El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-06-15

clude that the Mexican government
adopted the view Of their commissioner
and, in any event. 1t cannot be success
fully contended that IN asserting TO the
language of the preamble of the Banco
treaty ii was precluded from contend
ing that the Chamiza1 case was OF a
different nature.
The River Bed Of 1864.
1t has beer, suggested and the Ameri-
can commissioner Is OF the opinion,
that the bed Of the Rio Grande as it
existed in 1854, before the flood, cam
not be located, and moreover that the
present commissioners are not author
lied by the convention Of 5th December,
1910, to divide the Chamizal tract and
attribute a portion thereof to the Unit
ed States and another portion to
Mexico. The presiding commissioner
and the Mexican commissioner cannot
assent to this view and conceive that
in dividing the tract IN question be-
tween the parties. according to the evil
dence as they appreciate IL, they are
following the precedent laid down by
the supreme court of the United States
in Nebraska VS. Iowa, above cited Ia
that case the court found that up to
the year 1877, the changes in the Mis-
souri, river were due to accretion, and
that. in that year, the river made for
ings It was held that the boundary be-
tween Iowa and Nebraska was a vary
ing line insofar as affected by accre-
ton, but that from and after 1877 the
boundary was not changed, and re-
manned as It was before the cutting of
new channel. Applying this principle,
mutatis mutandis, to the present case.
the presiding commissioner and Mexi-
can commissioner are Of the opinion
49, fa,c ,9Af u,
the Chamizal tract up to the time OF
the great flood in 1854 should be
awarded to the United States of Amer
lea, and that inasmuch as the changes
which occurred in that year did not
constitute slow and gradual erosion
within the meaning Of the convention
of 1884, the balance OF the tract should
be awarded TO Mexico.
Will Not Locate Line.
They also conceive that it is not
within their province to relocate that
line. inasmuch as the parties have Of
fered no evidence TO enable the COM
missioners to do so. In the case of
Nebraska VS.. Iowa, the court contented
Itself with indicating. as above stated.
the boundary between the two states
and invited the parties to agree to
designation OF the boundary upon the
principles enunciated in the decision
The American commissioner dissents
from the above holding, for the reasons
given in his subjoined memorandum.
and is of opinion that all the changes
which have taken place at the Chami-
zal since 1852, were due to slow and
gradual erosion and deposit of alIu-
vium, within the meaning of the con-
vention Of 1884.
He is further Of opinion that the
commissioners have no Jurisdiction to
separate the Chamizal tract and award
a portion to the United States and a
portion to Mexico, and, in view of his
conviction that the position of the
river bed in 1864 cannot be ascertained
he considers that the, award Of the
majority Of the commissioners cannot
be made effective.
The Final Award.
Wherefore the presiding commission
er and the Mexican commissioner, con-
shutting g. majority of the said com
mission hereby award and declare that
the international title to the portion
OF the Chamizal tract lying between
the middle of the bed of the Rio Grande
as surveyed by Emory and Saiazar in
1852, and the middle Of the bed Of
the said river as it existed before the
flood of 1854, is in the United States
OF America, and the international title
to the balance of the said Chamizal
tract is in the United States of Mexico.
The American commissioner dissents
from the above award