The Secretary of State to the Mexican Ambassador.

No. 208.]

Excellency: I am happy to realize from your recent conversation at the department that the Government of Mexico, equally with that of the United States, is at the present moment more than ever before anxious to bring to a definitive and prompt settlement the question of the sovereignty of the Chamizal tract, which has been the subject of negotiations between the two Governments ever since the failure of the joint commission in 1897 to settle the boundary at this point, negotiations which have been particularly active during the last three years.

On July 19, 1907, your excellency’s distinguished predecessor proposed arbitration, and in line with his suggestion there was considered and discussed the reference of the question to arbitration by a Canadian jurist. The Government of the United Mexican States very naturally concluded from the delay of the Federal Government’s catagorical response that the proposal in question had failed to commend itself. Therefore, as further evincing the desire for early settlement, your excellency recently so ably carried out your instructions to seek settlement of the question by an exchange of territory to be effected on the ground of interpretation of the line, thus making more specific the general suggestions made by your predecessor on May 21, 1908, and December 12, 1908.

[Page 717]

In the earlier of these communications and evidently with a view to facilitating this method of settlement, your excellency’s predecessor proposed a new boundary treaty which should also have the effect of working some modifications—not, however, deemed by this department, after the most careful consideration, to be material—in the rules which guide the joint commission in tracing the boundary under the present convention.

So long ago as March 21, 1907, your predecessor called the department’s attention to the action of the United States marshal in proceeding to the execution of certain writs of sequestration which had been issued by the United States District Court against certain persons in possession of land within the disputed tract which they claimed under Mexican title and at the request of your excellency’s Government this Government intervened in these proceedings, calling the attention of the Federal courts to the treaty provisions whereby jurisdiction as regards the international title to the Chamizal tract had been conferred upon the International Boundary Commision, and suggested to the Federal court through the Department of Justice that, as a matter of international comity, no proceedings between individuals as regards private title which might seem, even indirectly, to involve the question of national sovereignty, should be allowed to proceed to the point of actually putting into execution writs of sequestration or of ejectment against the persons alleging Mexican title. Since that time your excellency’s Government has, on various occasions, called the attention of this department to proceedings in the American courts deemed by your excellency’s Government to threaten the disturbance of the possession of persons claiming under Mexican title in the disputed tract, and this department has, from time to time, in response to these requests, investigated the various matters complained of and taken such action as seemed appropriate in the premises.

It is not necessary to point out that in thus acting, as a matter of comity, in accord with the theory that the international sovereignty was in dispute, this Government has never admitted any derogation of its de facto jurisdiction over the Chamizal tract, any more than it has ever expected Mexico to do so, in the case of that portion of Cordova the-status of which is theoretically similar. I would further invite your excellency’s special attention to the fact that although, in practice, certain other persons have inadvertently profited by the stay of action by American courts, yet this Government has, in no instance, consented or intended to do more than stay judicial proceedings and the results thereof in the cases of persons actually claiming under Mexican titles.

Unfortunately this liberal policy has had a result which the Mexican Government would surely be the first to deplore; that is, many individuals without even prima facie evidence of title or right are taking actual physical possession of lands in the Chamizal tract relying upon the benevolence of this Government to shield themselves from the just consequences of their wrongful acts—a result evidently never contemplated by your Government.

The extreme irritation of the people of El Paso at this situation will at once be apparent to your excellency, and you will share my anxiety when I assure you that this situation is so fraught with danger of actual violence that I feel it must be at once remedied in [Page 718] order to prevent some untoward incident which would disturb the good feeling which now so happily prevails between the people of El Paso and Juarez; and I add that the tension I find to exist on the ground is a great factor in compelling me now to ask the early and earnest consideration of your excellency’s Government to the proposition which I shall now make, both to safeguard the immediate future and to assure a settlement of the question within the next half year—a result in the attainment of which I may rely upon your excellency’s energetic and able cooperation:

  • First. The Government of the United States as a practical compromise proposes to continue until the settlement of the question of the sovereignty of the Chamizal the stay of proceedings in cases of persons able to show that they are claiming under prima facie Mexican title and that they or their predecessors in interest were in actual occupation of the lands so claimed on March 15, 1910, but not to interfere with the proper execution of judicial process against persons upon the Chamizal tract who have no prima facie Mexican title, or who have come upon the land in person or through those in privity with them since the 15th of March, 1910. The department proposes to appoint an officer who shall be authorized to pass upon the question of the existence of prima facie Mexican title and of the fact of actual possession under such title prior to March 15, 1910, and to report to the department the cases wherein ejectment should be prevented by virtue of international comity, whereupon the necessary action will be taken by the appropriate officers of the department of Justice, as has been done in the past. It is not doubted that the Mexican Government will at once perceive that this arrangement is fully responsive to the true intent of its original request, that it is necessary to enable the United States to continue to exercise the de facto jurisdiction which it has hitherto exercised over the tract in question since its formation; and that it is entirely consistent with the contention of the Mexican Government as to the theoretical status of the land pending the final settlement of the question of sovereignty. In conclusion this Government can not too strongly urge the acceptance of these temporary arrangements as a practical temporary solution of a situation which has become impossible.
  • Second. The Government of the United States greatly regrets that, while impressed with the convenience of a settlement of the boundary by exchange of territory upon the theory of interpretation of the boundary line, it finds it quite impracticable to agree upon the basis of exchange involving relinquishment by the United States of San Elizario, as well as Horcon and the portion of American territory now on the Mexican side of the present channel near El Paso.
  • Third. As indicated above the Government of the United States is still unable to pursuade itself that a new treaty in the sense suggested by the communications of the Mexican Embassy would be of a mutual benefit sufficient to justify its negotiation.
  • Fourth. Adverting to the general suggestion of arbitration, the Government of the United States proposes that the Governments of the United States and Mexico proceed forthwith to submit, each to the other, a list of three Canadian jurists, any one of whom would be a satisfactory umpire; that thereupon the two Governments seek to agree informally upon one name from these lists, and that, in the event of failure to do so the Government of the Dominion of [Page 719] Canada be asked to make a selection from the six jurists named. It is proposed that thereupon the two Governments resubmit the question of the sovereignty of the Chamizal tract to determination by the present joint commission acting with the Canadian jurist so selected as the third member with a casting vote. It is further proposed that a convention in this sense be so framed that the decision of the joint commission, enlarged as above, shall be arrived at within four months.

Doing myself the honor to lay these proposals before your excellency, I can not top earnestly request for them the earliest and most considerate attention, and I take advantage of this opportunity to renew to your excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.

P. C. Knox.