matic negotiations for the purpose of agreeing upon bases for a final settlement of the dispute. I asked the President at this point whether he meant that he would then be willing to consider our proposals as set forth in the aide mémoire, and to enter upon a discussion of bases for a final settlement upon a foundation of mutual accommodation and convenience; to which he replied that he could say nothing more than that he would be willing to enter upon diplomatic negotiations for arriving at some plan of settlement. I infer from the foregoing that the President's position as regards our proposals amounts to this, namely, that he feels he can not under the circumstances accept the opinion of the American commissioner and of the American agent that the award is incapable of execution and act accordingly, but that should the international commission find the course of the river in 1864 to be undiscoverable and thus prove the correctness of the position taken by the American commissioner and the American agent, he would then be free to go much further in meeting our wishes. The President considers the appointment of an international commission and an effort to carry out the award as an indispensable preliminary to any consideration of our present proposals, and although I said everything I properly could to make him see the advisability of leaving the award in abeyance and in proceeding with a rapid practical discussion of the matter, I was unable to make him change his mind. He then said that the fact of the award having been given left Mexico no option but to endeavor to put its findings into effect. He admitted, however, the advantages to be gained through the negotiations of a declaratory treaty, and told me in confidence that once when in Washington at a conference at the Department of State, at which Mr. Knox, Mr. Huntington Wilson, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Clark, and others were present, he had even proposed such a solution in lieu of arbitration and had predicted just about the state of affairs that has arisen, but that at that time arbitration had been insisted upon. I observed to the President that if an interpretative and declaratory treaty was a good thing then, I could not see why it should be any less desirable now when the award would seem to have left the dispute no nearer a final solution, and that if he had once favored such a treaty he must be more clearly aware than anyone of its great advantages. The President's rejoinder was that the award had placed Mexico in a different position and changed the aspect of affairs; that under the award Mexico now has rights she can not surrender (unless most fully compensated therefor), whereas before, when nothing had been decided, she had none. In bringing our interview to a close the President declared that he would be most happy, in case his suggestions are accepted, to see the Chamizal dispute definitely settled before the end of his term of office; that if his suggestions are accepted he will do everything possible to expedite the appointment of the Mexican commissioners and the final disposal of the case. He reiterated finally the friendly disposition of the Mexican Government and its desire to facilitate a solution of the difficulty in every proper way. I have [etc.], FRED MORRIS DEARING. File No. 711.1215/365. No. 345.] The Mexican Embassy to the Department of State. [Memorandum-Translation.] The embassy of Mexico informs the Department of State that in view of the suggestions made by the Assistant Secretary of State at the interview of the 2d instant, it transmitted to the department of foreign relations the wishes of the American Government respecting the Chamizal arbitration and that it has been told in reply that the Government of Mexico is of opinion that inasmuch as the matter is finally adjudicated by award nothing remains but to carry out duly the said decision by means of such arrangement as may be made to run the dividing line in accordance with the sentence; but if in the practical application of the points determined by the umpire truly insuperable difficulties should be met, the Government of Mexico will not object to entering upon new arrangements to overcome such difficulties in friendly accord with the Government of the United States. MEXICAN EMBASSY, Washington, September 12, 1911. File No. 711.1215/357. The Acting Secretary of State to the American Ambassador. No. 544.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 18, 1911. SIR: The Department has received Mr. Dearing's No. 882, of the 1st instant, communicating to the Department the substance of his interview with President de la Barra in regard to the Chamizal controversy. There is enclosed for your information a memorandum of a conversation between the Acting Secretary of State and the ambassador of Mexico, on September 2, 1911, with an item given to the press attached, and you are referred to the Department's telegram of September 2, 1911,1 to the embassy at Mexico City in which the Department expressed the opinion "that any attempt to relocate the line of 1864 would not only prove nugatory but would be most unfortunate in that it would be almost certain to result in seriously embittering the strained conditions at El Paso and Juárez." In order that the embassy may be fully advised in case the possibility of relocating the line of 1864 should again come up for discussion, you are informed that, so far as the Department is aware, any attempt to relocate the line of 1864 would necessarily involve going into the parole evidence of alleged old inhabitants. This would lead, in the opinion of the Department, to a questioning of the veracity of the witnesses on both sides, and thereby would not only tend to embitter the local situation but might result in exchanges which might even tend to disturb the friendly relations between the two Governments. 1 Not printed. In addition to the Department's profound conviction that the recent award is absolutely invalid, and that it would be entirely impossible to locate the line of 1864, the Department for the reasons stated would regard any attempt to locate the line as highly unfortunate on account of the foregoing considerations. I am, etc., HUNTINGTON WILSON. File No. 711.1215/365. The Department of State to the Mexican Embassy. [Memorandum.] The Department of State has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the memorandum of the Embassy of Mexico, of the 12th ultimo, in regard to the Chamizal case, and begs to say in reply that, as is pointed out in the beginning of the aide mémoire handed to the ambassador of Mexico by the Acting Secretary of State on August 25 [24], last, the United States, for the weighty reasons set forth by the American commissioner in his dissenting opinion and by the American agent in his suggestion of protest, is unable to perceive how the award can be considered valid or binding. By reference to the opinion of the American commissioner and the protest of the American agent, it will be observed that the objections to the award stated by them go to the validity of the award itself, and not merely to the practicability of carrying it out. It was however furthermore pointed out in the Department's aide mémoire that, even on the assumption that the award rendered by the presiding commissioner is valid and binding, it is in the opinion of this Government impossible to carry it into effect at the Chamizal tract, and impracticable successfully to apply certain principles upon which it is based elsewhere along the fluvial boundary. Under these circumstances the Department remarked, in its aide mémoire, that since it seems evident that in any event further diplomatic negotiations and a further convention are inevitable, it appears to the Government of the United States that it would be for the interest of both parties for the two Governments. without discussing the question of the validity of the award or the possibility of scientifically relocating the channel of 1864, to endeavor to settle their difference through a new convention which should avoid as far as possible all contentious matters and look toward a settlement upon a basis of mutual accommodation and convenience. To this suggestion the embassy's memorandum of September 12 makes reply: That the Government of Mexico is of opinion that inasmuch as the matter is finally adjudicated by award, nothing remains but to carry out duly the said decision by means of such arrangement as may be made to run the dividing line in accordance with the sentence; but if in the practical application of the points determined by the umpire truly insuperable difficulties should be met, the Government of Mexico will not object to entering upon new arrangements to overcome such difficulties in friendly accord with the Government of the United States. It appears to the Department that in making this proposal, which in the first instance is concerned solely with the ascertainment of the possibility of relocating the channel of 1864, the Mexican Government has not only omitted to state its views as to the practicability of applying the test of the so-called "rapid and violent erosion" to other cases arising along the Rio Grande, but has failed to take into account the fundamental difficulty which confronts the United States in limine, namely the consideration that it does not recognize the validity of the award and that the acceptance of the Mexican proposition, even if subject to no other observation, might be deemed to amount to a tacit recognition of its validity. The Government of the United States in its aide mémoire of August 24 did not ask the Government of Mexico to admit the invalidity of the recent award or the impossibility of relocating the channel of 1864. It only proposed that these contentious matters be held in abeyance while the two Governments worked out through friendly negotiations a practical solution of their practical difficulties. In the opinion of the Government of the United States the present Mexican proposal is unacceptable in that it asks the United States, as a preliminary to negotiations, to yield upon one of the fundamental questions in dispute. This Department can not but hope that the Mexican foreign office will reexamine the questions under discussion in the light of the considerations suggested in this memorandum, to the end that the two Governments, without prejudice to the position of either with respect to the validity of the award. may reach a practical solution alike satisfactory and honorable to both countries. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 6, 1911. NOTE.-Owing to the disturbed conditions existing in Mexico no definite action was taken for the settlement of the Chamizal dispute, and the case remains in statu quo. IMPRISONMENT OF EDWARD M. BLATT AND LAWRENCE F. CONVERSE IN MEXICO. File No. 312.112 B 61. The Secretary of State to the American Consul at Ciudad Juárez. [Telegram.] DEPARTMENT Of State, Washington, February 24, 1911. It is reported to the Department that Edward M. Blatt, of Avalon, Pa., is confined in Juárez prison. Investigate and report by telegraph cause and circumstances of arrest; probable time of trial; condition of health; and whether he can be released on bail. ΚΝΟΣ. File No. 312.112 B61/2. The American Consul to the Secretary of State. [Telegram.] AMERICAN CONSULATE, Ciudad Juárez (El Paso, Tex.), March 3, 1911. Case Lawrence F. Converse and Edward Blatt. See dispatch 95 in mail. Absolute proof testimony taken before United States commissioner leaves no doubt boys were kidnapped unarmed on American soil 500 feet from line by Mexican citizens, forcibly taken across boundary line and on Mexican bank of river received by Mexican soldiers and taken to prison and now held in Juárez jail. Have protested without avail. Immediate action urged by parents. File No. 312.112 B61/13a. AMERICAN CONSUL The Acting Secretary of State to the Mexican Ambassador. No. 433.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 14, 1911. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to inform your excellency that this Department is in receipt of reports from the American consuls at Ciudad Juárez and Ciudad Porfirio Diaz, together with confirmatory evidence in the form of the depositions of eyewitnesses, which go to establish that on the 21st or 22d of February last two young American citizens, Lawrence F. Converse, of Glendora, Cal., and Edward M. Blatt, of Pittsburgh, Pa., were kidnapped by the Mexican citizens Ramón Núñez, Deogracias Archuleta, Leonardo Jiménez, and either Miguel Zambrano or Anecleta [Ascención] Archuleta. The kidnappers after seizing these American citizens while on their own soil and forcibly taking from them their personal belongings, bound them with ropes, conveyed them across the Rio Grande River, and delivered them on Mexican territory to Mexican soldiers who were apparently awaiting the return of the kidnappers, and whose commanding officer appeared to be directing the kidnappers' work. At the time of their seizure the Americans appear to have been at the ranch of Melquiades Perea, who with his wife Florentina Palmores and other eyewitnesses who were present at the time the Americans were kidnapped, testify to the above facts. It further appears that after these Americans were carried into Mexican territory and turned over to the Mexican soldiers they were placed in the cárcel at Juárez and kept for three days incommunicado (during which time their testimony was taken) after which they were held on the charge of sedition and were remanded to await trial in the Federal court. The Americans, both of whom appear to be but boys, are said not to deny having been for several days in the camps of the insurrectionists, nor that they at one time belonged to the rebel forces, but they say that they had abandoned the insurrectionists and were at the time of their kidnapping en route to their homes. Inasmuch as the kidnapping of American citizens from American territory would constitute, under the circumstances given above, a |