The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-05-29

the LONDON CnTOHteR, reviewing Inc IciaAaolS No
tween the United States, Mex CO, and Central Anne
RIGA; the Speech Of Kossuth on Shakespeare the Eng
lish Chancellor before London Police Court; very
interesting letter from Mr. Barnard, relative to the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec; article upon the subject
of American Naval Supremacy; communication con-
corning Central Park Religious Intelligence; Court
Proceedings; Financial and Commercial Reviews, &c.
The New Mexico Boundary Dlsputc-santa
IA Anna-A Fine Opening for q Great and Conn
\ preh ensive Treaty.
1t is now well understood that notwithstand-
ing the expulsion of Governor Lane from the
executive chair of the adobe palace Of the
Governor of New Mexico, the administration
will hold to his claim of the Mesilla territory.
This disputed district, as our readers have by
this have been pretty well informed is some
thirty-four miles wide, north and south,
by one hundred and thirty-fve miles, more or
less, in length, east and west. 1t is not quite
as large as the little empire Of New Jersey, nor
quite SO fertile; but if it were desert waste it
would not materially affect the issue of the
national jurisdiction to which it rightly belongs
under the treaty.
The President and his cabinet, it is under
stood, intend to insist upon the line Of Mr..
Surveyor Gray, which throws the aforesaid ter
ritory into the United States; while the Next
cans. from the military movements of Gov.
Trias, Of Chihuahua, appear to be as firmly re-
solved upon maintaining the line Of Commits
sioner Bartlett, by which this Mesilla territory
is thrown over to the Mexican side. And
whether Mr.. Commissioner Bartlett has made
geographical blunder in adopting an astronomi-
cal point of latitude for this line instead of
the arbitrary locality designated by the
treaty on Disturnell's map Of 1847, or
whether Governor Lane, Surveyor Gray.
Col. Weller, and the Senate's Committee on
Foreign Relations have been guilty ola mistake,
has now become secondary question. We
did suspect. and still do, that the proclamation
of Gov. Lane, assuming jurisdiction in behalf
of the United States over the disputed district,
was q fillbustering proclamation. intended
more to curry favor with the new administra-
ton than to maintain our rights to our rightful
soil. In this view, and under the impression
| that Mr.. Commissioner Bartlett understood his
| business, and that as an American, he would
| hold to all the land that was justly ours by
| the treaty. we have also been suspicious that
| 'sthe hue and cry raised against his boundary
was trick of the fillibusterers to give larger
| field of operations for Caravajal and company
| along our Mexican frontiers. But whether
! right or wrong. with the understanding that
the administration repudates Mr.. Bartlett's
| line and plants itself upon that Of Mr.. Gray,
| the question as to which is and which is not
the treaty line becomes a secondary consi-
deration.
The President of the United States claims. in
their behalf. the disputed territory. Mexico
claims it. The treaty provides for the settle
ment ofall its boundary difficulties by arbi-
tration. But the first and paramount question
now is: will Santa Anna submit this territory
to arbitration after the concession of definite
line by the United States Commissioner? May
he not insist upon that line? Our late war
with Mexico resulted from boundary dispute
between her and Texas, and from the trespass
of Gen. Taylor and his troops on the Mexican
side of their line. May not the occupation Of
the Mesilla Valley by Gov. Trias and his forces
indicate the policy of Santa Anna to be of the
same desperate character as that of Paroles
In connection with the very friendly relations
subsisting between Santa Anna and the govern
ment of Spain and the agents and emissaries
Of England and France. it is very probable
that the Mexican Dictator, if he submits to any
arbitration upon this boundary at ALL will
only acquiesce in an arbitration of his own
choosing. His late despotic penalties of ven
geance against the officers and soldiers of the
Mexican army who in any degree fraternized
with our forces during the late struggle, OF who
had the misfortune to fall into the hands of
the ruthless Yankees" as prisoners of war,
betray the spirit of the most implacable hos
tility to the United States OF the north. The
settlement of this boundary dispute in this view
Of the subject, becomes question Of the high
est moment to both countries.
But we regard this especial difficulty, from
the warlike aspect which it thus assumes, as
atfording golden opportunity for permanent
treaty Of peace with Mexico upon that broad
and comprehensive basis which will embrace
every unsettled question Of our negotiations
since the treaty of 1913. We regard this boun-
Diary dispute as fortunate thing for both par
ties. if our administration will only take hold
of it with that enlarged sense of our foreign
policy which alone will be equal to the exigen-
ces Of these times.
There is the Tehuantepec route, which no
company Of our citizens can properly or salts
actorily secure without treaty between this
government and that Of Mexico-there is the
important question Of increased commercial ex-
changes with the Mexican States upon both
oceans, which may be secured by treaty-and
there is the question Of indemnities to Mexico
for the depredations committed by the wild
Indians placed under our guard by the plainest
stipulations of the treaty of peace. In addition
to these questions, we may also acquire certain
privileges in building railroads, working mines,