"In civil life the thoroughly nice, good man who is at home in his own parlor and says how bad the world is never did any good to anyone. I would preach to no man the doctrine of the easy life. I would preach to every man the love of work for a worthy end; the life of decency, of square dealing, of honest behavior, in the family, among one's neighbours, to the State; and so I would preach to the nation not the course that is easiest, but the course that is greatest." It is this sturdy, unyielding manliness and honesty, this undoubted love of virtue, that we all so much admire in our President. He means what he says, and he is very apt to say what he means, and his earnest appeals to our sense of righteousness and to our patriotism, to our civic duty, makes for all that is best in our National life. Secretary Hay also loudly proclaims all of the virtues, private and public, and recently he has been posing prominently as a sort of heaven-sent admonisher of the other nations and their rulers. But while President Roosevelt's plain words and maxims bear the hall mark of sincerity, we have good reason to know that Mr. Hay's affectation of lofty mindedness and his high-sounding phrases and unctuous platitudes are for political purposes only; they do not reveal the true character of the real John Hay. Men who really stand for honest officialism and public rectitude do not condone perjury in their official subordinates. However, I have an abiding faith that if, through friends in Congress or through the public press, I can properly bring Anson Mills's crime to the personal attention of President Roosevelt, the guilty parties will be brought to justice, regardless of consequences. In a recent letter to the Attorney General, apropos certain charges against several officials in the Postal Service, President Roosevelt said: "There can be no greater offense against the Government than a breach of trust on the part of a public official or the dishonest management of his office, and of course every effort must be exerted to bring such offenders to punishment by the utmost rigor of the law." This evidences the President's disposition in such matters, and moves me to hope that, failing the support of the press, or a proper congressional inquiry into the conduct of Anson Mills and his political backers, it will not be necessary for me to sacrifice myself further by publicly pulling John Hay's nose or caning him, or putting a bullet through him, in order to arouse sufficient public interest in my charges to ensure their proper investigation. I started out to describe to you "the little mother's" terrible fate, and to give you particulars of the position of affairs in the Elephant Butte matter, but as I proceeded with my story I decided to write you a letter that you can publish in the English papers if the worst happens and I do have to "take the law into my own hands." Trusting that my Democratic friends in Congress and on the press may succeed in securing a proper investigation of the charges against Anson Mills, and thereby ensure justice for the investors in the securities of the Elephant Butte Co., and that I shall not be compelled to resort to extreme measures myself, and apologizing for inflicting you with this exceedingly lengthy story of my troubles, Believe me, as ever, your friend, NATHAN BOYD. P. S.-As my writing is so very illegible, I have concluded to send this letter to my friend Doctor Chetham-Strode, who will get my old secretary, who is familiar with my writing, to make a typewritten copy of it for you. Doctor Chetham-Strode, who is a large investor in the Elephant Butte Co., will keep a copy, so that if anything should happen to you a copy will be available for the press, should it become necessary in my defense to publish to the world at large the full extent of the Government's bad faith. Of course, I do not desire to advertise abroad our Government's shameful dishonesty and faithlessness if it can be avoided, but it may become necessary and I want to make sure that my side of the story will be available for publication. So I have sent Doctor Chetham-Strode and my London solicitors copies of my statement of May 26, 1902, my letters to Hay, Knox, Hill, and others, my memorial to the President, and Knox's reply, and have instructed them to keep copies of this letter also, to be handed to the press and to Lord Ernest Hamilton (who is Lord Lansdowne's brother-in-law and Lord George Hamilton's brother), one of our (late) directors and an investor in the company's bonds, for the information of the English Government if I am arrested by the authorities here. The Solicitor for the Department of State to the Secretary of State. [Memorandum attached.] DEAR COLONEL HAY: Dr. Boyd does not understand the Atty. General's statement referred to. The International Boundary Commission to settle boundaries between Mexico & the U. S. was created under the Convention between the two Govts. of 1889. In case of a difference of opinion between the two Com's, the matter would be referred to the two Govts. for decision. In a sense, therefore, the work of the Com. falls under the jurisdiction of the State Dept. But in the sense of the litigation complained of by Dr. Boyd, the Dept. has no more jurisdiction than over the face of the moon. Gen. Mills was appointed, under the Convention, by the President; and as Dr. Boyd complains of his action in connection with the litigation, the Atty. General was the proper officer to investigate it. W. L. P.1 Gen. Anson Mills, Commissioner, to the Secretary of State. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, INTERNATIONAL (WATER) BOUNDARY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., September 1, 1903. The honorable the SECRETARY OF STATE. SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith printed report of proceedings of the International (Water) Boundary Commission, United States and Mexico, organized under treaty of March 1, 1889; and for convenience in examination of the work of the commission a brief chronological history of the origin of the boundary and the main interesting incidents attending it are added here below. The boundary was first established by the treaty of peace between the United States and Mexico, dated February 2, 1848, and subsequently modified by treaty of December 30, 1853, generally known as the Gadsden Treaty (see pages 1, 2, and 3, and map showing the original as well as modified boundary on page 206). Under these treaties the boundary was definitely located by the joint Commission, variously constituted, but generally known as the Emory-Salazar Commission, during the years of 1849 to 1856, and their proceedings are published in three volumes, entitled: "Report of the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, by William H. Emory, Major 1st Cavalry and U. S. Commissioner" (Senate Ex. Doc. 108, 34th Congress, 1st Sess.). The first serious question of dispute over this location of the boundary was raised by Mr. W. H. Magoffin, in a letter from Fort Davis, Texas, October 10, 1856, addressed to Commissioner Emory in Washington, which subject was referred to the Attorney General, and brought about the valuable opinion of Attorney General Cushing to the Secretary of the Interior, dated November 11, 1856 (Official Opinions of Attorneys General of the United States, Vol. VIII, pp. 175-180), which has been of so much service to the present Commission in its labors with many of the questions referred to it, but which did not appear to apply to the great question of the elimina [The initials are those of the then Solicitor for the Department of State, William L. Penfield. The Solicitor is the principal law officer of the Department of State.-Agent's note.] tion of the bancos, raised in our Joint report of January 15, 1895 (see pages 176-7-8), which has been taken from our hands and is still before the treaty making powers of the two nations for determination as to whether the changes known as banco changes are to be considered as coming under the head of "avulsion" or under the head of "gradual erosion and deposit" in the opinion of Attorney General Cushing, above cited. Later on this banco question was made the subject of a report of a subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, of which Mr. Hitt was chairman, and still later the authorities of the two states of Texas and Tamaulipas, Mexico, became involved in a controversy in what is known as the "Banco de Vela," each state arresting and confining citizens of the other for trespass, which controversy caused the formation of this Commission, and this was the first question taken up by the Joint Commission, and this with several similar questions, the examination of which proved, in the opinion of the Commissioners, that it was typical banco and not fully covered by treaty or definite international law, as is fully explained in the report of the Joint Commission, dated January 15, 1895 (see pages 176 to 178, inclusive). Our investigations have since developed fifty-eight of these bancos, which have been formed in about as many years. The subject is a very important one to the citizens of each of the countries and it would be a great relief to them if an early determination could be had as to the actual boundary. Of the numerous questions referred to the Joint Commission since its organization in 1893, it has been able to give a judgment satisfactory to both nations, save in the two questions known as the "Chamizal Case" between El Paso, Texas, and Juarez, Mexico (see pages 42 to 95), and the very important case of the elimination of the bancos, above referred to. These are now considered as being in the hands of the treaty-making powers of the two countries and without the jurisdiction of the Joint Commission. Many questions involving the principle of elimination of bancos have been presented to the Joint Commission by citizens of both countries, since the question has been taken up by the two governments, but we have invariably refused to consider them until the question of elimination has been determined. The foregoing is with reference to the work of the Boundary Commission proper; the third volume of this report refers principally to the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande and Colorado River, the work in this regard being devolved on the Water Boundary Commission by the protocol between the United 37973-23-31 States and Mexico, dated Washington, May 6, 1896, based on the Resolution of Congress approved April 29, 1890 (see page 275), which provided for investigations to determine the feasibility of constructing an international dam on the Rio Grande at El Paso, Texas, for the use of citizens of both countries, and it may not be improper to state here that after the completion of the preliminary investigations a new complication arose from the protest of Mr. Andres Horcasitas, representing the inhabitants of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico (see page 337), and presented to your Department by the Mexican Minister, Senor Romero, against what is known as the Elephant Butte Dam in New Mexico, 120 miles above the proposed international dam, on the ground that there was not sufficient water to sustain both dams, and that Mexico was not willing to accept the international dam, as proposed, in lieu of their alleged deprivation of water without some restriction as to the use of water by the proposed Elephant Butte dam, and other dams in New Mexico. In deference to this protest your Department referred this matter to the Department of Jus tice, which Department brought suit in the courts of New Mexico to enjoin the construction of the Elephant Butte dam. This suit has been pending since May, 1897, meanwhile having been twice to the Supreme Court, but recently has been finally determined by the granting of a perpetual injunction against the construction of the Elephant Butte dam (see page 425). During the pending of this suit the Commission has been engaged, at the request of the Department of Justice, in measuring the entire flow of the Rio Grande, and has gathered a fund of information on the subject, which will no doubt prove valuable in the future to both Governments. A very interesting question has been referred to us by your Department from the Department of Justice as to the use of the water of the Colorado River, part of which forms the international boundary. The extraordinary feature of this latter case is the taking out of a large canal on the right bank of the Colorado River on United States soil, crossing into Mexico for many miles and then returning again into the United States, where most of the water is proposed to be used (see page 426). I have the honor to be, sir, Very respectfully, your obedient servant, ANSON MILLS, Brigadier General, U. S. Army, retired, |