|
<br />
<br />MEXICAN WATER TREATY
<br />
<br />,;,'.'> >.::,:~~{;J~;"':;1;';,il
<br />
<br />13
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />Senator DOWNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request at this time that the
<br />'Chairman reqnest :the 'State Department to make available to the oommittee the
<br />exchange of all documents or correspondence tending to show any. admission by
<br />the Government of Mexico that in the interpretation of this treaty she would
<br />not rely upon the fact that she was entitled to water of a quality that wOultJ be
<br />usable.
<br />The CHAIRMAN, I will consult with the Department, I do not care to stop
<br />the proceedings- at this moment to do so.
<br />Senator DOWNEY, This is a point of rather grave importance to us. Would the
<br />.chairman consider that it is a proper reques,t?
<br />The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wi]! consult with the State Department. He does
<br />not ca.re to be catechized about what he is going to do. The witness has gone
<br />-over the subject of the treaty several times already. Proceed.
<br />
<br />Part 2, page 341:
<br />
<br />Senator DOWNEY, Returning to the question of any implied guaranty iil the
<br />treaty that water ,sha]! be of sufficient quality to be, available fer irrigation, I
<br />'suppose that YOlJ formed your opinion merely from the language of the treaty
<br />itself, without regard to, those conversations and exchanges between the two
<br />Governments that you have spoken of. Would you still be of the opinion that
<br />from the la.nguage of the tre.aty itself a court ,or an international arbitration
<br />tribunal would not hold that Mexico was entitled to water that was fit for irri-
<br />gation purposes? . .
<br />Mr. TIPTON. That is my unqualified opinion, Senator, because the language of
<br />the treaty resulted from these conversations that you'mentionJ and the language
<br />of the treaty was just as plain as it was possible to make it, ana in my unqualified
<br />opinion the language of the treaty is such that Mexico could not ask for more
<br />water than 1,500,000 acre-feet for any purpose whatsoever.
<br />'Senator DOWNEY, You do not think that just adding three simple words,
<br />"'regardless of quality," would have made it any plainer?
<br />Mr. TIPTON. The language of the treaty is perfectly pl,ain.
<br />Senator DOWNEY. Now, Mr. Tipton, you say that if the treaty had included
<br />the expression, "regardless of quality," that might perhaps have prevented the
<br />,Mexican Senate frotn ratifying the treaty?
<br />Mr. TIPTON. The ones in the Mexican Senate are not so conversant with the situa-
<br />tion on the river as those who negotiated the treaty. Those who ~egotiated the treaty
<br />understood fully what thel( were doing. They understand fully what the condition
<br />might be ultimately, while those in the Senate might not be conversant with that
<br />'Condition. The language in the treaty is plain and it means one thing, and one thing
<br />only, and the ones who negotiated this treaty for Mexico understand it. They also
<br />understand about what the quality might be un<;ler ultiplate conditions. In other
<br />words, there was no tendency on the. part of the United States negotiators to work
<br />'Out something that was bad for Mexicoj and Mexico's negotiators, on the other.
<br />hand, knew plainly what they were doing, and the language was agreed to with
<br />.one purpose in mind, and they understand it. [Emphasis supplied.] _
<br />
<br />Part 2, p. 342, 343 (continued):
<br />
<br />Senator DOWNEY. I understood you this morning to say that there had been
<br />memoranda signed by both Governments..
<br />Mr. TIPTON. I did not mean to convey. that impression. I meant that there
<br />were- m.emoranda passed from the American negotiators to the Mexican negotiators
<br />indicating plainly what the intent of the American negotiators. was; and there
<br />Was not only one' there were several. As a result of that the American demands
<br />were accepted and there was written into the treaty the present language which is
<br />supposed to cover ~he situation. Whether it does or whether it does not is a question
<br />,of interpretation of language and a question of legal interpretation of language.
<br />But, the language is there to express an intentt and I know what the intent was.
<br />' Senator DOWNEY. eon the part of the Unitea States?
<br />Mr. Tr,PToN. On the p;ut of the Mexican negotIators.
<br />Senator DOWNEY. Is the intent on the part of the Mj3xican negotiators e;;pressed
<br />in writing? .
<br />Mr. TIPTON. , I do not .know, sir.. but I am}ust telling you that as one.ofthe negotiators,
<br />whether it was in writing or not, it was understood. [Emphasis supplied.]
<br />
<br />The Mexican interpretation.-But now let us listen to the Mexican
<br />
<br />negotiators, reporting to their Senate on the question of quality of
<br />water:
<br />
<br />~-. ,~.
<br />
<br />"i
<br />
<br />":"^i,<;-'
<br />-,.".,
<br />"
<br />
<br />-.,;-
<br />
<br />I'\)
<br />.0::..
<br />~
<br />~--\
<br />
<br />
<br />.,
<br />
<br />-'''''; ,.
<br />
<br />; ~
<br />
|