FERNANDEZ, Chief Clerk to To the Secretary of Foreign Relations, present. A true copy. CAYETANO ROMERO, Secretary. Washington , June 12, 1884, April 19, 1880

Mr. Ignacio Garfias writes to this department, under date of the 16th instant:

“On my return to this capital, after having acquitted myself of the commissions which you have been pleased to honor me with, it is now my duty to report to you the result of each of them.

“Beginning in chronological order, I occupied myself with the reconnoitering of the Rio Bravo del Norte, in that part of it which is occupied by the islands near Roma. According to the tenor of the communication of your department, and of the articles of the treaty of Guadalupe, signed with the Government of the United States of the North on the 2d of February, 1848, relative thereto, the point to be ascertained is whether, in conformity with this treaty, the islands are national territory or belong to the neighboring country.

“The text of the fifth article of the treaty is: ‘The dividing line between the two Republics shall begin’ &c. ‘It shall run in the middle of said river, following the deepest part of the channel; where there is more than one channel,’ &c. ‘The dividing line that is established by this article shall be religiously respected by each one of the two Republics, and no variation shall ever be made to it,’ &c.

“In view of these clear and definite clauses it was necessary to determine not only the actual state of the channels, but also the state in which they were, according to the system of the river and the maps relative thereto, at the time of the drawing of the limits.

“It is not, in fact, the line as it exists at any period that the boundary commission recognized as the limit. In view of the constant necessity of applying the articles of the treaty to all the cases that may require them, they have been led to create a doctrine that may be expressed in the following words:

“The original nationality (that which existed at the time of the drawing of the limits) is conceded to all portions of land that have, owing to some variation in the basin of the river, passed subsequently from one bank to the other of the river, and only in cases of criminal jurisdiction is it admitted that the authorities of each country can extend their action to those portions of territory that have remained on the bank that belongs to them, though the nationality of those lands may be different for the apprehension of delinquents of their respective countries. It has been observed, in fact, in the first cases that occurred after the change of embankment that the original nationality being recognized and not meeting any natural obstacle, criminals would take refuge there pending the formal request of extradition to arrest them. This interfered with the prompt course of the tribunals, and to obviate these difficulties the doctrine was established, which remaius in force on all the frontier and is religiously observed by all the authorities of both sides of the river. There are many cases that prove the strict observance of this tacit convention. Among others I shall mention one of the most notable. When the American military encampment of Santa Maria was established on the bank of the river a change in the basin took place on the right side, leaving on the left a considerable extent of land, though between this land and the encampment there has been since then no obstacle that would interfere with a free access, and it has formed since then an integral portion of American territory at one of its military posts. As this is simply a fact caused by a case of vis major, the right of Mexico has continued to be respected, and the owners of this land continued to pay their taxes in Mexico, and are subject in everything to our laws. Many other similar cases are met with on both banks of the river, and in all of them the same practice is observed, at least so far as the State of Tamaulipas is concerned.

“In view of these facts and conformably to what the treaty establishes in this respect, that no variation shall be recognized, but that the limit shall remain always the one marked out by the river at the time of the drawing of the line, I thought it necessary not to limit myself to determining the actual state of the basin, but to deduce the locality of the deepest channel at the time the plans of the dividing line were drawn, taking as data the form of the river as it is found in those plans, and studying and determining its character at different points from its mouth to the one in question. As is known, in every river the channel is formed on the concave side of the curves, the accretions of soil being formed on the convex side. In the different rivers that I have studied, the surveys of which may be consulted in the archives of your department, there is not one single case that is not conformable to this rule. It is so generally recognized in all the localities where the proximity of a river allows this observation to be made, even by its most ignorant inhabitants, that they, in their characteristic language, use an aphorism as exact as it is expressive— “Huye de la playa y cargase al barranco” (“Avoid the playa and load up at the barranco”). They call, in fact, playa those banks formed by the deposit which the waters abandon at low tide, and barranco the accessible part of the dikes that the shock of the currents is constantly undermining, determining there the greatest depth. Now, then, as well by observation as by the commonest rules of natural philosophy, one knows that the shock of the currents is on the concave part of the curves, the waters, in fact, following the direction affected by the dikes that hold them, when this direction is interrupted by a curve. What happens in reality is that any obstacle interposing itself so as to prevent the waters from following the line drawn for them by the basin, they do not change their direction unless obliged by that obstacle, the shock between them producing the consequent breakings of the ground. On the contrary, the waters, following the direction of the tangent of the curves, remain in relative tranquility all along the convex side, the deposit of all the bodies of greater density dragged along by the current being produced there. In a few cases fact and theory conform as well. It can be established as indisputable that the channel of a river is always on the concave side of the curves, and one can, deduce from this principle what the deepest channel was at the time of the drawing of the limits, taking as data the form given to the river in the respective plans.

“Before the bifurcation of the river that formed the little island of Sabinitas the convexity was on the Mexican side; this detail leaves no doubt respecting the place of the deepest channel at the time of the bifurcation of the river. There is, however, the circumstance that all the great curve (in which the little island is comprised, as well as the American town called Roma) holds the concave part on the left side and the convex on the right, leaving the coast on Mexican soil. It is clear that the channel must have remained all along the left bank, leaving the little island on the right. In corroboration of that, which theory forces us to deduce, there is the fact that there exist breakers at the mouth of the channel on the right, formed by solid ground (pebbly conglomeration) that since its origin has prevented all traffic through the right channel. It is therefore evident that the only practicable channel has always been the one on the left, this being consequently the frontier one, and for the same reason the little island belongs to Mexican territory. As is seen by the plan that I annex, the change that has occurred in the basin up to date is reduced to the enlargement of the channel on the left in the bifurcation, this having marked more prominently the dike in that part, and verifying still more with this fact the doctrine affirmed.

“The soundings that were made had no result, and I would have omitted them if at the time I could have foreseen the existence of the breakers; however, the order and direction in which the plans were drawn were such that the said breakers could not be reached till after the taking of the soundings of the sections marked in the plan. In the little island of Morteritos, nevertheless, the concavity affected by the basin is more marked in the left dike, which proves, refuting anterior arguments, that the deepest channel has always been the left one. If one compares the original plans with the one I forward it will be seen that the change that took place consisted in having produced an accumulation of earth toward the right in such quantity that the central channel that formed two little islands has disappeared, leaving a single island, and in which the waters have broken the western extremity of the islet, leaving a small part to the left, which gives to the channel of the same side a much more direct access.

“The ground accumulated toward the right of the convex side and the formation of a new basin on the concave side proves the exactness of the principle established. To determine the actual state, a survey was made in a longitudinal direction, sounding the channel and determining the deepest points; then were taken the transversal sections. As is seen by figures Nos. 5 and 6, relating thereto, the south channel obtains a maximum depth of 2 meters, and the north channel reaches 2 meters and 90 centimeters, without having, besides, any sand bank that prevents or interferes with navigation, being, on the contrary, more uniform in its depth than the one to the right. The statement shows in the clearest manner that the two islets to which I have referred occupy the right border of the deepest channel of the river in its actual state, and that they must have been in equal condition at the time of the drawing of the limits, as both science and experience demonstrate.

“This much for the technical part; let us see now what tradition and use can show us in this respect. Before the drawing of the dividing line the two islands were indiscriminately used by the inhabitants of both banks of the river; those of the right made a more frequent use of them because access was easier to them, owing to the fact of its drying up at low water, and being much less deep at high tide, they could cross the channel dry footed in the first case, and seldom deemed it worth while to take a boat in the second. Since the tracing of the limits Mexican citizens exclusively have made use of the two islands. In the island of Sabinita there has been up to date no efforts to attempt to interrupt this custom; in that of Morteritos the residents of the American side have attempted to go over to the islet to take wood. However this has been the object of immediate reclamation, the result being that the abuse has been almost entirely corrected, and only during the night and stealthily have they returned to renew the attempts; on the contrary, in the two islands, there are farms sown by the rancheros of the Mexican side. This custom and quiet possession have never been disputed by any one. All of them had knowledge of my mission they accompanied me in my operations, and were truly astonished that the Government had thought it necessary to examine on whose side was the right to the islets when there has not been the slightest motive for questioning it, at least in the locality itself. There is the peculiarity that both islets are uncultivated and that notwithstanding the fact that no one’s ownership is acknowledged, by prior or tacit agreement the sowing of the one is respected, while the others confine themselves to taking fire-wood or lumber, the trade in which is the principal industry of San Pedro.”

It is really satisfactory to be able to quote these facts, which are the most definite corroboration of my deductions, and conclusively clear up the question given to be solved. By order of the President of the Republic I have the honor to transcribe to you the foregoing for your information, and as a result of your dispatch relative thereto, dated 11th of July of the past year.

Liberty and constitution.