El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-05-23
The Second Argument For
Mexico's Claim Is Pre-
sented at Hearing.

W ] White. of the counsel for Mex
;co. took ND the second argument tof
that side in the Chamizal case CT Tues
davis session. He impressed upon the
commission its powers. saying: "Accorc-
ING to the treaty of 1910 the sole aues-
tion for this tribunal to decide Is TO
7rhom the Chamizal zone belongs. Inc
commission of 1889 was authorized mere
IL To apply the principle of the treaty
of 1894 70 the cases which might arise
under that treaty and no others ms
commission failed to settle the Cnamlzai
case and failed to settle the Bancos case.
'sThe treaty OF 1889 organized TO CT
out the provisions OF the treaty % Ioor'
there was no provision Tor aHuNluih'
merely for evulsion and erosion
sSNr Dennis has admitted there are
-;x-or boundaries which are fixed ana HI
variable boundaries. Where plans are
made ,-,dts- and surveys marked they are fixed
and invariable boundaries, according 10
Caleb Cushing
ssUnder the treaty of 1913 COMMISSION
ers were appointed, surveys were mace:
] should say in reply to question "
4be American commissioner the noVa
-efarS 70 +he broken line. The river as
shown by the maps is very narrow
mo ssT 3 srbmit the minutes of the commits
e;oners in so far as they refer to maps
are of great value
an fbe case of a fixed boundary
there could be no alluvium. The words
of a treaty are TO be interpreted as Uhey
are interpreted at the time they are
made and always IN faVoraole rather
N''<'-- Treaty. Defines Boundary.
sFTnder the treaty of 1848, article 5 IS
;mT.ortant one. It defines the
BOUNDARY line commencino three miles
from land in the Gulf of Mexico opposite
+he mouth of the Rio Grande, thence up
fhe middle of the main channel OF that
river. There was some doubt IN tne
minds of those who made the treaty as
TO where the river ran. Hence they nau
surveys made and marked.
Dennis Answers Questions.
AT the ~cpening of the session and
nrior to Mr.. Whites argument, w. Z.
Dprnis of the American counsel, was
called upon. by presiding Commissioner
J,afIeur and American commissioner
Mills to answer several questions. Re
Dlvfng first to question asked by COM
g,nissiOner Lafleur at the previous ses-
sion on Monday he said: Replying TO
the question as to whether or not the
point where fluvial line touches a flXed
Z
of necessity be movable one. This
was the point where the river had
touched the southern boundary of New
Mexico. the river having been at that
time. prior TO the treaty of 1853, con-
si6ered the boundary between New Mex
leo and old Mexico.
Commissioner Lafleur. here stated:
.sAfr. Casasus calls our attention to
article 5 in English which he says does
not agree with the same Spanish text
and commissioner Puga says that the
words NAV have become seDarated do
not necessarily refer to the past tense,
out MIGHT have the same meaning.
Mr.. Dennis said That this might be 50
but he did not think the Interpretation
of the words was meant to mean the
future. Then he continued: Z wish to
submit that prior to 1884 we have no
letter that stands alone as document
itself referring TO the fixed line theory
Mr.. Lafleur said: ct occurs 20 me
that the letter of senior Romero OF Oct
9 and 10, 1884. congratulates ki,rsel.
that both the countries had agreed that