alleged to have been suffered by farmers on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, in the El Paso Valley, as a result of shortage of water in the Rio Grande at El Paso consequent on the use of the waters of the said river for irrigation in Colorado and New Mexico. 14. The Secretary of the Department of State called on the Attorney General for an opinion respecting the said Mexican claims. and in response thereto Attorney General Harmon held, inter alia, that: "The rules, principles, and precedents of international law impose no duty or obligation upon the United States of denying to its inhabitants the use of the water of that part of the Rio Grande lying entirely within the United States, although such use results in reducing the volume of water in the river below the point where it ceases to be entirely within the United States." "The immediate as well as the possible consequences of the right asserted by Mexico show that its recognition is entirely inconsistent with the sovereignty of the United States over its national domain. Apart from the sum demanded by way of indemnity for the past, the claim involves not only the arrest of further settlement and development of large regions [in New Mexico and Colorado], but the abandonment, in great measure at least, of what has already been accomplished." * * "The recognition of such a right is entirely inconsistent with the sovereignty of the United States over its national domain" 21 Op. Atty.-Gen. 274, 276. 15. Several years prior to the filing of the said inspired Mexican claims and to the inception of the said Anson Mills' graft-inspired and treasonable international (El Paso) dam scheme-a scheme to enrich the said speculators in irrigable lands on the Mexican side of the El Paso Valley (the Juarez side) by having the general government of the United States so impound and reserve for irrigation in the El Paso Valley the whole of the flood waters flowing from New Mexico's Rio Grande catchment area, and so deprive the people of that State of their chief source of agricultural development, the Secretary of the Department of State, Mr. Evarts, on formal complaint of the Governor of the State of Texas, had addressed an official memorandum to the Mexican minister, at Washington, protesting against: "The action of the Mexican population on the Western [Mexican] shore of the river [Rio Grande] in diverting the small quantity of water that finds its way down during the dry season, thereby totally depriving the agriculturists on the eastern or Texas shore of the means of irrigating their crops." Vol. 1 Wharton's Int. Dig. Sec. 20, pp. 63–65. "An honest atty. general." [Nathan Boyd.] 16. It was a fact of common knowledge in El Paso and Juarez, a fact of which the said Anson Mills was fully aware, that the said "Mexican population," referred to in Secretary Evarts' said Memorandum of protest, had for many years maintained a diversion dam that unlawfully extended entirely across the channel of the Rio Grande at a point in the El Paso Canyon situated some considerable distance above the head of the (American) canal used for irrigation on the American (Texas) side of the El Paso Valley; that by means of such diversion dam the said "Mexican population had for many years illegally and unjustly diverted to the Mexican side of the valley the whole flow of the stream during seasons of low water; and that the farmers on the American side of the river, and not those on the Mexican side, were entitled to compensation. 17. It was also a fact of common knowledge that the said Mexican claims were fraudulent in their inception and purpose, and that the filing thereof had been instigated by the promoters of the said International (El Paso) Dam Scheme with the object of having the Mexican minister press such claims as a mean of seducing Congress into appropriating the $2,317,000 odd, required so as to provide free water at the expense of the taxpayers of the United States, for the irrigation of the said irrigable lands on the Mexican side of the El Paso Valley. 18.1 As a result of the said Anson Mills' treasonable intrigue. with officials of the Mexican Government, and as a cardinal feature of his conspiracy with such Mexican officials and with the said speculators in irrigable lands so to rob the people of New Mexico of their natural and inherent right to impound and use the flood waters of their Rio Grande catchment area for the cultivation of their farms, it was arranged that the Mexican Government-after filing the said inspired and spurious claims against the United States, would agree to: "Accept the construction of the proposed dam and reservoir [General Anson Mills' proposed International Dam and reservoir], with the conditions that the flood waters impounded by it [sic] shall be equally distributed between the two countries, as liquidation of all past and future claims for water appropriated in the past or to be appropriated in the future by citizens of the United States. otherwise than by impounding it in large dams and reservoirs in New Mexico." Vide Bill H. R. 9710, 56th Con. 1st Sess. 19. The El Paso Daily Herald, in its issue of November 6, 1900, announced that "When General Anson Mills went to the city of Mexico last month, he went there to ask the Secretary of State and President 1 "An official of the Department of State conspiring with Mexican officials to defraud his country." [Nathan Boyd.] Diaz to continue their objections to the building of the Elephant Butte Dam, and other dams on the Rio Grande above El Paso." 20. By his own testimony in support of the said Bill (H. R. 9710) it is conclusively established that the said Anson Mills was primarily responsible for the inception of the plot so to rob the people of New Mexico of their Rio Grande water rights-their most precious heritage. In so testifying he said: "I was requested by some of my friends [in El Paso and Juarez] to project a remedy for the decreasing water in the river. I came to Washington went to see the Secretary of State * and had a verbal interview [sic] with him I found [at El Paso] a Mexican Federal engineer by the name of Garfias. He asked permission from his government and received orders to cooperate with me in all my investigations. We concluded, * * * after our investigations, that the project was feasible. I furnished him with a copy of all the plans, specifications, and estimates, which he carried to the city of Mexico, and he reported to me upon his return that he had had an interview with the President, and the Minister of Public Works, and the Minister of Foreign Relations, and they had expressed to him the opinion that the project ought to be carried out but that it would be necessary to refer the matter to a lawyer. There is no doubt, however, that they will approve the project. They propose to bear one-half of the expense of constructing the dam." * * * * * 21. In his treasonable efforts to seduce the House Committee on Foreign Affairs into favorably reporting the said Bill (H. R. 9710) — introduced by the Hon. John H. Stephens, of Texas, the said Anson Mills testified as above that Mexico "proposed to bear one-half the expense" of constructing his proposed international (El Paso) dam, but it is a significant fact that in a communication previously addressed to the Secretary of the Department of State he had said: "My first impulse was to insist that Mexico should bear a portion of the pecuniary burden. * but the Mexican commission Even if Mexico were willing to share to the extent of $400,000 or $500,000, under a joint construction, it would be economical for the United States to take it alone and bear all the burden." Sen. Doc. 229, 55th Con., 2nd Sess. would not agree to this. 22. Despite the well-known facts referred to in Secretary Evarts' said memorandum of protest to the Mexican minister, and notwithstanding Attorney General Harmon's said opinion respecting the said Mexican claims, the said Anson Mills, in a formal report to the Secretary of the Department of State, persisted in treasonably contending that: "Mexico has been wrongfully deprived for many years of a portion of her equitable rights in the flow of one-half of the water of the Rio Grande *. Each step I have taken in this investigation has progressively impressed and confirmed me in the opinion that Mexico has a righteous and just cause of complaint, and that the redress asked for [i. e., cession of part of New Mexico to old Mexico, and the building of the said international dam by the United States] is the only practical one and ought to be granted, for a money indemnity would only reach a few of the actual sufferers [that is to say, 'a money indemnity' would not provide free water for the irrigation of the lands owned or controlled by the said speculators]. It is a further matter of fact that navigation of the river has been largely depleted, almost wholly destroyed, by cutting off of the waters of the Rio Grande and its tributaries in Colorado and New Mexico." Sen. Doc. 229, 55th Cong. 2nd Session, pp. 99-100. * * * * 23. It is of official record, however, that, in a written statement made long prior to the date of his above quoted report in support of the said spurious Mexican claims, the said Anson Mills has declared that: * * * "During two hundred and ninety days of the year the average flow [of the Rio Grande at El Paso, Texas] is perhaps not over thirty yards wide and one yard deep and in the same recurring periods, in the intervals between high tides, the river goes dry as it is at this time [December 10, 1888], or at least has no current, with not enough water in the pools to float a fish. From personal observation I know that these seasons of flood and drought were of about the same character thirty years ago" [i. e., as early as 1858]. Rept. Spec. Com. Vols. 3 and 4, p. 39. * * * 24. It is also of record in the Department of State that Mr. W. W. Follette, when engineer to the said United States and Mexican Boundary Commission, had reported in respect to the alleged shortage of water in El Paso, Texas, that: "The use of water for irrigation in New Mexico has not [i. e., prior to 1897] materially increased since 1880, and hence is not the cause of the decreased flow" [at El Paso] "The river went dry many years before the large use of water in Colorado began. The records show that in 1851 it was dry as far north as Socorro, New Mexico. Again in 1860 or 1861 it was dry in the Mesilla Valley, and in 1879 was the dryest year of record prior to 1889, the flow ceasing nearly or quite as far north as Albuquerque." "In view of these statistics, I would suggest that the injury claimed to have been done to the El Paso valley by recent diversions of the waters of the Rio Grande has not come from an increased use of the 1" Claims inspired by Anson Mills, et al." [Nathan Boyd.] 2 "A deadly parallel.'" [Nathan Boyd.] waters in New Mexico." Sen. Doc. 229, 55th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 99-100. 25. In reply to the said Anson Mills' importunate demands that the said rights, privileges, and concessions granted to the Parent Company "be canceled or withdrawn," Secretary Francis,1 on December 19, 1896, ruled as follows: "The application of the Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Company was approved by my predecessor on the first day of February, 1895. * * * In my opinion, I have no right under the law to revoke this approval. It has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Noble v. Union River Logging Railway Company (147 U. S. 163), that the approval by the Secretary of the Interior of a right of way can not be revoked by his successor, and upon the principles therein declared I deem it beyond my authority to revoke my predecessor's approval of the maps filed by the Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Company. Assuming that I had such power, I submit to you whether or not the exercise of it would be proper in view of the opinion of the Attorney General (21 Op. Atty. Gen. 276)." 26. In respect to the said Anson Mills' wittingly false statements regarding the alleged navigability of the Rio Grande, which false statements were patently made with the object of having the building of the English Company's Elephant Butte Dam prohibited, Secretary Olney, in a letter dated January 11, 1897, declared, inter alia, that: "A navigable river is a river which offers a channel for useful commerce." "A stream which can be used for commercial purposes on extraordinary occasions only is not navigable in this sense." "Mere capacity to float a log or a boat will not alone make a river navigable." Sen. Doc. 229, 55th Cong., 2nd Session, pp. 18–19. 27. So as to make it possible for him and his associates successfully to promote his nefarious International (El Paso) Dam Scheme, the said Anson Mills endeavored to ruin the English Company by having the General Government of the United States prohibit the carrying out of the Elephant Butte Dam Project. In a letter dated February 18, 1901, addressed to the "Chairman, subcommittee, Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Representatives," the said Anson Mills said: "I have been repeatedly solicited * to modify my recommendation [that the company's said rights be revoked] so as to permit the construction of the Elephant Butte Dam without Federal constraint. * * I could not be instrumental in encouraging * * of our $2,000,000 to build such a the fruitless expenditure * 1 "An honest Secretary of the Department of the Interior." [Nathan Boyd.] |