No. 257.
Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Morgan.
Washington , July 11, 1884.
Sir: By instruction No. 550, of the 23d of April last, you were acquainted with a dispute then lately arisen concerning the legitimate jurisdiction over certain islands in the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) near Roma, Tex., and you were directed to present the matter to the Mexican Government and ask consideration of our just claim to jurisdiction in the premises.
Since then, the Mexican Government has made, through Señor Romero, under date of June 12 last, a counter complaint, claiming Morteritos Island as Mexican territory, with its accretions, and protesting against any attempt on the part of the United States to exercise authority over that island.
The note of Mr. Romero and its inclosures, being very voluminous and not yet wholly translated, could not be sent to you herewith without involving inconvenient delay. Copies will, however, go to you as soon as possible, to complete your record.
The question appearing to be one of simple fact, to be settled by the records of the Boundary Commission, under the signatures of both commissioners, now on file in this Department, I requested the Secretary of War to direct Brig. Gen. W. H. Emory, U. S. Army, the United States commissioner on the original survey, to examine the records and charts thereof. General Emory has done so, Señor Romero having had at the same time opportunity to personally inspect the records and charts. The general’s report removes all ground for doubt that Morteritos belongs to the United States, under the prescriptions of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
I have accordingly replied to the Mexican contention by a note* to Señor Romero, of which I inclose a copy for your information.
The question would appear to have been in part founded on a case of mistaken identity, in assuming that two small twin islands below and near to Roma, and separated at the time of the survey by a shallow water course now believed to be filled up, were the Morteritos and Sabinos Islands of the Mexican contention and identical with islands Nos. 12 and 13. It seems clear that Sabinitos (or Sabinos) is a large single island, lying some distance above Roma, and is acknowledged Mexican territory both by the records of the survey and in the absence, so far as known here, of any occasion for dispute in respect thereof. Island No. 12, to which Señor Romero refers in one of his notes on the subject, lies lower down the river, near Ringgold Barracks, is styled on the survey charts Green Key Island, and likewise appears to belong to Mexico without dispute.
It is apparently in respect only of the small twin islands, known on charts both as “Beaver Islands” and as “Island No. 13,” that any dispute exists. The larger of these, lying nearest to the Mexican shore, appears to be known to the Mexicans as “Morteritos.” The other smaller island of the pair may or may not be locally known as “Sabinos.” It bears no separate name on the charts. The fact is, however, wholly immaterial, for both the islands are by the two commissioners assigned to the United States.
[Page 374]After reading my note to Señor Romero and familiarizing yourself with the ground therein taken, you will seek a conference with the Mexican secretary for foreign affairs on the subject. You will point out to him that under whichever aspect it be viewed, whether as resting on a change in the deepest channel subsequent to the assignment of the survey, or on the allegiance of the reputed Mexican owners of the land and on any agreement among them of which the Mexican courts may have taken cognizance, the Mexican claim is completely at variance with the ground taken by the Mexican Government itself, that the boundary fixed by the survey is definitive, and not to be changed. You may advert to the proposal made to this Government by Mr. Romero (in a note dated 31st May), to review the negotiation proposed in 1875 by Señor Mariscal to Mr. Fish for a convention to settle boundary disputes growing out of changes in the channel of the Bravo by declaring that no such change shall affect the actual boundary fixed by the survey, and you may observe that this Government can hardly be expected to attach much weight to that proposition if, in the first case of dispute arising, the Mexican Government is found to adopt a diametrically opposed theory. You may also find it convenient to advert to the circumstance, shown by the inclosures to my No. 550, that the Mexican owners claim the subsequent accretions to Morteritos as belonging to them, and, consequently, to the territorial jurisdiction of Mexico also, and comment on its untenable character; for even if Morteritos Island were Mexican territory, which the record of the survey shows it is not, the annexation of United States territory by accretion or by change of channel could not be recognized.
You will further point out that in this contention we have the right to deem ourselves the aggrieved party. The Mexican authorities at Mier have assumed to exercise territorial jurisdiction, not merely over the island of Morteritos, but over part of the territory of the United States which has since accidentally been joined to that island by the closing of a waterway. Our effort to assert the jurisdictional power belonging to us of right, has been resented as an unwarrantable interference and made the occasion of a complaint which proves to be baseless. Notwithstanding this, the Government of the United States promptly acceded to a request of the Mexican minister, and directed its authorities on the frontier to avoid all pretext of conflict with the Mexican authorities until the question of ownership should be amicably settled. In communicating to the Secretaries of the Treasury and of War the conclusion of this Government that Morteritos is wholly of the domain of the United States, the request that the officers of this Government in that quarter should continue to avoid forcible assumption of jurisdiction has been renewed.
Under all these circumstances, you will formally ask that the Mexican Government forthwith cease any claim to territorial jurisdiction over the island of Morteritos, and cause to be duly respected the boundary line to the south of that island, and between it and the Mexican bank, as determined by the United States and Mexican commissioners in the survey.
Upon the removal of this question from the field of debate, this Government will have pleasure in taking up and considering Señor Mariscal’s original proposal, now revived by Señor Romero, for negotiating a formal convention in settlement of like disputes in future.
I am, &c.,
- For inclosure see document No. 266 post. ↩