El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-05-25
MAY COMPLETE THE
CHAMIzAL CASE
IN A WEEK
Final Agreement May Be
Concluded In Famous
Case by Wednesday.

The ChamiZal case will probably be
completed by Wednesday or Thursday
of next week W. 3. Grant, of the
American counsel will complete his ar
gument Friday. Saturday and Monday
will be required by Seymour ThurmOnd
to present the final argument for Mex
ico and probably two days more will
/ be occupied by R. F. Burgess. in his
final presentation of the American case
to the commission.
Judge Grant Resumes Argument.
Judge W. B. Grant, of the American
counsel. resumed his argument Thurs
day morning and said in part:
Both governments were fully aware
at the time of making the treaty OF
1884 that this was a river OF consi5-
cradle changes. Merteritis was settled
and called for the question of evulsion-
Large accretions had formed in the bed
of the river and formed part of the
mainland. I challenge the other side to
produce an instance where the United
States has ever departed from this side
Mr.. Frederickheisen asserts that the
theory of Mexico was one of a fixed
boundary" said commissioner Lafleur. =
cannot attach any Importance to ex-
pressions by diplomats because they are
not always consistent"
Mr.. Grant, continuing, said in reply
to a question suggested by commission
er Puga: Il think the word course as
used in the treaty of 1884 means the
course of the river as it shifts from
year to year.
In 1884 just preceding this confer
ence there were a number of letters
between Mr.. Romero and the foreign
office. In one Of these letters he spoke
of an international compact, relative to
the changes. of the river. On June 5. 1884,
he wrote the secretary Of state relative
to a project to fix the boundary that
he had been authorized to prevent
future possible changes suggesting that
the channel be marked. There is an
other letter of July Z, 1884, in which
he suggested that an effort be made
to get together and arrange an agree
ment as a supplement to the treaties of
1S4S and 1853.
'.At the time of making the agree
ment in 1884 there were no pending
questions The deposit Of alluvium is
slow and gradual formation of land.
"A question has arisen like in the
case of Pedro Garcia, whose land was
carried under the water, other land
was brought down the river and theI
covered up his land which he then To-
Gated on this side He says ii occurred
in 1878, and then he reported it to the
Mexican government in 1894. By a re-
markable coincidence he sent it at the
same time as the San Elizario case was
sent.
The San ElizariO Case.
THE San Elizario case was decided
on the line fixed by the commissioners
by the line fixed when the evulsion oc-
Cured in 1857. The commissioners
agreed that a fixed line theory was not
applicable TO this river They decided
the treaty of 1884 was retroactive"
Didn't the commission fix the line
at the channel in which it was then
found and not in either the channel of
Emory or Salazar?" asked commissioner
Mills.
Il think so,'' replied Mr.. Grant. Some
of the important changes were known
to the Mexican government
coupled together show the construction
placed on the treaty of 1884.
THE utterances of the Mexican presi-
dent in relation to the treaty of 1884
are declaratory of what he thought
because he said: Difficulties which
arise or may arise
The president says, pending ques-
TONS" said Mr.. Lafleur. while the
commissioner said. it was to obviate
questions which might arise in future
Complaint was made by persons on
this side relative to the jetties con-
structed on the Mexican side. These eff
fectively prevented erosion. Mr. Marfs- !
cal writing to our minister Bragg said |
that the bank on this side had not
been injured as a result of the con-
struction of the jetties.
The Treaty of 1854.
"a treaty was made in 1884 referring |
to a channel which never existed If |