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

which may in future be formed, shall
be eliminated from che operation Of
the convention of 1884. and shall be
dealt with in a different manner
This recognition Of the retrospective
application Of the Convention Of 1884
is not that of subordsnates. but of the
governments themselves. which ex-
pressly adopted the views of the COM
nfssioaers as to the application Of the
treaty of 1884 and as to the desirability
OF taking such cases. both past and
future, out of the convention and sub
shutting new provisions.
The ChamizaI Title Claim.
In 1895 the Chamizal claim was sub
mitted to the commission in letter OF
Mr.. Mariscal. above referred to- While
the claim is a private one there IS no
doubt that it was presented with the
authority and concurrence OF the Mex
Jean government and received its sup
port throughout its various stages as
involving a controversy as to the in
ternational title to the Chamizsl tract
The claim of Pedro Y Garcia, on its
face, showed that II was based on
changes which had occurred in the
river prior TO 1884, and, notewithstand-
ing this weIl-known fact, the matter
was referred to the internstio boun-
Diary commission TO be dealt with, and
would have been disposed of but for
disagreement between the Two COM
mdssfoners. one of whom considered
that the changes had resulted from
slow and gradual erosion as required
by the convention of 1884, while the
other commissioner considered that the
erosion had been violent and intermit-
tent and not of such a character as,
under the terms Of the convention OF
1884. could change the international
boundary.
while the Chamizal case was pend
ing before the international boundary
commission they became seized OF the
controversy concerning the island OF
San Elizario. which was presented to
the commission by the Mexican COM
missioner on the 4th November, 1895.
The decision in this case. rendered on
the 5th October, 1896. was based upon
changes which occurred il the years
1857 and 1853 Like all other decisions
of the boundary, commission it was
communicated to the Mexican govern
1nent. which. under the terms of the
convention OF 1889. could disapproveN Of.
the action Of the commissioners within
one month from the day Of its pro-
nouncement Far from being disallow-
ed, the decision was expressly approved
by the Mexican government, as appears
from the letter addressed by Mr.. Ma
1scaI to the Mexican minister at
Washington, on 9Th october, 1896
Thus in all cases dealt with by the
two governments after the convention
of 1884 referring to river changes oc-
curing prior TO that date, the pro-
visions Of that convention were in
variabIy and consistently applied
On the whole it appears to be i'm
possible to come to any other conclu-
sion than that the Two nations have
by their subsequent treaties and their
consistent course OF; conduct in tconnec-
ton with all cases arising Hereunder,
put such an authoritative interpreta-
ton upon the language Of the treaties
OF IS4S and 1853 as 10 preclude them
from now contending that the fluvial
portion of the boundary created by
those treaties. is a fixed line boun-
dary.
Not a Fixed Boundary.
The presiding commissioner and the
American Commissioner therefore hold