The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-09-30
CITY OF WASHINGTON.
TUESDAY MORNING. SEPT. 80. 1861.
msx,osn boundary Commission.

Mexican boundary Communication.
The National heHtgeneer contains lengthy article,
in its last Saturdays edition, relative 10 the operations Of
the boundary commission, which, have doubt is
compiled from the materials in the Department of the In
terror, and may therefore be treated the exposition of
the subject 10 be relied the defence Of the depart
ment against the wide spread complaints Of lis want Of
vigilance and efficiency.
A careful perusal of that article does not satisfy us
that the discussions among the officers detailed for that
service, and many other implements to the vigorous
prosecution of the work. not to be attributed to the
want Of judgment in the department itself. There
is tedious account in it OF the survey from lndianola,
in Texas, TO FL Paso-a survey. we understand. which
has no connexon with the boundary line is uncalled
for by any law, and is without connection with the fifth
article of the treaty Of Guadalupe Hdalgo, for the ex-
ecuton of which the proper appropriations were made
by Congress If there had been appropriation for this
work. there could of course be objection to it but,
in the absence OF such appropriation it is not surprising
that the men who engaged on the survey should
complain that the pay for the treaty service, in cases
withheld has been applied to service not authorized by
law.
This article seems to claim for Mr. Bartlett the merit oil
the Indianoa survey when it is well known that he had
nothing do with it, further than to issue his order tc
Col Mcclellan, directing the survey to be made, who de-
tailed Lieut. Whipple to perform the work
Bat the main feature in this article which is unsats-
factory is the want OF fidelity the considerations which
fix the initial starting point Of the boundary line the
Rio Grande. From the operations Of Mr. Thompson, in
his survey from FL Paso, along the windngs Of
tbo ,r;t;o hat Tho
distance is nearly one hundred miles, though the
direct distance is only about fifty. The writer Of
the Itsgeneers article in the first part OF it, says
"Ths line starts from point in the Gulf of Mexico
three leagues from land opposite the mouth OF the
Rio Grande, opposite the mouth of The deepest branch
if il should have than one emptying into the sea
and following the middle thereof to the southern bound
AIRY Of New Mexico" &c.-eviden,ly quoting from the
treaty The treaty. then, fixes the boundary between the
two countrles. But the writer continues to say:
"a portion OF this line is hence imaainsry-,hat is to
say subject the oat determination of the contracting
parties, through their appropriate agents"
How, we ask, can this point be imaginary which is
fixed by treaty. and how be subject to the joint de-
termination OF the agents of the contracting parties }
Does not the treaty. ratified long since by the two gov
ernments establish that point be the southern ounday
of New Mexico' And what other duty had the commits
sioners to do than to commence the survey from that
point Now, the southern boundary OF New Mexico
not an imaginary or doubtful point 1t has long since
been acknowledged by Mexico TO be the 32d degree oil
north latitude, and was so acknowledged by own
government the last session OF Congress II has been
so specified in Dsturnelrs map, and also the maps OF
General Conde Fremont and Others and is received and
I'D hy inho oh n
try To allow therefore, Mr. Bartlett call tina, point
imaginary and to enter into agreement with the Mexican
commissioners to change it, is to annu the treaty This
article says that deducng from four hundred and thirty
four observations eleven stars" the point where the
treaty directs Mr. Badet to start FROM be has deter
mined starring point twenty two minutes further
north, and which is ascertaned to be fifty miles north Of
Ell Paso In other words, Mr. Bartlett. il seems. has
star -gased away strip some forty fifty miles broad
Of the territory of New Mexico.
1t eeems, also that Mr.. Bartlett has found time to ne
go,iae with the Apache Indians under the nth article OF
the treaty with Mexico Although this is irregular. or
certainly departure from the general idea tina, the Off
of regular army who that frontier ought
to have charge OF the negotiations rendered necessary by
the attempts of the Indians TO disturb the peace that
frontier. yet il might be excused if the public could be
assured that this portion Of Mr. Baretts operations
boundary commissioner had produced any good results
But for anything see, MIR. Bartlett has done nothing
but negotiate the Indians into a very bad humor They
left hi. camp, seems high dudgeon, and have since
stolen all his stock.
This article in the InteHigenoer, far from satisfying
that the commission is performing its duty under the
treaty, increases our conviction that, like the defence of
the frontier, it will prove failure and lay the founda
ton of nermnabe controversy with our own agents a.
well as those OF Mexico. There to be fatality
attending everything done by this administration in taking
care OF the public interests that frontier There is
sort of sepmohers feeling towards the children OF an
other marriage. California, New Mexico, Utah, Texas
and all came into the Union, Mr.. Webster said in his
Buffalo speech, without any consent or agency OF his
They certainly made to know and feel that If they
escape Indian depreciation, any other i'll that distance
and exposure bring they will owe il to their own
energies than to the fos,ercare OF this adnnstra
ton.