OCR Text |
Show -69- acter and well designed to reclaim and make fruitful an arid waste of considerable proportions, both in Mexico and the United States. The inhabitants of the vicinity, who were represented as likely to be injured, were very largely creatures of the writer's imagination. I am, therefore, compelled to conclude that the only merit in this Owensby letter was the stipulation it gave to this inquiry and investigation. Under date of Nov. 27, 1901, the Mexican Ambassador writes a protest to the Secretary of State, complaining of the operations of this company as being in contravention of the terms of the treaty between the United States and Mexico of 1848, commonly known as the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, and Article IV of the subsequent boundary treaty of 1855. Bearing in mind that the canal of the company at the point of the Colorado where the water is diverted lies wholly within the United States; that no diverting dam has been constructed in the river; and that no impediment to navigation has been placed there or elsewhere along the course of the stream by this company, I have been unable to discover, and therefore cannot report, any evidence that these treaties have been violated in letter or spirit. The lessening of the river's depth at its extreme low stage of from one to two inches, is the only possible reason for complaint, and inasmuch as the consequent injury, if any, to navigation, would apply to citizens of either country, and is nowhere provided against in favor of Mexico or the United States in these treaties, the matter seems to be reduced to one rather of common interest than of an international question. My conclusion in this regard arises from a careful study of the relevant articles of these treaties. Whatever complaint can properly be made in behalf of Mexico |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |