The Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs
(Sáenz)
to the American Chargé (Schoenfeld)
Mexico, October 27,
1926.
Mr. Chargé d’affaires: I have the honor to
refer to your courteous note No. 1524 of September 27, last, in
which, referring to mine of July 10 of this year regarding the
recommendations of Minute No. 61 of the International Boundary
Commission, Mexico and the United States, you state that, since it
is impracticable immediately to carry out the proposed works in view
of the proximity of floods, the Government of the United States is
of opinion that there should be concluded a convention or general
plan for the rectification of the Rio Grande from El Paso to Fort
Quitman or lower if this work is considered technically necessary,
proposing as a means for concluding the convention, the advantages
of which are indicated, the appointment of commissioners to draft a
convention to be submitted for the study and decision of both
Governments.
In reply, I beg leave to inform you that in order to carry out the
recommendations contained in Minute No. 61, I also think it
expedient that both countries should sign a convention stipulating
the conditions under which the works shall be carried out, as well
as those which shall determine the status of the lands segregated
thereby, both with regard to their sovereignty and their status as
private property.
Nevertheless, since article I of the convention of March 1,
1889,6 which established the International Boundary
Commission, provides
[Page 714]
that
the latter shall examine and decide all differences or questions
that may arise in that portion of the frontier where the Rio Grande
and Colorado Rivers form the boundary line, whether they grow out of
alterations or changes in their beds or of works that may be
constructed in the said rivers or of any other cause affecting the
boundary line, my Government does not believe the naming of a
special commission is necessary to take cognizance of these matters
which consist exclusively in a change in the bed of the Rio Grande
that will be caused by the carrying out of the projected works by
Mexican and American engineers and regarding which from the
technical point of view both countries are in agreement and,
therefore, the International Boundary Commission itself is able to
formulate the bases of the proposed convention in the same way as it
proposed, in 1905, and provided the means for concluding the
convention for the elimination of bancos.
Regarding the possibility that the commissioners who may be appointed
include in the new proposed convention the matter of sovereignty
over the portions segregated from one country or the other not
included in article II of the convention of 1905, that is El
Chamizal, the Island of Córdoba, and El Horcón, you will agree with
me that such a possibility is not viable, since the controversy
regarding the sovereignty over the Chamizal has been settled by an
arbitration,8 the award of
which, though the Government of the United States has considered it
null, is considered valid by that of Mexico.
To this end, with regard to the note of the American Embassy of
February 19 of the present [past] year,9 this Department proposed in a note of
April 27 of this [last] year10 not with
regard to the question of sovereignty which is considered settled,
but with regard to the validity or nullity of the award, that this
matter should be submitted to the decision of the Hague Tribunal.
The Mexican Government awaits a reply to this note in order to
settle the case.
As to the Island of Córdoba and El Horcón, there is no pending
difficulty whatever which makes necessary its study and
consideration.
Finally, examining the final suggestion contained in your note under
acknowledgment in the sense that the commissioners to be appointed
might decide the expediency of including in the convention some
provision for the protection of the nationals of either country who
have in good faith settled upon the bancos in the Rio
[Page 715]
Grande and constructed
works or improvements thereon and regarding which you state that
your Government has not yet formed any opinion, I take the liberty
of pointing out that in these cases there must be complied with the
provisions of article IV of the convention of March 20, 1905,11 stipulating that property of
all kinds situated on the bancos which shall in future be located on
the land of the other country shall be invariably respected and its
owners, heirs and those who may subsequently acquire the property
legally, shall enjoy as complete security with respect thereto as if
it belonged to citizens of the country where it is situated, and
that if in any case the citizens of either of the two countries
should have established themselves on the bancos of the Rio Grande
which formerly belonged to the other country and constructed works
or improvements thereon, there will be no reason to refrain from
restoring the property to its legitimate owner or, if this be
impossible, to grant him just compensation.
Basing my opinion on the foregoing considerations I beg leave to
inform you that my Government accepts in principle the idea of
concluding a convention which shall establish a general plan of
rectification of the channel up to Fort Quitman as the best means
for reaching an effective and timely result, it being appropriate
for the International Boundary Commission, in accordance with its
powers and attributes, to draft the said convention, which shall not
contain any provision contrary to the treaties and conventions in
force.
I avail myself [etc.]
