erosion and deposit within the meaning of Article I of the treaty of
1884, there will never be such a one found in all the 800 miles where
the Rio Grande, with alluvial banks, constitutes the boundary, and
the object of the treaty will be lost to both governments, as it will
be meaningless and useless, and the boundary will perforce be through
all these 800 miles continuously that laid down in 1852, having
literally no points in common with the present river save in its many
hundred intersections with the river, and to restore and establish
this boundary will be the incessant work of large parties for years,
entailing hundreds of thousands of dollars in expense to each
government and uniformly dividing the lands between the nations and
individual owners, that are now, under the suppositions that for the
past forty years the changes have been gradual, and the river accepted
generally as the boundary, under the same authority and ownership;
for it must be remembered that the river in the alluvial lands, which
constitutes 800 miles, has nowhere today the same location it had in
1853."
Commissioner Osorno and I disagreed on the proper construction
of the words "slow and gradual, erosion and deposit of alluvium"
rather than on matters of fact. No decision could be rendered and
the disagreement was reported to our governments, where the matter
remained in a diplomatic state until 1910, when it was again referred
to the Commission, enlarged for this case only by the appointment of a
(presiding) commissioner, a Canadian jurist, to be selected by the two
governments. The case was again brought to trial in El Paso in 1911,
with the Commission constituted as follows:
Hon. Eugene Lafleur, of Montreal, Canada, Presiding Commissioner.
On the part of Mexico--
F. Beltran y Puga, Commissioner.
E. Zayas, Consulting Engineer.
M. M. Velarde, Secretary.
On the part of the United States--
Anson Mills, Commissioner.
W. W. Follett, Consulting Engineer.
Wilbur Keblinger, Secretary.
The two governments were represented as follows:
On the part of Mexico--
Señor Joaquin de Casasus, Agent.
W. J. White. K. C., of Montreal, Canada, Counsel.
Seymour Thurmond, of El Paso, Associate Counsel.
On the part of the United States--
William C. Dennis, Agent.
Walter B. Grant, of Boston, Mass., Counsel.
Richard F. Burges, of El Paso, Associate Counsel.
[Illustration: WILLIAM C. DENNIS.
RICHARD F. BURGES.]
[Illustration: CHAMIZAL ARBITRATION COMMISSION.
BURGES, DENNIS, GRANT, MILLS, LA FLEUR, PUGA, WHITE, CASASUS,
THURMOND.]
In the second trial, Mexico advanced a wholly different theory from
that developed in the diplomatic discussions between the first and
second trials. Mexico now maintained that the boundary treaties
of 1848 and 1853 had laid down a "fixed line" between the two
countries in the centers of the channel of the river as surveyed at
that time by Commissioners Emory and Salazar, which boundary line
remained immutable irrespective of any subsequent change in the course
of the river, whether erosive or avulsive, until this was changed for
the future by the treaty of 1884. Mexico contended this latter treaty
was not retroactive but applied only to river changes taking place
after 1884.
Driven to concede that in this view the treaty of 1884 had really
no meaning, Mexico insisted the two governments were under a
misapprehension when this treaty was negotiated, that it was
inoperative and that the general rules of international law governing
river boundaries had no application because the Rio Grande was in a
technically legal sense not a river at all, but merely an intermittent
torrential stream.
The United States denied that the boundary treaties of 1848 and
1853 established a fixed line, and contended the treaty of 1884
was retroactive in any event, and applied to the Chamizal dispute,
and that this treaty was merely declaratory of the general rule of
international law. Furthermore, the United States claimed the Chamizal
tract by prescription.
The case was argued during sessions of the Commission extending
over a month. The presiding Commissioner, Mr. Lafleur, rendered an
opinion holding squarely against the Mexican contentions with respect
to a fixed line and the non-retroactivity and non-applicability of
the treaty of 1884. His discussion of these subjects is detailed
and masterly. After holding against the American claim based
on prescription, he appeared to assume that the treaty of 1884
contemplated some _tertium quid_ aside from erosion and avulsion,
which might perhaps be called "violent" erosion and which had the same
effect as an avulsive change, namely, to leave the boundary line in
the abandoned bed of the river. Applying this latter doctrine he found
the erosion at the Chamizal tract from 1852 to 1864 had been gradual
within the meaning of the treaty of 1884, and therefore the boundary
during this period had followed the river, but that the floods of
1863 brought about a violent erosion, whereby the boundary line was
left in the middle of the bed of the river "as it existed before the
flood of 1863." He therefore awarded that portion of the tract between
the channel of 1852 and the channel of 1864 before the flood, to the
United States, and the remainder to Mexico.
The Mexican Commissioner filed a separate opinion dissenting from
that part of Mr. Lafleur's opinion relating to the fixed line and
the retroactivity and applicability of the treaty of 1884. Overruled
on these points, Mr. Puga felt himself justified in joining with the
Presiding Commissioner in construing the treaty of 1884 and therefore
united in the award dividing the Chamizal tract between the two
countries along the line of the river bed as it existed before the
flood of 1864.
I filed an opinion dissenting from that portion of the Presiding
Commissioner's opinion construing the treaty of 1884. I held the
Commission was not empowered by the two governments to divide the
Chamizal tract but was called upon to render a clean-cut decision in
favor of one or the other government. I recorded my conviction that
it would be "as impossible to locate the channel of the Rio Grande in
the Chamizal tract in 1864 as to re-locate the Garden of Eden or the
lost continent of Atlantis." And finally I pointed out, as I had in
1896, the impossible situation which would arise if any attempt were
made to apply the principles of the majority opinion in other cases,
concluding as follows:
"The American Commissioner does not believe that it is given to
human understanding to measure for any practical use when erosion
ceases to be slow and gradual and becomes sudden and violent, but if
this difficulty could be surmounted, the practical application of
the interpretation could not be viewed in any other light than as
calamitous to both nations. Because, as is manifest from the record
in this case, all the land on both sides of the river from the Bosque
de Cordoba, which adjoins the Chamizal tract, to the Gulf of Mexico
(excepting the canyon region), has been traversed by the river since
1852 in its unending lateral movement, and the mass, if not all of
that land, is the product of similar erosion to that which occurred at
El Chamizal, and by the new interpretation which is now placed upon
the Convention of 1884 by the majority of this Commission, not only is
the entire boundary thrown into well-nigh inextricable confusion, but
the very treaty itself is subjected to an interpretation that makes
its application impossible in practice in all cases where an erosive
movement is in question.
"The Convention of 1910 sets forth that the United States and Mexico,
'desiring to terminate * * * the differences which have arisen between
the two countries,' have determined to refer these differences to this
Commission enlarged for this purpose. The present decision terminates
nothing; settles nothing. It is simply an invitation for international
litigation. It breathes the spirit of unconscious but nevertheless
unauthorized compromise rather than of judicial determination."
Of course, I dissented from the award. When the award and the opinions
of the three Commissioners were presented at the final session of
the Commission, the United States agent made a formal protest on
substantially the same grounds I had taken. My dissenting opinion and
the protest of the American agent were sustained by the Department of
State and the United States has declined to admit the validity of the
award. The whole matter has therefore become the subject of diplomatic
negotiations, which it is believed are progressing satisfactorily.
It is as much to the interest of Mexico as of the United States to
reach an arrangement whereby the Chamizal tract divided from Mexico by
the channel of the Rio Grande as it now runs, shall be definitively
admitted to be American territory, because it forms an integral part
of El Paso, upon which thousands of citizens have their homes.
During my service as Commissioner, Mexico was represented by four
Commissioners: Mr. Canalizo, whose death has already been noted; Mr.
Osorno, who participated in the first trial of the Chamizal case,
and who subsequently resigned; Mr. Jacobo Blanco, who died after
serving seven years, and Mr. Fernando Beltran y Puga, who sat at the
second trial of the Chamizal case and remained with the Commission
until our activity was suspended and he removed from office by the
Madero government, leaving me the sole survivor of the four Mexican
Commissioners.
These gentlemen were all equal in legal and judicial attainments to
similar officials of our own government. They sought always to attain
righteous decisions, and I think succeeded in the many cases that came
before us.
Of my associates on the American section of the Commission, Messrs.
J. A. Happer and Wilbur Keblinger, Secretaries, and P. D. Cunningham
and W. W. Follett, Consulting Engineers, deserve special mention.
Mr. Cunningham unfortunately lost his life in the service of the
Commission through the overturning of his boat in the rapids of the
Rio Grande near Eagle Pass in July, 1901. Messrs. Happer, Keblinger
and Follett rendered invaluable service during many years, Mr. Follett
in spite of a painful illness which would have incapacitated most men
for work. Mr. Happer resigned to go into business in El Paso, where he
has become a leading citizen. Mr. Follett died shortly after retiring
from the Commission. Mr. Keblinger is serving with distinction as
United States Consul at Malta.
Our proceedings were published in both languages, and the evidence,
maps, plans and monuments were explained not only in scientific but in
popular language, so that officials, surveyors, lawyers and judges of
each country could readily understand the location of the boundary.
(See Volumes 1 and 2, Proceedings Boundary Commission, Treaties of
1884 and 1889, and Equitable Distribution of the Waters of the Rio
Grande, Roma to the Gulf, reports and maps, and many other reports on
the same subject.)
I have presented copies of all my printed reports and maps and all
proceedings published by both governments with respect to the Chamizal
Arbitration, to the El Paso Carnegie Library, together with many
reports and maps of the Barlow Commission and the Emory Survey, with
the understanding that they will be kept as reference books subject to
the examination of all interested.
During the sixteen years of our active service (the revolution in
Mexico in 1911 having put an end to our activities), the Commission
tried over one hundred cases of all kinds, disagreeing only in the
Chamizal case, and preserved the peace and quiet of the entire Rio
Grande border for these long years to the satisfaction of both
governments and the people of the two nations.
Late Saturday afternoon, January 31, 1914, without any previous
warning, I received by messenger a letter from Mr. Bryan, the
Secretary of State, peremptorily dismissing Mr. Wilbur Keblinger, the
Secretary of the American Section of the Commission, and appointing as
his successor John Wesley Gaines, a discarded member of Congress, the
bare mention of whose name to his former colleagues proved "a source
of innocent merriment."
Mr. Gaines presented his appointment as secretary to me on Monday
morning, stating he had been appointed associate Mexican boundary
commissioner with me, and that he had been directed by Mr. Bryan to
act as chairman.
He suggested I turn my books over to him, after the manner of a
policeman who seizes a suspected culprit in the hope of finding stolen
goods in his possession.
I informed Mr. Gaines that, while I recognized the legality of his
appointment as secretary, I had theretofore been allowed to choose
the American secretary of the Commission. As I had not asked for him,
I told him he could go home and I would send for him when I wanted
him in that capacity. I would not acknowledge him as an associate
commissioner, as I was the only commissioner authorized by treaty, and
told him he could inform the Secretary of State I would have nothing
to do with him in that connection or his attempted authority over me
as chairman.
Mr. Keblinger and I had already been summoned to appear before the
Foreign Affairs Committee of the House at ten a.m. that day. I
telephoned the Secretary of State for permission to take Mr. Keblinger
with me as the official secretary. Mr. Bryan sent for me (it was the
first time I ever saw him) and stated that there was no objection to
my taking Mr. Keblinger as an individual, but I could not take him in
an official capacity. I protested he had always appeared with me and
greatly assisted me in my explanations to the committee; he was an
honorable man and I felt the Secretary could not be aware of the great
injustice he had done him. I told Mr. Bryan that Keblinger was too
proud to appear voluntarily while under such unjust humiliation.
Finally the Secretary announced he might go with me temporarily in
an official capacity. He turned upon me, and, "by questions dark and
riddles high," charged me with prostituting my high public trust for
purposes of private gain.
I told him I had served my government for fifty years as an army
officer and in various capacities and in different departments of
the government, and under eight of his successive predecessors in
office--Secretaries Gresham, Olney, Sherman, Day, Hay, Bacon and
Knox--without ever receiving from any one such language, and that I
would not submit without resenting it. I invited him to put his best
sleuths on my trail. While I was anxious to separate myself from
official connection with him, I had been taught in the army it was not
honorable to resign under charges. I told him I would not resign until
he was able to state that his investigation found nothing wrong in my
twenty years' administration under the State Department. I did not
believe he could induce the President to dismiss me, and I told him
I believed he had been deceived by such men as Dr. Boyd, who, during
the administration of nearly all of his eight immediate predecessors
had persistently made charges against me verbally, in writing and in
published pamphlets. None of the Secretaries under whom I had served
had thought it worth while even to notify me officially of these
charges. I only learned about them in detail during the latter part
of Secretary Knox's administration, when I found Dr. Boyd had several
times been investigated by competent officers of the Department. Chief
Wilkie, of the Secret Service, had reported him a dangerous man, when
he had threatened in writing to horsewhip Secretary Hay. Thereafter he
was denied the privilege of personal conferences with the Department.
Notwithstanding these explanations, Mr. Bryan appeared before the
Foreign Affairs Committee, with Mr. Gaines, on the 5th. After a
two days' hearing, in which I was questioned and cross-questioned
regarding all my transactions for twenty years as Commissioner, my
hearing closed with the following, which is quoted from the official
report of the hearing:
_"Gen. Mills: Mr. Chairman, I crave about three minutes, in which I
hope to clarify this whole subject._
_"I have met you here for the last twenty years. I have met also
the committee in the Senate. And I have always been treated with
such courteous consideration by the Department of State that I was
encouraged to believe that my work was satisfactory, and it was
desired that I should continue, especially so as after about sixteen
years' service I was selected without solicitation by the Department
as a member of a high commission to arbitrate the Chamizal case, and
also that my dissenting opinion from a majority of the judges in
that case was approved by the Department and by the President in his
message, and I believe it is still maintained by the Department that
kept me here. Had I considered my own personal convenience I would
have resigned long ago. For obvious reasons I intend now to separate
myself, if I can do so with honor, from this commission, and shall
not have the personal pleasure of meeting you again. I thank you very
kindly personally, and as I can not anticipate or hope to meet you
again officially, I bid you adieu._
"_The Chairman: Gen. Mills, I want to say for the committee that
nothing has been done or said by the committee to tend to reflect upon
either the character of your work or your intentions in disbursing the
funds in your hands._
"_Gen. Mills: I appreciate that, sir._
"_The Chairman: We all realize that you have done a valuable work down
there, and you have done it splendidly, but certain matters developed
here that we were not aware of, and that you had been led into by the
State Department, and we thought it our duty to investigate them and
right them, and no reflection was intended upon you or Mr. Keblinger._
"_Gen. Mills: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to one and all of you that I
have been treated with the utmost fairness in all of my intercourse.
My troubles are not here, but in another direction._" (See printed
report of the committee, containing sixty-five pages.)
Notwithstanding this absolute acquittal by an American jury--there
were twelve members of the committee present, all intensely
interested--Dr. Boyd's old charges, rehabilitated by Mr. Bryan's
apparent support, led Senator Thomas, of Colorado, to deliver a two
days' speech on the floor of the Senate. (See Congressional Record
of March 23 and 24, pages 5984 to 6006, inclusive.) He mentioned my
name fifty-two times, including such references as "this man Mills,"
charging me with the most disgraceful conduct with which an American
officer can be charged. Called to my attention several days after its
delivery, I brought it to Senator Root's notice, asking him to confer
with Senator Thomas and see if an amicable adjustment could not be
had by Senator Root's explaining I had served under him while he was
Secretary of State, and could not be guilty of such misconduct.
Senator Thomas stated he had his information from reliable authority,
whereupon Senator Root had my rejoinder published in the Congressional
Record. (See pages 13424 to 13426, inclusive, of the Record of July
18, 1914.)
Mr. Thomas replied on the floor of the Senate (see Record, July
20, pages 13479 to 13480, inclusive), admitting he obtained much
of his information from Dr. Boyd. He added, "My information comes,
however, from the State Department and, until I am satisfied of its
incorrectness, I shall insist that my statements are in accord with
the facts."
I asked the State Department what their records showed upon the point
in question. The matter was handled in the Department by the Honorable
John E. Osborne, Assistant Secretary of State. He could have informed
himself by a telephone conversation with an accounting officer of the
Department. But he referred my letter to Mr. Gaines, who was absent.
Followed delay, evasion, equivocation and confusion of the issue,
the giving of unsought information about matters not in dispute, and
withholding information needed for my defense, which it was the duty
of the Department to give.
When finally cornered, after a four months' correspondence, Mr.
Osborne wrote me the Department did not know the source of Senator
Thomas' information. Mr. Osborne may have deceived himself into
thinking that there was technical justification for his statements,
but no one who reads the correspondence can have any more doubt as to
the real situation than Senator Thomas, or as to the complicity of
State Department officials in Senator Thomas' attack upon me.
When I sent the correspondence to the Senator he wrote me as honorable
a letter of apology as could be expected, doing his best to let the
State Department down easy, presented all the correspondence upon the
floor of the Senate and asked for its publication, which will be found
on pages 272 to 275, inclusive, of the Record of December 16, 1914.
I cheerfully acquit the Senator of everything except bad judgment.
He felt justified by the information he received from officers of
the Department to which he, perhaps not unnaturally, gave a credence
proportionate to their official status rather than to their actual
knowledge.
Mr. Bryan, however, has never offered any explanation. I am
reconciled to the situation, believing he could write me nothing I
would value in that connection.
The President accepted my resignation on June 24th, to take effect
July 1st, on the conditions I stated, that the Department had found no
evidence of neglect or wrong-doing on my part.
The President soon restored Mr. Keblinger to official favor. He
suspended the regulations governing the Consular Service by executive
order, in order to appoint this man, whom Secretary Bryan had
summarily dismissed for alleged cause, as United States Consul at
Malta, where he is serving with distinction, and where he was recently
promoted. His defamers, Bryan, Osborne and Gaines, have returned,
voluntarily or otherwise, to private life, while the Department of
State is once more in the hands of gentlemen qualified by their
training and ability to guide the foreign affairs of a great nation.
WOMAN'S SUFFRAGE
From what has gone before readers will understand that Nannie and
I were always fervent advocates of woman's suffrage throughout our
lives, and, as far as we could with respect to the popular prejudices
of the day, tried to advance it.
Because of my diplomatic service under Secretary of State Gresham, the
president of Indiana University, Dr. William Lowe Bryan, honored me
with an invitation to the commencement of 1911, and showed me marked
courtesy. My friend, Norman Walker, of El Paso, president of the class
of 1906, accompanied me from El Paso and introduced me to members of
the various classes.
The Indiana University is coeducational; of the 975 students, 231 were
young women. Diplomas were given the graduates in the open air in a
large sugar tree orchard in the presence of five thousand persons.
When the president called the first name, a young lady in graduating
garb presented herself. When several more young ladies followed I
asked the president if he was calling women first out of courtesy to
the sex. "Oh, no," he said, "they are honor graduates." Of the five
highest graduates three were women. Asked how this was accounted
for, the president said, "Because they are the best students. No one
should suspect any partiality is shown them by their instructors. They
deserve everything given them." This reinforced me in my lifelong
opinion that women, if given an equal chance, were the equal of men
in all the essentials of life's successes. I could but think how my
mother would have felt if she could have survived to witness that
scene, and when I returned home and told Nannie, it encouraged her to
take a more prominent part in the cause of woman's rights generally,
and especially woman's suffrage.
In February, 1913, a meeting of suffragists was held in Washington.
Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt was our guest, and a very interesting, well
informed and courageous advocate of her cause we found her, as well as
a most charming woman.