Las Vegas daily optic. [volume] (Las Vegas, N.M.) 1880-1908, 1903-08-07
1AUD
FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST Z. 1908.
RopEv ON INTERNATIONAL DAM
Albuquerque, N, M, Aug. Q, 1903
Editor Of the Daily Optic. i

4
Editor Of the Daily Optic.
Your editorial In your issue
Of the 4th instant. with reference
to the building OF an international
dam al Ell Paso. is timely. The Ques-
ton Of the building Of that dam, and
III that. Ii behind It, has never been
properly appreciated In New Mexico.
In the ~FIftysseventh congress
fought the Stephens bill before the
committee on foreign relations Of the
house OF representatives. and pro-
duceds many Witnesses from the ter
ritory to testify against witnesses
and experts from FL Paso. made the
best legal argument | am capable Of
before the committee against the
passage Of that bill. The committee.
partly on my suggestion, sent the
bill out to the attorney general of the
United States for his opinion as TO
whether or not the United States was
liable To New Mexico for anything In
the-way OF damages that II would be
advisable to compensate BY passing
that bill a went before tho attorney
general and made = thirty-minute ar
gument against II. He then appoint
ed IN .n4sIstant attorney general, to
mo8l@ n16& had been referred
to hear me 1t length on the PROPOSE
tion. ! made I thrce-hour argument
before Assistant Attorney General
Hoyt on 4he anme line. being opposed
BY Judge Bufch OF the department
during the ArsHuent.
Then lswsAt t1fsre the secretary of
state. where these same parties. who
are trying TO get the international
dam built, were trying to get = treaty
negotiated between the two nations
which would accomplish the samo
thing ~ the Stephesn bin. The sec.
Rotary u state. Hon. John Hay, heard
me FOR a hour against the negotiat.
Ing Of any such treaty.
wal successful In my argument
before the attorney general. because
he refused TO nve any opinion to the
committee ~ the house OF represent.
ativcs. and, Of course, | was success
fui before the committee, because
they refused TO report the bill without
such opinion. was also successful
before the secretary Of state a. no
such treaty was negotiated. Howev-
~. ~ was stated In your editorial,
that was not the end OF II.
The lobby from Texas around the
house Of representatives kept the
matter going III through both SEES
sions Of the Fifty-seventh congress.
and l was forced TO watch It contin-
uously. Senator Culberson, In the
Senate. threatened TO amend the
statehood bin 80 as to rescrvc the
rigst An the national government. II
New Mexico should become a state.
10 control the waters Of the Rio
Grande. He did not press the ques.
tion, because II was pointed out to
him that such a would be
wholly Inconsistent with the demo.
cratic doctrine Of state rights. When
the irrigation bill was being passed
on the floor OF the house Congress.
man Stephens Of Texas attempted to
amend II 30 AS TO deprive New Mex
leo VI any right 10 control the waters
OF the Rio Grande. but | promptly OBJ,
iected, and Il was voted down over.
whelmingIy.
uls IKE the people of New Mex.
leo TO understand something more
about this question than they appear
TO. Certain interests at FL Paso. and
below II, have Joined with the repub-
lie OF Mexico In trying TO force this
blu for the erection Of an interna-
ticnaI dam through congress, The re-
public OF Mexico has a claim on fIe
whh the state department at Wash
layton for some $4,000. 900 against
this ssoserpWeni for alleged damages
for water taken out Of the Rio Grande
II New Mexico 10 the claimed damage
Of people living on the Mexican side