AZ vs. CA:04 California Exhibits, Vol. IV; Nos. 151-192

page 18

-18- ognition of such a right is entirely inconsistent with the sovereignty of the United States over its national domain." (Syllabus.) The opinion concludes as follows: "The case presented is a novel one. Whether the circumstances make it possible or proper to take any action from consideration of comity is a question which does not pertain to this Department; but that question should be decided as one of policy only, because, in my opinion, the rules, principles, and precedents of international law impose no liability or obligation upon the United States." The resulting treaty, dated May 21, 1906, agreed to deliver to Mexico 60,000 acre-feet of water per annum, as a matter of comity and compromise, as shown by the following quotation therefrom: "Article IV. The delivery of water as herein provided is not to be construed as a recognition by the United States of any claim on the part of Mexico to the said waters; and it is agreed that in consideration of such delivery of water, Mexico waives any and all claims to the waters of the Rio Grande for any purpose whatever between the head of the present Mexican Canal and Fort Quitman, Texas, and also declares fully settled and disposed of, and hereby waives, all claims heretofore asserted or existing, or that may hereafter arise, or be asserted, against the United States on account of many damages alleged to have been sustained by the owners of land in Mexico, by reason of the diversion by citizens of the United States of waters of the Rio Grande."