is
sued by the company for the purpose
Of securing stockholders. The second
is the answer filed by the counsel for
the defendant company in this case. In
the prospectus the company proposed
to take all the waters remaining in the
Rio Graade in southern New Mexico
and impound them for use in irrigs-
tion and to supply native power for
manufacturing and other purposes.
The company proposed to take these
free waters and parcel them out and
sell them to Its customers.
In its plesdings in this case, said
Judge Burch, the company modified its
declaration of purpose, stating that it
proposed to impound only such part of
the waters as had not previously been
appropriated.
AS to the second inquiry of the
supreme court, the limits of navigation,
Judge Burch stated that the evidence
would show them to be Brownsville as
the lower limit and Rio Grande City as
the upper limit distance of less than
250 miles by river and 100 to 12O over
land.
The whole force of the contest, then,
centers in the reply to the third in
quiry propounded by the supreme
court, namely, to what extent. if any,
will the proposed acts of the defendant
company in building a dam. creating a
reservoir and impounding the waters