El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1913-11-10
BOUNDARY DISPUTE
HEARINGS STARTED
Land in Upper Valley Worth
From 100000 to 49,
100000 Involved.

Hearing OF testimony in the New
Mexico-Texas boundary dispute was
started Monday afternoon before Charles
C. Robey, Texas commissioner, and VIM.
Z. Baker, New Mexico's commissioner,
in the federal court room Of the federal
building.
In this case New Mexico is the plain
tiff and is represented by Frank W.
Clancy, attorney general Of New Mexico,
with ". R Reber and E. c. Wade, both
of Las Cruces. associate counsels. Texas
Is represented by B. +. Looney, attorney
general of Texas, and W. W. Iurney and
W. II. Burgess, associate counsels.
Involves Valuable Lands.
The case involves some OF the richest
land in the FL Paso valley, which ranges
from $4,000 to 10000 acres, and is val
ued at from $1,000 900 to S3,000,000.
The case IS pending in the supreme court
of the United States at Washington,
which has the original and final juris-
diction IN the case. The testimony given
before the commissioners viii be fled
by them in Washington before the su-
preme court who viii try the case. and
decide upon it. The bulk of the testi-
mony viii be taken in FL PasO and the
commissioners expect that It Will con-
sumo several months to secure 1t all.
1t is expected that additional testimony
VIII be taken in Las Cruces, and pos
sibly in San Antonio, before the hear
ings are finished.
Many Old Mexican5 to Testify.
Jose Perea VIII act as Interpreter.
He was at one time sheriff and collec-
tor of Albuquerque. n. NJ. Some of the
most interesting testimony is expected
from a number of very old MeXicans,
whose testimony VIII deal largely with
the shiftings oi the river. Among the
FL Pasoans who attended the hearings
Monday were Jack T. White, Charles
R LOOMS, James Magoffin, ". II. Aus
tin, E X Talbot, Ross Bryan and J. j.
Mundy AmadO Chavez of Albuquerque,
was present at the hearings.
The attorneys and their counsels met
at 10 o'clock in the federal court build
ing and arranged for the hearings Mon
day afternoon
object of Suit.
This suit was brought for the pur-
pose of adjudicating the question
which has arisen as to the location OF
the boundary line between those two
states, as established by the treaty OF
Guadalupe HidalgO, after the war with
Mexico, while New Mexico was still a
part of Mexico, and which, in plain
language, was the Rio Grande, as that
the point then called Alamistos, close
to what is now La Tuna station on the
A T & S. F. railway, about 20 miles
north Of FL Pasos to point near the I
international boundary line, few
miles north Of FL PasO. This suit was
brought in the United States Supreme
court, that court having original and
final jurisdiction in all suits between
the states; and in all the history OF
that supreme tribunal there have been
but L other cases in which it has exer-
cised such jurisdiction, this suit being
Original Number 1S."
Well known Commissioners.
The testimony is being presented be-
fore the commissioners selected under
stipulation By counsel in the case
William E Baker commissioner Sc
lected by New MEXICO, is a native OF
St Louis, No, but has been a resident
Of Las Cruces, n NJ, is a man Of wide
experience in many lines, and has been
connected with the courts of his
adopted state the greater portion Of his
residence therein Charles c. RObeys I
the commissioner selected by Texas,
was reared IN Hunt county and has (
been connected with the courts there |
for q number Of years. He recently /
acted IS special commissioner in the |
celebrated case Of the state Of Texas !
against the Standard Oil interests.
Each party to the suit has made ex- |
tensive preparations for the trial, and ]
many surveys and resurveys have been |
made on the ground in the past year, !
and maps and data prepared. A large I
number Of witnesses have been Ques-
toned and will be placed upon the !
stand for examination.
New MeIieO's Claims.
The state Of New Mexico claims that I
the river, as it ran in 1850, was close /
to the foot hills on the eastern side of 1
the Rio Grande valley, between the |
points mentioned. while the state OF 4
Texas contends that it ran. some dis /
r1F
alleges 1t to have been The valley, in 1
this section, is composed almost entire
" Of an alluVial deposit which rivals /
that Of the Nile in richness, and the /
channel OF the stream has changed 1
several times in the past so years, not /
ably at times of torrential floods in /
1852, 1864 and 1884 This suit there !
fore viii decide the rights OfsOvereingty !
over, and possession Of a great many 1
acres Of exceedingly fertile land, that 4
IN the past was not considered Of any 4
particular value but which with I'M
proved irrigation facilities and in 1
creased population in its vicinity has
become very valuable, and viii become ]
much more valuable with the compile
ton Of the great Elephant Butte dam /
and its irrigation bitches now under /
construction hundred miles north of
the disputed territory, by the United \
States Reclamation service; and the
right to levy and collect the taxes on
the land and improvements IN the dis
puted territory is a serious question to
be settled BY this suit.
Titles in Dispute.
The title to many acres OF this land
IS brought in this suit, and will be adj
Indicated by the court in its decision
The old survey, made in the years
from 1S47 down to more recent years.
viii probably be brought into question (
BY each party to the suit It is under
stood that some of the records of these
surveys have absolutely disappeared
from the archives in both Washington
and in Mexico, and that there are evil
dences of some of the original maps
having been scratched. and signatures
therefrom, so that the court
viii have TO depend not only upon the
record evidence which may be pre-
5ented, but upon oral proof by the old
time residents of the section as to the
actual location OF the boundary in
those days