The daily union., 1852-09-01
The Mexican boundary Commission.

We do propose this morning to notice the elaborate
article in The National Istegsne OF yesterday on this
subject further than 10 point out two three ofthe gross
and palpabe sell contradictions which the wbig cabine,
has fallen into in the attempt to defend single poni
its conduct n this grave matter We say the cabinet, be.
the article is plainly cabinet manifesto; and we
say single point, because the whg organ pruden,y
fuses touch any other topic than the usurpaon OF
power by the Secretary of the Interior to urge officially
the surveyor sign and certify line which the surveyor
thought and thinks all wrong.
The Inieigtncer cites the treaty, and admits that the
executive government has "power. under the treaty.
to regulate control the action of the officers designated
By the treaty" and mark the boundary line. II
ams also that the executive government has not "clam-
ed any right to interfere with the action OF The officers
appointed to perform this responsible task"
But how does this tally with what the executive has
done in the premises Has il not "nterferedr
Here is the Iansences account, in its words OF
the sinerference" OF the Secretary OF the Interior:
can that he has done, either directly or indirectly,
which could give color such ption was to
quest surveyor the part of the United saies after
commissioner had agreed upon the point the Rio
Grandc which the lae should westwsrdIy
tneniicate the convention by his signature. This he did
upon consultation with the Secretary OF State, and under
the conviction that the surveyor ministerial or
operative agent"
"AlI that he has done" is 10 urge the surveyor to
erti as correct and apftsnicas" what the surveyor
held 10 be error and wrong He requests the surveyor,
two thousand miles away from him, to sign what
And this. forsootb, is not interference Blu, this is
not all. The Secretary OF the Interior had right
to instruct the surveyor 10 sign. or he had not II
H.. Lul -. L
quea II be had not directory right over the surveyor
in the discharge of his duties defined by The treaty then
how can he himself for meddlng in the business
at all That the Secretary knows nothing about the
true line is proved by his willingness to take the
neous line run. That he knows nothing about the
law which should govern his official action in the prem
ses is proved by the fact that he issues official
'requesr to officer whom il is either bis duty to in
sruei peremptoy and coneusvey TO giving bis sig
nature, else ops him alone his responsible
" and judgment official signature which is 10
make the work so signed and certified part and parcel
OF solemn treaty. In rtquesing the surveyor, in The
premises the Secretary OF the Interior has taken the
course which is utterly indefensble upon any theory OF
his official powers and duties II he had the right do
what he has done, then il plainly bis duty TO do
more The manifest truth is, be had right to medde
al all
He says he acted in consultation with the Secretary
Of State II would seem there must be some mistake 10
this. Mr.. Webster must know better than to sanction the
Secretarys course-that is to say, il he has given the
subject any fair share OF his attention But why is the
Secretary Of State thus made the capital counsellor in this
busnessl Was there no PRESIDENT Or does he never
trouble himself about the lines which his Secretaries
request TO have foised into our treaties with foreign
powenl