The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 54, July 1950 - April, 1951 Page: 421
544 p. : ill., ports., maps. (some col.) ; 23 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Rio Grande Boundary Dispute
to the Chamizal issue. A controversy of such long standing sim-
ply could not be sacrificed without substantial compensations.
The Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs Aaron Saenz sum-
marily rejected Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg's offer and
replied that
Mexico certainly cannot abandon its right to a territory which it
believes was fundamentally its from the beginning, and which was
awarded to it in part by an arbitral decision which it considers per-
fectly valid; but, nevertheless, as it has already stated on several
occasions to the Government of the United States, it has the highest
desire to reach a practical solution in this case provided one can be
reached on the basis of equity which will not injure Mexican sov-
ereignty in any way.31
Saenz insisted that the Chamizal case and the rectification of
the river channel were two separate items. As the United States
persisted in the view that they were the same issue, the Mexican
government refused to discuss other questions prior to a satis-
factory agreement on the Chamizal case.32 The International
Boundary Commission meanwhile had surveyed the Rio Grande
and had submitted the Lawson-Arroyo report recommending
the straightening of the river throughout the El Paso valley.
The plan called for the construction of three cut-offs and for
the building of levees for a distance of eight miles down the
stream in order to protect Juarez and El Paso from a flood
menace.34 Despite the benefits which would unquestionably ac-
crue to the entire valley upon the completion of the flood con-
trol project, Saenz rejected the commission's report35 and per-
sisted in his contention that the sovereignty question should
precede other matters since it was
precisely the proposals regarding sovereignty over the portions of land
segregated by the cut-offs and the various bancos formed at the very
31Saenz to Sheffield, April 27, 1925, in Foreign Relations, 1925, II, 570.
32"The Foreign Minister said that his Government did not relinquish its claims
on two grounds: (1) the arbitration of 1911 was in favor of Mexico; (2) the
Government of the United States by its representations through me gave evidence
that it considered the matter a controversial one."-Sheffield to Hughes, February
19, 1925, in ibid., 568.
a3Minute No. 61 of a Meeting of the International Boundary Commission,
United States and Mexico, June 23, 1925, in ibid., 575-577.
34Curry to Kellogg, June 26, 1925, in ibid., 574.
asSaenz to H. F. Arthur Schoenfield, August 18, 1925, in ibid., 579.421
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 54, July 1950 - April, 1951, periodical, 1951; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101133/m1/569/: accessed April 30, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.