it to the supreme court of the Territory, which, on the 5th of January, 1898, sustained the district court. It was then taken by the Government to the Supreme Court of the United States, where, on the 22d day of May, 1899, the case was remanded, with instructions to order an inquiry into the question whether the intended acts of the defendants in the construction of the dam and in appropriating waters of the Rio Grande will substantially diminish the navigability of that stream within the limits of present navigability, and if so, to enter a decree restraining those acts to the extent that they will so diminish.

This case is reported in 174 United States, at page 690, in which Judge Brewer, delivering the opinion, says, at page 699: "I am not, therefore, disposed to question the conclusion reached by the trial court and the supreme court of the Territory that the Rio Grande, within the limits of New Mexico, is not navigable; neither is it necessary to consider the treaty stipulations between this country and Mexico." In accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, testimony was taken for several weeks before Judge Parker at Las Cruces, near the Mexican border, and a large number of witnesses were examined with reference to the fact whether such a dam would substantially diminish the navigability of the Rio Grande within the limits of present navigability. All of this testimony was to the effect that such a dam as was contemplated would not have any effect in that direction, and the court so found. From this judgment of the district court the United States took an appeal to the supreme court of the Territory, which affirmed the judgment of the court below. Thereupon the United States again ordered an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it is now pending, and I submit to this committee that while the matter is sub judice, it would be highly improper for a coordinate branch of the Government, i. e., the legislative, to act in such a way as is contemplated by the bill in question.

The transcript of the record in that case contains an enormous amount of testimony from reliable parties upon the subject in controversy, to which I would invite the attention of the committee, as my time is too limited to read even a portion of it.

It will be observed that this "joint commission" earnestly recommends the construction of a dam across the Rio Grande at El Paso, at an expense of $2,317,133.36, and the ceding by the United States to Mexico of a portion of the Territory of New Mexico, and that the Senate committee agrees in these recommendations in its report on this bill, while the United States, by its law department, has, for more than four years past, been endeavoring to prohibit the construction of a similar dam 100 miles north of El Paso, upon the ground that it would materially impair the navigability of that river at a point between 800 and 900 miles below El Paso, thus violating the provisions of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and impairing the contract entered into by that treaty between us and the Republic of Mexico. Just how the distinguished gentlemen on the commission and on the Senate committee arrived at the conclusion that an international dam at El Paso is demanded by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and will result in great benefit to both nations by the expenditure of more than $2,300,000, while a similar dam constructed by private parties 100 miles above that point is a gross violation of treaty obligations and will seriously impair the navigability of the stream, is something about which I am not advised, and I desire and earnestly urge this committee to grant our people time in which to solve this problem and fully present arguments and facts to show the ruinous effect which the passage of this bill would have upon the industries of our people. As I have stated before, the legislature of New Mexico and its people in conventions have most earnestly protested, in the name of justice and right, against the passage of the so-called Stephens bill, which is identical with the one under consideration. The legislature of that Territory assembles on the 21st instant, and immediately after its convening one of its first acts will be to authorize the appointment of a nonpartisan committee to visit Washington for the purpose of presenting arguments and facts against the passage of this bill. Before 1850 New Mexico had been an outlying province of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Mexico, neglected and uncared for by either Government, compelled to depend upon herself and her own resources, to contend against an arid climate and the savage Indians within her borders. Since that time she has had little from the National Government, but has conducted her own internal affairs, erected a capitol building, a penitentiary, university, agricultural college, school of mines, and normal schools entirely at her own expense. Our persistent endeavors to be admitted to the sisterhood of States have been ignored; both political parties and every legislature for the last twelve years have made the application in vain, notwithstanding we have more wealth and population than any of the recently admitted States of the Union. We bow with submission to this will of Congress, but we can not find words sufficiently strong with which to protest against this bill now pending before you, which deliberately pro

poses to cede a portion of our Territory, to prohibit the construction of reservoirs upon our principal stream, and deprive our people of using even the limited means at our command for purposes of agriculture. While we admit that Congress has the power to do all these things, as the guardian has the disposal of his ward's property, yet we protest against the right to exercise it, as taking away our property, not only without compensation, but actually inflicting an irreparable injury in addition to its loss.

Hon. H. D. MONEY,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX., January 5, 1901.

DEAR SIR: The other day you reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations S. 3794, "A bill to provide for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico," etc. With all due respect, Senator, on behalf of the people of New Mexico I desire to solemnly protest against the passage of the bill in its reported form at least.

I have read your report carefully, and all its references, except Senate Doc. 229, which I have not at hand, but apart from that I am quite familiar with the history of the questions involved, and desire to state to you, sir, that the Committee on Foreign Relations missed having before it the most important information concerning the subject-matter it was considering, and that is this:

You will recollect that the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Company et al. (174 U. S., 690), remanded the cause to the Territorial court to have evidence taken as to whether or not the works being constructed by defendants in any manner "substantially" interfered with or diminished the navigability of the Rio Grande at any navigable point below El Paso, where the river forms the international boundary line. Well, when the cause came back to the Territory for that purpose, a very large amount of evidence was taken on that question, and the case was argued with the greatest ability by counsel for the Government and defendants. The court unhesitatingly held against the contention of the Government. The latter appealed again to the supreme court of the Territory, and that court affirmed the decision of the lower court, thus deciding for the fifth time all the questions involved for the defendants.

Now, recently, since my return from Washington, where I had the pleasure of meeting you for a few moments, I by diligent effort succeeded in inducing the United States attorney for New Mexico to perfect the appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which he had been ordered to take almost at the end of the time limitation, in the cause, and the entire record, with all the voluminous evidence, records, maps, etc., has gone up and will shortly be printed in the higher court. This record, when printed, will contain a vastly more elaborate exposition of the questions sent down for investigation by the court in 174 U. S., 690, than were ever collated anywhere, and ought in justice to New Mexico and Colorado, as well as the defendants in that suit, to be seen by Senators before they are asked to vote upon such an important matter.

When one considers the consequences of S. 3794 becoming a law in its reported form, virtually paralyzing New Mexico, at least, forever, it is to my mind, with all due respect, incomprehensible that Senators could ever vote for it.

When it comes to a question of prior appropriation, the Upper Rio Grande was inhabited long years before there was any settlement, save that of a very few Indians, at El Paso; and while the people of El Paso may have some equities in the matter, it does look as though under all the law this Government owes no consideration to the citizens of a foreign state as against the rights of its own citizens.

New Mexico, Senator, has no vote in Congress and has to depend upon the sense of right and justice of all Senators and Congressmen, and I sincerely hope that this bill will not be pressed to passage until at least an opportunity is had for Senators, yourself among the rest, to examine this new record spoken of above. Then, also, an effort is to be made to advance the cause upon the docket of the Supreme Court of the United States, and if the court affirms the supreme court of the Territory there will, of course, be a very material modification of S. 3794 made before it is enacted into law.

Hoping that you will do what you can to stay this proceeding until the investigation I have mentioned is made, and assuring you of my most distinguished consideration, I am, sincerely, yours, B. S. RODEY,

Delegate-elect from New Mexico to the Fifty-seventh Congress.

His Excellency, Governor OTERO,

Santa Fe, N. Mex.

UNITED STATES SENATE, January 15, 1901.

MY DEAR GOVERNOR: Since our conversation this afternoon I have had a conference with Senator Culberson, and did as I told you I would. I told him that I would not permit the passage of any section of his bill that would in any way inpair the rights of the citizens of New Mexico to all the water to which they had ever been entitled. He assured me that he had no such design, and if there was anything in the bill that would appear that way he was willing to strike it out. I do not think there will be any difficulty in settling this matter to your satisfaction. I regret exceedingly that for a moment anyone in New Mexico should think that I was capable of advocating a measure to their detriment. I will always be pleased to serve you and the people

of New Mexico.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, yours,

H. D. MONEY.

NEW MEXICO COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND MECHANIC ARTS,
Mesilla Park, January 5, 1901.

The SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D. C.

SIR: The undersigned, members of the faculty of the New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts and members of the station council of the New Mexico agricultural experiment station, desire respectfully to present for your consideration the following statements:

First. A bill (S. 3794) was recently introduced in the Senate during its present session and was reported favorably by the Committee on Foreign Relations, as shown by Senate Report No. 1755, calendar No. 1736. This bill is similar in general character and purpose to a bill introduced in the House during the Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, being bill H. R. 9710. Both of these bills authorize the construction of an international dam on the Rio Grande at or near El Paso, Tex., and both contain a clause which virtually forbids hereafter the construction of reservoirs in the Territory of New Mexico. We desire to protest against the passage of either of these bills, and to emphasize the fact that either of them, if passed, would greatly injure the agricultural interests of the Rio Grande Valley above the point at El Paso, Tex., where the dam contemplated would be constructed. The passage of these bills would work irreparable injury to the Mesilla and Rio Grande valleys in particular and to the welfare of New Mexico generally, and threatens to destroy the usefulness of this experiment station.

Second. Several years ago a company, duly organized under the title of the Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Company, proposed to construct a reservoir at the Elephant Butte Dam site, on the Rio Grande in New Mexico. By reason of litigation undertaken by the United States courts this reservoir has not yet been completed. Under the absurd argument of navigability of the Upper Rio Grande an injunction was procurred stopping the work on the company's project. By a series of decisions in the Territorial district court, the Territorial supreme court, and the Federal Supreme Court, the contentions of the United States Government attorneys have failed to be sustained. The case has recently, for the second time, been appealed from the Territorial supreme court to the Federal Supreme Court, and is at present in that condition. We believe that the interests of New Mexico, and especially the interests of the Mesilla Valley, which is admittedly one of the best agricultural sections of the Territory, would be greatly benefited by the completion of the proposed Elephant Butte Dam, and the work of this college and experiment station greatly helped. The general desire of the agricultural interests of the Territory and of the people of this Territory as a whole is that the proposed reservoir at Elephant Butte be constructed.

We therefore wish, in view of the above facts, to express our desire that the Government's case against the Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Company be either dropped or brought to a final decision as speedily as possible. To further prolong this litigation, which it is generally felt has been brought about through the action of parties personally interested in the construction of the proposed international dam at El Paso, will materially injure the agricultural interests of this Territory and consequently retard the work of this college and experiment station.

The undersigned are interested in the foregoing only from the standpoint of the best interests of this institution and of New Mexico generally. We believe that the agricultural and allied interests of this Territory are seriously affected by the matters

referred to, and, in the case of the Senate and House bills introduced, seriously threatened. We therefore most respectfully petition your interest and influence in behalf of the welfare of this Territory and this institution, to the end that these interests may be securely protected.

Most respectfully submitted.

(Here follow the signatures of the faculty, etc.)

To the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate.

GENTLEMEN: The following is a set of resolutions passed by the Commercial Club, of Albuquerque, N. Mex., against the passage of the "Culberson-Stephens bill," S. 3794, entitled "A bill to provide for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande River between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico:" Whereas it has come to the knowledge of this club that a bill is now pending before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, commonly known as the "Culberson-Stephens bill," numbered S. 3794, and entitled as above; and

Whereas the passage of the bill in any form will be a continuous menace and never ending source of litigation to the best interests of the Territory of New Mexico, and will stagnate and forever paralyze our agricultural interests and incidentally all other interests of the Territory; and

Whereas the report made upon said bill (Calendar No. 1736), as well as the entire preamble of the bill itself, is inaccurate in many respects and wrongfully assumes and admits, among other things, an obligation upon the part of the Government of the United States to the Government of Mexico to burden the water catchment areas of New Mexico and Colorado, with a water servitude in favor of lands in the Republic of Mexico, and this notwithstanding the language of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden treaty and the opinion of the Attorney-General of the United States (21 Opns. Atty. Genl., 274) to the contrary; and

Whereas the whole tenor of said bill is an unpatriotic and wrongful admission of the right of the Republic of Mexico to claim damages against this Government because of citizens of the United States using the waters of the Rio Grande at points where said river is wholly within the territory of the United States, and when the use of said waters does not, as has been held four successive times by the district and supreme courts of New Mexico, in any manner affect the "navigability" of the Rio Grande, at any point where it ever was or ever can be navigable-navigability being the only question under the treaties in which Mexico can have anything to say: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, by the Commercial Club of Albuquerque, N. Mex., in meeting assembled this 26th day of January, A. D. 1901, That this club most respectfully and solemnly protests against the enactment of said bill, or any other bill of similar import, and against the making of any such admissions as are made therein, and respectfully submits that no restriction of any kind or character (the law being sufficient in that regard) should be placed upon the people or the Territory of New Mexico as to the use of the waters of its own catchment areas and rivers; and

Be it further resolved, That all other commercial clubs, city and town councils, or trustees and boards of county commissioners, and similar commercial, municipal, and quasi municipal bodies in the Territory of New Mexico and in the portions of the State of Colorado affected by said bill, be, and they hereby are, respectfully requested to pass proper resolutions and protests in this behalf and forward the same as these are being forwarded; and

Be it further resolved, That the secretary of this club transmit a copy of these resolutions to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, and respectfully request that body to call for and have printed as a Senate document the record in the case of the Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Company, now pending on a second appeal from the supreme court of New Mexico in the Supreme Court of the United States, so that the said committee may be fully informed as to the rights of New Mexico in the premises.

The above is a matter of most vital importance to every community in the Territory, and your body is urged to pass similar resolutions to the above and forward the same to the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and House of Representatives at the very earliest practicable date.

Yours, very truly,

P. F. MCCANNA, Secretary Commercial Club.

The SECRETARY OF STATE,

State Department, Washington, D. C.

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 24, 1900.

SIR: In the course of my interview with you anent the bill (H. R. 9710, Fifty-fifth Congress, first session) introduced by Mr. Stephens, of Texas, I took the liberty of calling your attention to the fact that some one in the State Department responsible for the compilation of Senate Document No. 229, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, in regard to the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande, had, either by gross neglect or with an ulterior motive, omitted or suppressed important documents highly germane to the matter in question. This you declared "impossible,' and as you expressed a desire to see the document and to have proof of my statement, I beg herewith to hand you a copy of the document referred to; also a general statement of the Elephant Butte Dam case, in which Mr. Newton Crane advised as counsel.

The accompanying document (No. 229) was compiled and transmitted to Congress in response to a resolution of the Senate of February 22, 1898, requesting the President

"If not incompatible with the public interest to transmit to the Senate the proceedings of the international commission authorized in the concurrent resolution of Congress of April 29, 1890, and a subsequent international convention between the United States and Mexico of May 6, 1896, and also the correspondence relating thereto with Mexico by the Department of the Interior, Department of War, and Department of Justice, as well as the Department of State, relating to the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande River, including the draft of an incomplete treaty between said Governments, negotiated between the late Secretary of State, Mr. Olney, on the part of the United States, and Mr. Romero, on the part of Mexico, and all the correspondence between said officials relating thereto."

From the wording of this resolution it may be assumed that the Senate desired all the information obtainable in the Departments touching the subject. But just as it is obvious that the resolution was drawn by some one ignorant of the appropriate methods of communication between this and foreign governments, so, to those familiar with the history of the so-called international dam scheme, it is equally obvious that the resolution and the resulting document are part of a conspiracy to deprive the people of New Mexico and Colorado of a legitimate use of the waters of the Rio Grande, and in particular to destroy the legally acquired and vested rights of the Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Company, a company incorporated and doing business under the laws of New Mexico.

Although a considerable part of this document is devoted to correspondence more or less irrelevent to the subject, including expensive reproductions of five maps made by Mexican engineers, which afford but little, if any, practical information, the opinion of Attorney-General Harmon, which deals with the whole question, is entirely omitted. In fact, practically every paper that militates against the international dam proposition was suppressed, either in part or as a whole, while every paper favorable to the international dam project and to Mexico's claim was included. is no exaggeration to say that if the attorney of the Mexican Government had been handed the files of the State Department from which to compile the response to the Senate resolution he could not have produced a statement more favorable to the Mexican claim.

It

If the resolution was to be construed as all the Departments, except the Department of Justice, have construed it, then the response should have embraced

(1) The opinion of the Attorney-General, December 12, 1895, which was in reply to a letter of the Secretary of State dated November 5, 1895.

This letter of the Secretary to the Attorney-General inclosed a copy of the resolution of Congress (the concurrent resolution of April 29, 1890) relative to the complaints of Mexico concerning the alleged improper use by American citizens of the waters of the Rio Grande. It also inclosed a copy of a letter from the Mexican minister "in which he states at length the position taken by his Government." Thus the Attorney-General was called upon to review the whole subject and to give his opinion thereon. This he did, and his opinion is the one definite and authoritative official paper affecting the case. Its omission from the papers called for by the Senate resolution can only be attributed to gross neglect or to the supposition that the compilation of the response to the resolution was intrusted to an unscrupulous partisan of the international dam scheme.

(2) The response should have embraced the communication of the Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Delegate to Congress from New Mexico, addressed to the Secretary of State.

This letter was a discussion by Mr. Fergusson as the representative of the people most vitally interested in the whole question.