The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-06-11

conclusive reason against the cession Of any
territory except that which belonged to the
Territories of California or New Mexico.
1t is probable therefore that the Mexican me-
gotiators must have referred to the legal boun-
dairy between the State of Chihuahua and the
Territory of New Mexico, rather than to an
astronomical line, which, uncertain in its ap-
Plcation, might prove unconstitutional; for,
according to the principle stated, the line of
latitude laid down by General CoNDE would
be void.
Thus: He assumes that the parallel which
forms the southern boundary of New Mexico
sis sihuous line on the map which it is i'm
possible to draw on the ground; hence it is
that we can estimate it as parallel by TAX
ing the medium latitude of it between the
maximum and minimum which the sinuous
line gives. 1t results 800 22 of latitude.
This must then be taken as the initial point.''
This line would be right line, bisectinp
longtadinally sinuous or undulatlng boun-
dairy between State and Territory, it must
thus cut off equivalent portions Of each and
add them to the territory of the other. A por-
tlon OF the State Of Chihuahua is therefore
cut off by the line of latitude proposed by Gen.
eral CoNpE, and ceded away This line be-
ing therefore contrary to the constitution Of
Mexico, and in abandonment of principle
prescribed in their negotiations, could have in
neither point of view been intended by the gov
eminent of Mexico That a line of latitude
was not intended by the negotiators of the
United States is to be fairly inferred from the
fact that the words latitude and longitude do
not occur in the treaty with Mexico at all;
Whilst IN our treaties of amity with other pow
ers and in the adjustment of the boundary be-
tween the State of Texas and the Territory of
New Mexico degrees of latitude and longitude
are employed. These it win be said are pre-
sumptive evidences of the intention Of the par
ties. True, but they are offered in confirma-
ton of the protest entered by the American
Senate es one of the contracting parties. 1t can
not be supposed that this body would deliber-
ately deny its own intendment for any consid-
eration-surely not for a strip of territory
scarce large enough to make a cemetery for the
soldiers that would be slain in war for its &C
QUESTION, or Of sufficient value to pay the cost
of a special negotiation to settle the question of
boundary.
But we turn from the probable intendment
of the parties to the documents of title. From
these 1t will be apparent that the western limit
of Nau MavioO ic tba l,r,.. -
State of chihuahua, as that State was organ
lied and its limits defined by the following de-
cree Cfthe Mexican Congress:
"Decree of July 9th, lS34-Chihuahua is de-
clared State of the Federation, and New Mexico
a territory of the same.
"Decree of July 9th, 1884, Demarcation of
the territory of the province of Chihuahua. The
sovereign constituted General Congress of the
United States of Mexico has seen fit to decree:
"'The territory of the province of Chihuahua
shall comprise the extent between a right line
drawn from east TO west from the point, or town,
known as Paso del Norte, with the jurisdiction
which it has always had, on the one side, and the
hacienda of Rio Florida with its respective appur-
tenances, on the side of Durango"
The State of chihuahua is thus organized
and its boundaries defined by a line at once
simple and exact. The town of Ell Pas6 with
its ancient jurisdiction, furnishes one point upon
the northern frontier, the hacienda of Rio
Florida, with its appurtenances, furnish an
other point on the southern frontier. Though
these two points a right line east and west is
drawn, making two sides of parallelogram,
within which the State Of Chihuahua is in
cluded. 1t has been nearly twenty years since
this decree was published. The map lays down
the northern limit of the jurisdiction of the town
of FL Paso as the initial point; the municipal
and State authorities of Chihuahua have, ac-
cording to information, exercised jurisdiction to
the line, and by the line as traced upon the
map, and, so far from any complaint having
been made that the map contained an error,
the Mexican government publish it as the true
description of the boundaries as late as 1916.
Indeed, even to the date Of the commissioners
report.
Why, then, should the true latitude, which
was not known TO the negotiators, have been
adopted as the boundary, in exclusion of the
landmarks by which the State of Chihuahua
had been organized, and its jurisdiction deter
mined2 The one had been established by law,
and acknowledged by usage; the other was lite
rally IN nubibus. We had just settled one dis
puted boundary by war-why leave rule of
boundary so uncertain in its description and d.
recton as to render another national dispute at
least probable?
Whilst the Mexican Commissioner has been
no doubt influenced by desire to obtain for his
country a taxable property of some value, and
jurisdiction over what is regarded by Mr.. GRAY
and others as being valuable pass for Pacific
Railroad, the American Commissioner has
shown, we fear, super scientific preference
for the astronomical, instead of the geodesic,
line of demarcation.
We think, therefore, it was the intendment of
the contracting powers to adopt the State of
Chihuahua and the Territory of New Mexico
as these political divisions had been organized
and defined by the Congress of Mexico, and as
that organization and description was described
on the treaty map, to wit: beginning upon the
Rio Grande at the northern boundary of the
town ship of FL raso; thence a right line due