Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1853-05-12


advertisements ordered in the semweeky paper appear
also in the daily paper, free OF charge.
PosTNAsrYRs throughout the State of Virginia
thorizedto agents and liberal commissions grant
ell upon all monies received
Mr.. ]. T. BRIGHTwELL, of Danville is our specia
gent in that section OF the State.
The Philadelphia North American of Tues
day, contains an official communication now pub
lished for the first time, from Mr.. A. H H. Stuart,
late Secretary of the Interior, to President Fill
more, relative to the Mexican Boundary question.
Mr.. Stuart's letter commences with the follow
ing statement Of facts
In recognizing the commission in the summer
of $780, 10 pursuance of the provisions of the
treaty, Mr.. John R. Bartlett was appointed Com
missioner on the part of the United States Mr..
Gray had previously been appointed the Survey
or. The first meeting of the Commissioners of
the two Governments at Ell Paso took place on the
Sd day of December, 1850. After protrRcted
disc ussons between the commissioners, they
finally agreed that the true point of intersection
was in latitude 80 degrees and % minutes, and
proceeded at once to mark it by suitable monu-
nent as the initial point, from which the line
shonld be run westward.
Mr.. Gray, the Surveyor, not having arrived at
Ell Paso at that time, Lieut.. Whipple was desig.
mated by Mr.. Bartlett. with the consent Of the
Mexican Commissioner, as acting Surveyor, TO
cooperate with the Surveyor on the part of Mexi-
CO, until the arrival of Mr.. Gray. During the
time he was then performing the duties of Sur
veyor, the agreement between the Commissions
ers was reduced to writing, and signed by them
respectively, and also by the Mexican Surveyor,
and Lieut.. Whipple as acting Surveyor Upon
the arrival of Mr.. Gray, it was deemed expedi-
ent by the Commissioner that he should also aus
a n a
point by his signature, to avoid any difhcul>
ty which might by possibility be raised as to the
authority of Surveyor appointed, III any other
manner than that indicated by the treaty, to per-
form that duty. Mr.. Gray however, declined to
sign the agreement, and that fact was reported to
this department.
A communication was then addressed to Mr..
Gray, copy of which is herewith enclosed re-
questng hin. to s'remove the only obstacle which
now exists to the completion of this branch Of
the work, by afixing your [hisl signature to
the requisite papers,
Mr.. Stuart discusses the question whether un-
der the treaty of Guadalupe Hidclgo, the powol
to fix and mark the boundary line is given to the
Commissioners alone or to the Commissioners
and Surveyors conformity. He comes to the con-
elusou that according to the true intent and mean
ing of the treaty, the diplomatic power is confined
to the Commissioners alone, and that the Survey
ors are mere ministerial agents to and mark
the line agreed on by the Commissioners.
The language of the treaty is as follows:
''In order to designate the boundary line with
due precision, upon authoritative maps and to
establish upon the glaund landmarks which shall
show the limits OF both republics, as described in
tho present articles, the two governments shall
each appoint commissioner and surveyor,
who, before the expiration of one year from the
date of the exchange of Publications of this
treaty, shall meet at the port of San Diego, and
proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its
whole course to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del
Norte. They shall keep jour nails, and make out
plans of their operations; and the result agreed
upon by them shall be deemed part of the
treaty, and shall have the effect as if it
were inserted therein
Upon the Interpretation of this clause Of the
treaty, it now depends whether the boundary
between Mexico aud the United States is still an
open question. TIE Washington correspondent
Of the North American maintains the negative
Of the proposition with a good deal of force
though the matter does not appear to us to be
wholly free from difficulty. That Gen. Lnyne
had no right to take the Mesilla valley by force,
sven admitting it to be ours, we hold to be
perfectly clear. That said valley rightfully be-
ongs to Mexico, we hare very little doubt but
whether her claim to it has already been duly
established and authenticated, according to the
erms Of the treaty, is au entirely different ques-
ion, which may admit of much CONTROVERSY
We copy the remarks of the Americans cor
which have the merit of stating tho
points in issue with great clearness:
Those who maintain that the boundary be-
ween the Territory of New Mexico and the Re
public of Mexico is still an open question, base
heir entire argument upon single foundation.
They repudiate Commissioner Bartlett's line.
which excludes the MesclIa Valley from New
Mexico, because the United States Surveyor,
Mr.. A. l.. B. Gray,) refuses to concur in the
agreement settling that line, maintaining that his
assent, and his signature to the requisite pa
psrs, were necessary to give the agreement of
the joint Commission that effect which makes it
a part of the treaty of Guadalupe Hsdaigo, and
binding upon the two countries. This position
has been asserted so often aud SO confidently,
and Is withal so plausible, when the facts are not
examined. that the apologists for Gov Lanes
coup d'etat would seem to have become satisfied
that it is beyond controversy. They insist that
the Boundary Commission is composed of Com
missioner and Surveyor behalf OF each CO.
yernment, with equal, coordinate and concur
REM powers; and that the act of either the one or
the other alone is not sufficient to bind the Gov
ernmont 1fthis be true, then the boundary is
still! an open question, and we may have the right,
as we have the power OF the strong hand, to COM
pei Mexico to submit to the expense and delay
of running tho line anew; and. in the resettle
ment of the question, progressive" admin
istration may have the opportunity TO .'reannex"
Msscilla Valley. or make a war for its acquisi-
ton, with ''re annexation of the whole Re
public In the vista of a speedy future That
the grounds upon which it is proposed TO re-
open the question faIlacious, seem to me to
be clearly demonsu able.