Mr. Secretary: Having seen that the works which
the Mexican Government is constructing at Paso del Norte, for the
protection of the Mexican bank of the Rio Bravo del Norte (Rio Grande),
have been misunderstood by some of the inhabitants of El Paso, Texas, it
seems proper for me to communicate to you a copy of an unofficial letter
which I received from Don Ignacio Garfias, the engineer in charge of the
construction of said works, since it contains important data with
respect to the same, which data may serve to acquaint you with their
object and scope.
[Inclosure.]
Mr. Garfias to
Mr. Romero.
Paso del Norte, November, 4, 1888.
Dear Sir: A new complaint has arisen at El
Paso on account of the commencement here of work No. 6, which begins
just below the railroad bridge between the two cities. This route,
being the thoroughfare by which trade is carried on, occupies a much
more prominent position than the others. I think that this single
reason, together with the ignorance of the complainants with regard
to the matter, is what has given rise to this complaint. In fact, as
the new work, which is the sixth, implies nothing new, and as they
have already made their complaint, the present attitude of our
people is not understood. Technically this sixth work is the one
that can least affect the present shape of the left bank of the
river, because, although science technically compels me to project
this work in the place which it is going to occupy, the experience
that I have acquired, since leaving Matamoras, of the real effect of
these works in this river, induces me to believe that it will be
entirely useless, for the reason that work No. 5 will throw the
current to the center of the river, where it will be kept for a
space many times as great as that fixed by theory, the consequence
of which will be that the said current will pass at a long distance
from work No. 6, so that the latter will be of no use whatever. Such
is my opinion with regard to the effect of this work, which has
caused so great alarm among the people of El Paso, and I hope that
the freshets of April and May will show the correctness of this
opinion. As to the legal question, it is seen by them in another
light than that in which they formerly viewed it.
They now claim that the deepest channel is the boundary, and say
that, as this work is being constructed in the deepest channel, the
treaty is violated. In vain have I called their attention to Article
V of the treaty of Gruadalupe Hidalgo, which most clearly and
positively declares that the boundary line is the middle of the
river, and that, in case of there being more than one branch, it
shall be the middle of the deepest branch. They have not been
willing to understand the matter otherwise than in their own
way.
The same is the case with respect to Article III of the treaty of
1884. That article has reference to the non-admission of changes
artificially produced within the legal line drawn in 1852. The line
of 1852 does not exist for them, because a change is favorable to
them in this case, and they are concerned solely about a change that
might be made in the present line. I think, and I said so in my
statement, that we have a right to do work on the left bank of the
river, provided that bank does not occupy the position that it did
in 1852; consequently, they have no reason to complain of a work
which not only does not make any use of the land invaded by the
river, but which, owing to an excess of caution and delicacy,
respects even the land of which the present alarmists are now in
wrongful possession. They further allege
[Page 616]
that my labors do not constitute a revetment,
but that they “project over the current of the river” (Article III
of the treaty of 1884). In the first place, only in an entirely
straight channel can there be a revetment that does not “project
over the current;” in any river a simple revetment may be
constructed, “projecting over the current,” by merely taking
advantage of the salient curves. In the second place, the treaty
very wisely says “that they shall not project unduly,” and it is not an undue projection if the current
is made to deviate over land which is ours, as it would be if the
line occupied the position that it did in 1852. In the third place,
the result of the works which I am now constructing will be that of
a simple revetment.
* * * * * * *
A copy.
Washington,
November
12, 1888.
C. Romero,
Secretary.
