There was no provision for the decision of questions of difference, if any, between the persons so appointed. A similar engagement was incorporated in the 5th article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of Feb. 2, 1848, and in the first article of the treaty of December 30, 1853, both of which made cessions of territory to the United States and established a new boundary. Prior to the conclusion of the latter treaty, a question arose as to a certain tract of territory claimed by the United States as part of New Mexico, and as having passed to the United States under the treaty of 1848, while Mexico alleged that it formerly belonged to the State of Chihuahua. "Where a dispute as to territorial limits arises between two nations, the ordinary course is to leave the territory claimed by them, respectively, in the same condition (or as nearly so as possible), in which it was when the difficulty first occurred until an amicable arrangement can be made in regard to conflicting pretensions to it. It has not been the intention of the United States to deviate from this course, nor has any notice been given by Mexico that she proposed to assume jurisdiction over it, or change the possession as it was held at the conclusion of the treaty of peace and limits [1848] between the two Republics. “Governor Lane [of New Mexico] is justified in claiming the disputed territory as a part of New Mexico and in denying that the acts of the boundary commission had in any manner effected a transfer of that territory from New Mexico to Chihuahua, but his proceeding to enter the territory and hold it by force of arms is not approved and will not be, unless it shall appear that the authorities of Chihuahua had changed or were attempting to change the state of things in the disputed territory from the condition in which they were before the action of the boundary commission on that part of the line. The successor to Governor Lane will proceed without delay to New Mexico with instructions to pursue a course fair towards Mexico and usual in such cases. "You are instructed to assure the Government of Mexico of the willingness of the Government of the United States to have the territory remain as it was when the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was concluded, without prejudice to the rights of either party, until the line shall be definitely settled by the boundary commission or by negotiation." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Conkling, min, to Mexico, May 18, 1853, In reply to a request for "certified copies of the data, surveys, and reports relating to the Emory-Salazar line between the United States and Mexico, to settle a controversy as to the boundary of certain lands lying in El Paso County, Texas," the Department of State said: "This Department is the custodian of the maps of the survey in question, which are accompanied by the original field notes. Neither the maps nor the field notes have ever been printed." It was added that every facility would be afforded for their examination by a properly accredited expert. Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Smith, Aug. 18, 1899, 239 MS. Dom. For letters and papers relating to the boundary with Mexico, see Ex. Doc. For the report of Maj. W. H. Emory, U. S. commissioner, on the survey of the boundary, including a general description of the country and maps and illustrations, see H. Ex. Doc. 135, 34 Cong. 1 sess. Vol. XIV. in 3 parts. By a convention of July 29, 1882, the United States and Mexico agreed to create an international boundary commission, consisting of a chief engineer and associates appointed by each party, to relocate the boundary in places where the monuments of prior surveys had been destroyed or displaced. This convention having lapsed by reason of delays in the appointment of commissioners, President Cleveland, in his annual message of December 3, 1888, said: "The precise relocation of our boundary line [with Mexico] is needful, and adequate appropriation is now recommended." The convention of 1882 was revived by a convention of February 18, 1889, by which the time for the execution of the work was fixed at five years from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the new convention. Continuances were subsequently effected till October 11, 1894, and October 11, 1896. "The commissioners on the part of the United States who were appointed pursuant to the convention of July 29, 1882, as subsequently revived and continued to October 11, 1896, in regard to the survey and re-marking of the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, have completed their work and made their final report. An early opportunity will be taken to lay the matter before Congress, to the end that this valuable report, with its accompanying maps and views, may be printed." Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Dec. 7, 1896, For. See a discussion as to the disputed piece of land called Banco Cuauhtemoc For correspondence in relation to the proceedings of the commission, see "The International Boundary Commission of Mexico and the United States, created by the convention of July 29, 1882, to replace the monuments marking the dividing line from Paso del Norte to the Pacific Ocean, noticed in the execution of its labors considerable differences between the dividing line agreed upon in the treaty of December 30, 1853, and that laid off on the spot by the respective commissions which were at work up to the year 1856, especially in the ineasurement of 100 miles along parallel 31° 47′ north latitude, from the river Bravo west, and thence south until striking parallel 31° 20', and following that parallel to the west to the meridian 111° west of Greenwich. The progress of science, the perfection of scientific instruments, and the use of the telegraph enabled this commission to discover the mistakes of the first. "As it is proper that the demarcation of the dividing line on the ground should be in conformity with the provisions of the treaty in question, the Mexican Government thinks that the line should be rectified so as to agree with the treaty which fixed it, and to prevent either of the contracting countries being in possession, although by mistake, of portions of territory which it was not the intention of the treaty to grant it. "To this end the Mexican Government has instructed me to propose to the United States Government the conclusion of a new convention to rectify the demarcation of the dividing line in accordance with the treaty of 1853, between the river Bravo (monument No. 1) and the Colorado River (monument No. 205), or throughout its whole extent, if the United States Government should prefer to have the rectification made along the whole line, although the differences found in the dividing line between the Californias are insignificant. "If the United States Government considers these observations well founded, and if you desire it, I will draw up a draft of a convention for the exact demarcation of the dividing line throughout its whole extent, or in the part mentioned." Mr. Romero, Mex. min., to Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, Aug. 9, 1897, For. Rel. 1897, 398. The errors discovered in the survey of 1856 were as follows: 1. A mistake in the measurement of the section along parallel 31° 47', west from the Rio Grande. This distance was found to be 159,193.4 meters instead of 160,933.0 meters (100 miles), as prescribed by the treaty. As a result of this error the meridian section connecting the parallel of 31° 47′ with the parallel of 31° 20′ was located approximately one mile (1,739.6 meters) east of its proper position, thus giving to the United States a strip of land about 31 miles long from north to south by about a mile in width. 2. The longitude of the monument marking the western terminus of the section along parallel 31° 20′, which should have been at the 111th meridian, was found to be in longitude 111° 4′ 34.45", or about 4 miles west of its proper position. This error also was favorable to the United States, giving it a nearly triangular area of about 290 square miles. The sum of both errors was therefore about 320 square miles. As a whole the work of the commission of 1853-56 was found to be excellent. Indeed, the final difference in longitude between the Rio Grande and the Pacific coast as determined by that commission differed from that determined by the later one, by the more recent and more precise methods, by only about 1.6 miles. "As to the question of a new convention for the rectification of the boundary in accordance with the treaty of December, 1853, I may say in all candor, in which the interests of both Governments are to be considered in forming a conclusion, that it is one of propriety. . . "Article I. of the treaty of December, 1853, states: 666 ‘That line shall be alone established upon which the commission may fix, their consent in this particular being considered decisive and an integral part of this treaty, without necessity of ulterior ratification or approval, and without room for interpretation of any kind, by either of the parties contracting. 66.6 ،، The dividing line thus established shall, in all time, be faithfully respected by the two Governments without any variation therein, unless of the express and free consent of the two, given in conformity to the principles of the law of nations, and in accordance with the constitution of each country, respectively.' "Great stress seems to have been laid upon the importance of a final and permanent settlement of the boundary which shall in all time be faithfully respected by the two Governments.... "The delimitation by that commission was made an explicit part of the treaty, and it would seem that the line thus established should not be changed except for very weighty and serious reasons. It is questionable if the transfer of a comparatively few square miles of land, then practically valueless, and now of but small intrinsic worth, can be considered a sufficient reason to disturb the satisfactory condition that exists on the frontier and give occasion for all sorts of private claims for damages on the part of the owners of adjacent lands. . . . "It would seem, in the Department's judgment, that all the purposes of the several treaties have been subserved; a boundary was established and marked, in compliance with the treaty of 1,1853, which has been known and accepted by both Governments as well as the people living along the border. It is true this line may perhaps have been inadequately marked at first, and several of the marks may have disappeared, but its approximate location was recognized, and private rights were acquired in accordance with its location. In compliance with the treaties of 1882 and 1889 this boundary was reestablished and carefully marked, and, as such, is apparently satisfactory to the people in its vicinity. The monuments as now located are permanent and intervisible; no dispute can arise in regard to the boundary, which is practically the same that has been known and recognized during the preceding forty years. It would seem, therefore, a useless refinement to change it now. The matter at issue, so far as the two Governments are concerned, it is respectfully submitted, is but a trifle, while to the individuals to be affected the results of a change might be very serious. "While the work proposed, should it ultimately be determined to make the rectification referred to, would not be specially difficult and would involve no very intricate scientific problems, yet the more serious and expensive part of it would doubtless be the removal and reerection of all monuments along the meridian section, 14 in number, three being of stone; also those on the azimuth line from the one hundred and eleventh meridian to the Colorado River, 80 in number, 10 being of stone. . . . "In this connection, it is well to bear in mind that all surveys, even when carried out with the greatest precision, are necessarily approximate. There is therefore no reason to believe that the survey of the commission of 1891-1895 was infallible, or that should the line be now changed to conform to its results a future generation would be equally justified in changing it again on the plea that a further advance in scientific methods had discovered errors in the present work. "I submit these views for the information of the Mexican Government. In the President's judgment no sufficient reasons have been adduced why either Government should be put to the expense of endeavoring to rectify a line, that future generations may be able to say is not the true one, after it has been so thoroughly and competently surveyed, in the light of all modern and scientific methods. by the joint commission organized pursuant to the convention of July 29, 1882. The results of that commission should stand, since the differences indicated are of practically no intrinsic value so far as the few square miles of land are concerned, and the boundary line so marked is practically the same that had been known and recognized during the preceding forty years.” Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Romero, Mex. min., Sept. 22, 1897, Mr. Romero, Sept. 23, 1897, acknowledged the receipt of the foregoing See, also, Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Barlow, Sept. 23, 1897, 221 MS. Dom. Let. 134. |