[Enclosure—Translation77]
The Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs
(Sáenz)
to the American Chargé (Schoenfeld)
Mexico, August 18,
1925.
No. 11089
Mr. Chargé d’Affaires: I have the honor to
refer to the Embassy’s note No. 720 of the 12th instant in which, by
instruction of your Government, you were good enough to inform me
that by Minute No. 61 our International Boundary Commission
recommended the construction of three cut-offs in the Rio Grande
near the City of El Paso, Texas, the result of which would be
according to the accompanying report of the consulting engineers on
the International Boundary Commission, as stated in the note, to
obviate the danger of floods in that section and in another
considerably below the point mentioned.
The recommendations contained in Minute No. 61 were duly studied as
provided by article 8 of the convention of March 1, 1889, and within
one month, as stipulated in article 8, our decision in the matter
was drawn up and sent to our Embassy in Washington for transmission
to the Department of State.
In this decision, which decision must already be known by the
Department of State, according to instructions to our Ambassador in
Washington, it is stated:
- 1.
- That there was authorized and approved the study of the
project of defense works and rectification in the El Paso
valley, in cooperation with American engineers, it being
recommended at the same time that the cases of bancos in
this zone of the Rio Grande should be presented to the Joint
Commission before the project in question.
- 2.
- That, although it is true that the topographical work
necessary to settle pending cases in the El Paso valley has
already been done, this decision can not be carried
out.
- 3.
- That the Mexican Government believes that consent should
not be given to making any cut-off unless at the same time
and before the work is carried out there be settled the
question of sovereignty over the segregated territory. In
the present cases this question of sovereignty would have to
be settled, a thing which the Mexican Government would not
desire to do before other questions of the same character
are settled which have been pending for a number of
[Page 580]
years, principally
for reasons attributable to the Government of the United
States.
- 4.
- That the cut-offs in question were recently proposed by
the Government of the United States in a draft convention
for the settlement of the Chamizal case and for the better
definition of the international boundary at certain points
along the Rio Grande, presented to the Government of Mexico
in its note of February 19, last. This draft convention was
rejected in its totality by the Mexican Government and it
could therefore not now consent that a part thereof should
be carried out.
- 5.
- The Government of the United States has desired to connect
the cases above referred to with the pending Chamizal case
and in its turn Mexico does not want to create new
difficulties until that relative to the Chamizal is
settled.
As you will see, it was only the desire to avoid the creation of new
difficulties before the settlement of pending cases and the reaching
of an agreement by the two Governments in the matter which was the
motive for postponing the carrying out of the recommendations of the
International Boundary Commission contained in Minute No. 61, to the
end that, after the question of the interpretation of the treaties
which the said cases involve [apparent omission], without failing to
recognize the advisability of carrying out all the proposed
works.
Before reaching the decision mentioned, based on the reasons set
forth, the urgency which might exist in immediately undertaking the
proposed cut-offs was taken into consideration, and the reports of
the engineers charged with the project and of the consulting
engineers of the International Boundary Commission were carefully
studied, and from that point of view it was found that in the
unanimous opinion of all of them the cut-offs proposed and
recommended by the International Boundary Commission in Minute No.
61 are not, according to the report of the consulting engineers
relative to the matter, anything more than the “first stage” in the
general project, the construction of which is to be recommended in
view of the fact that the modifications of relatively slight
importance which they would produce in the hydraulic equilibrium of
the river permit their initiation in the upper region of the valley
and not in the lower as would be logically convenient; and it was
found that considering the higher value of property in the
neighborhood of the cities of El Paso and Juárez and in view of
certain considerations of a financial character which make it
possible to perform the work immediately, their construction is
recommended without, however, it failing to be indispensable to
continue the construction of the works in the whole valley.
The foregoing views and the technical development of the project
having been studied, it is easy to arrive at the conviction that,
what
[Page 581]
in the opinion of the
experts will settle the problem of saving the lands in the valley of
El Paso from floods, will be the completion of the project in its
entirety and not that of its “first stage”; that if for financial or
other reasons it is not possible immediately to carry out the
project in its entirety or in the form in which it would be
logically convenient to do so, whereby in the opinion of the
technical experts the danger would be averted, the construction of
the first part proposed for the benefit of those interested in the
first portion could be recommended; but if the project is studied
even more in detail and attention is paid to the fact that in order
to carry it out it is essential to construct levees provided with
rip-raps and with structures forming the artificial channel for the
maximum discharge of floods and the fact that the probable floods at
this season will surely render difficult, if they do not entirely
prevent, the construction of these structures, especially in the
detail recommended by the consulting engineers, one will arrive at
the conviction that the construction ought to be commenced after the
present flood season and that, consequently, there is no reason to
hasten it in disregard of considerations of real importance which
would tend to postpone it.
I hope that the Government of the United States of America will be
good enough to appreciate the true importance and value of the
reasons on which was based the decision relative to this matter and
will agree to the justice which supports it.
It is very satisfactory to me to renew to you the assurances of my
most courteous consideration.
