In view of the whole history of the Chamizal controversy culminating in your informal discussions with the Mexican Commissioner, the Department believes that the occasion offered by the present proposals of the Mexican Boundary Commissioner for recommencing the surveys for the elimination of the bancos should be improved in an endeavor to terminate once and for all this longstanding and vexatious boundary question.

So far as the Chamizal case itself is concerned it could, of course, be settled simply by the unconditional relinquishment by Mexico of her claims on the tract, and it may be, in view of the attitude of the Mexican authorities as it appeared in the conversation of the Mexican Commissioner with you, that such an unconditional relinquishment can be brought about. Therefore, the Department suggests that, in view of what it believes to be the untenable character of Mexico's claims to this tract when viewed in the light of the history of the practical construction placed upon the boundary treaties for many years, it is proper for you to attempt to obtain an unconditional relinquishment of the Mexican claims. It is suggested that this might well be done in your discretion by taking up the matter in informal conversations with the Foreign Office, referring to the proposals of the Mexican Boundary Commissioner for the re-commencement of the surveys for the elimination of the bancos and to your informal conversation with the Mexican Commissioner in the summer of 1923 with regard to the Chamizal matter and indicating that if, as the Department assumes from these conversations, the Government of Mexico is no longer disposed to press its claims to any portion of the Chamizal tract, there would' seem to be nothing to prevent the immediate resumption of surveys for the elimination of the bancos so far as the appropriation available for the American Commission now permits and that upon the receipt by you of a note from the Foreign Office confirming the foregoing understanding appropriate instructions in that case will be sent to the American Boundary Commissioner.

However, if it appears to you as a result of your informal conversations with the Foreign Office that such an unconditional abandonment of Mexico's claims to the Chamizal tract cannot be obtained, but that Mexico is disposed now as in the past to insist upon some consideration for this abandonment, you will inform the Foreign Office that while the American Commissioner on the International Boundary Commission will be instructed to make joint surveys in banco matters to the extent permitted by the appropriation, the Department cannot instruct him to attempt to decide banco cases with a view to the elimination of the bancos concerned until the Chamizal case is disposed of and the questions of treaty construc

tion connected therewith settled in such a manner as to allow the Boundary Commission usefully to function in this respect. In these circumstances the Department also desires you to take up at once the general negotiations for the settlement of the Chamizal case and other boundary questions near El Paso, Texas, at the precise point where they were interrupted in 1913 and to present to the Mexican Government and earnestly urge upon its consideration the draft convention which is herewith enclosed. This draft convention was taken up substantially in its present form by the Department in the spring of 1913 for presentation to the Mexican Government in response to the memorandum handed by the Mexican Embassy to the Department January 27, 1913 (Foreign Relations of the United States 1913, page 971) and in the light of subsequent telegraphic correspondence, particularly the Department's telegram to the Embassy of March 3, 1913, 8 p. m. (Foreign Relations 1913, page 973), the Embassy's telegram of March 13, 1913 (Foreign Relations 1913, page 974), the Department's instruction of March 27, 1913 (Foreign Relations 1913, page 975), and the Embassy's telegram of March 28, 1913 (Foreign Relations 1913, page 975).

It may be observed that the draft of the convention embodies the fundamental ideas of the Mexican Embassy's memorandum of January 27, 1913, together with the Department's proposed modifications of March 3, 1913, and the Department believes that this convention offers not only a just solution of the Chamizal case, but of the entire boundary question at El Paso growing out of river changes at the so-called Cordova tract, as well as at the Chamizal tract.

With regard to the Chamizal tract itself it is very important to bear in mind in discussing the convention that this Government took the firm and unalterable position that the so-called Chamizal Award of 1911 was both impossible of performance in fact and utterly void as a matter of law. This position was taken by the American Commissioner and the American Agent at the time the decision was rendered (Proceedings of the International Boundary Commission for June 15, 1911, Foreign Relations 1911, page 597) and was promptly ratified by the Department of State in a memorandum to the Mexican Embassy of August 24, 1911 (Foreign Relations 1911, page 604 [598]) and announced by the President of the United States in his Annual Message of December 7, 1911 (Foreign Relations 1911, XI) and admits of no discussion so far as this Government is concerned. It will be observed that the before-mentioned Mexican memorandum of January 27, 1913 frankly provides in its first proposition for the adherence of both Governments "to the attitudes they have respectively taken on the matter and to the scope given by each to the final award". This fundamental concept is scrupulously fol

lowed in the proposed convention and it is of the utmost practical importance that it should be followed, since if this Government even for an instant admitted the validity of the Lafleur Award of 1911, although Mexico in the next instant ceded the Chamizal tract to the United States, the result might be to cast doubt upon the private American titles to the lands in the tract upon which thousands of people make their homes and which are now understood to be worth, with the improvements which have been placed thereon, many millions of dollars.

Aside from the extinguishment of Mexican claims on the Chamizal tract provided for in the convention, another point of large importance to the continued growth and development of the City of El Paso is the provision therein contained for drawing the boundary line so as to throw the so-called Cordova tract into the jurisdiction of the United States. This tract, although upon the American side of the river as it runs today and immediately adjoining the City of El Paso, is, in accordance with the principles of treaty construction which the United States has always maintained, unquestionably Mexican territory.

The Department is informed that the Cordova lands, owing to their geographical position, have become an ideal base of operation for persons engaged in the smuggling of liquor, narcotics, and aliens into the United States, and the resulting situation constitutes a nuisance to both Governments and a menace to the peace and good order of the border cities of El Paso and Juarez as has been clearly demonstrated by unpleasant incidents which have occurred at that point.

Aside from remedying this situation by making the river as it runs the boundary between El Paso and Juarez, the inclusion of the Cordova lands within the United States would also make it possible, if it should be found to be desirable, to bring the railroads into El Paso along the river bank instead of through the center of the city as at present, and without expressing any opinion as to the desirability of this change, which is for the consideration of the citizens of El Paso, it would unquestionably be advantageous if this question could be determined upon its technical and economic merits without reference to the situation of the international boundary line.

For all these reasons the Department regards the bringing of the Cordova lands into the United States as of great public utility and one of the principal inducements for agreeing to a convention following the general lines proposed by Mexico in 1913 and including compensation under certain conditions and in a limited amount for the Mexican private titles in the Chamizal tract, the validity of which the Department has always denied. There is enclosed a memo

randum 66 as to the area and value of the lands transferred or relinquished under the proposed draft of a boundary convention. This memorandum was prepared in 1913 at the same time as the proposed convention, but it is believed that any changes in value which may have taken place since that time are of no particular consequence inasmuch as the Mexican negotiators have always disclaimed the idea of accepting money in return for sovereignty, and the negotiations have proceeded upon the basis of an exchange of a substantially equal amount of acreage which is to be for the mutual benefit of both countries as in the case of the elimination of the bancos, in addition to any compensation which may be equitably due on account of private titles. As is pointed out in the enclosed memorandum as to the area and value of the land, there is no compensation due under this head unless it be in the case of the disputed Mexican titles in the Chamizal tract, and the compensation should be made for these, if at all, only as proposed in the convention, that is, in an amount not to exceed the assessed valuation of the lands without improvements at the date of the Chamizal Award. Any subsequent increase in the value of the lands in the Chamizal tract is, therefore, immaterial.

With respect to the maps referred to in the draft convention it may be said that these maps were taken by Mr. Summerlin 67 with the copy of a draft convention on the Chamizal matter which he brought to Mexico from the Department in May, 1921. Reference is made to this by Mr. Summerlin in his letter to Mr. Hanna of September 29, 1923,68 and it is presumed that these maps are still in the Embassy's possession. Should this not prove to be the case, the Department upon being so informed will forward other maps.

With respect to the memorandum of area and value which is enclosed it may be observed that the Department's information indicates that there may have been a considerable diminution of the thirty acre tract near El Paso, south of the artificial cutoff referred to in paragraph la of that memorandum and it may be in view of the constant erosion which has taken place at that point that little, if any, of this tract still remains. An official joint survey would be required to ascertain the fact in this respect but if any of the tract is still in existence convenience clearly calls for its transference to Mexican sovereignty and even if the tract has wholly disappeared through the shifting of the river to the south at this point so as to entirely destroy the tract and pass it under the river to the American side no harm can be done by establishing formally and definitively

es Not printed.

67

George T. Summerlin, Counselor of the Embassy in Mexico.

Not printed; Matthew E. Hanna was Chief of the Division of Mexican Affairs.

in the treaty that the running river is the boundary line at this point. Moreover the tract is so insignificant in area and of so little comparative value that its disappearance in whole or in part would seem to have no material bearing upon the question of the fairness of the territorial exchange offered to Mexico, since the area of the Horcon Bar which it is proposed to transfer to Mexico is about one-third greater than the area of the Cordova tract which it is proposed to transfer to the United States.

69

Finally, the Department would point out that the negotiations for the disposition of this boundary matter have been pending for a number of years and have more than once failed of conclusion when apparently on the point of successful consummation by reason of events having no relation to the merits of the questions under consideration, such as the overthrow of the Madero Government in 1913. Therefore, the Department regards it as of great importance that the present favorable opportunity arising from the recently renewed and very friendly relations between the two governments taken in connection with your own cordial personal relations with the Mexican authorities should be taken advantage of for bringing these negotiations to a successful conclusion with the least possible delay. The Department deems it particularly desirable that if practicable these negotiations be concluded before the opening of the sessions of the General Claims Commission to be constituted under the convention recently entered into with Mexico.

For your convenient reference with respect to the entire history of the Chamizal controversy the Department encloses a copy of a memorandum on the Chamizal negotiations prepared by Mr. William C. Dennis,70 who was Agent of the United States in the Chamizal Arbitration of 1911 and thereafter Counsel for the Cotton estate and other American property owners in the Chamizal tract, and more recently also for certain American interests in the Cordova tract.

I am [etc.]

CHARLES E. HUGHES

[Enclosure]

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

The United States of America and the United Mexican States, being desirous of adjusting on a basis of practical conveniences certain differences that have arisen and still subsist between them, with

See Foreign Relations, 1913, pp. 692 ff. 10 Not printed.