Washington telegraph., 1853-06-01
The Boundary Dispute.

/ VI
the Mescilla Valley. it viii be recollected
that the Uaion newspaper Of that city justi-
fed the course pursued by Coz. Lane, and
insisted on the validity of the title Of the
United States to the district IN dispute
Since then, the Union has received better
light upon the subject, and backs square out
Of the position it first assumed 1t now says:
ut may be possible that some sudden ex-
igency called forth his Gov. Lanesl procla-
nation reclaiming the possession Of Mescilla;
but the probability is that he has acted hast
lily, without adequate reasons, and in a man
ner to increase existing difficulties growing
out Of former mismanagcment, which were
bequeathed to the present by the late ad-
ministration. Nothing but very stringent
necessity can justify Gov Lanes intcr.er-
ence in difficulty which properly belonged
to the State Department as a subject of ne
gotiation, having for its object new Joint
commission for'the satisfactory performance
of a task simple enough originally, but which
the late Administration, after four years Of fu-
tile effort and vast expenditure of money, left
unfinished and in an embarrassed condition. -
In referring to this magnificent feat of craw-
fishing, the New York Express well cxclaius,
The late administration. Who made the
treaty? Polk Who affixed Disturnells
wrong map as a part Of the treaty, The
Polk administration. Who did not know
what they were negotiating about in the
treaty Of Guadalupe Hiialgo, The Polk
cabinet Who left unsettled mischievous
dispute on boundary line! The same ad-
ministration.'
The Washington correspondent Of the
New York Times, in letter Of April 30th,
quotes a portion of the fifth article of the
treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and by this
usand preceding and following remarks,
sets the matter of dispute in very plain
light. We quote as follows from his letter:
ITO retarn again to the course pursued
BY Gov Lane. and the question Of force
The confidential friends of the Administra-
ton assume that the Mescilla valley is ter
ritory "in dispute" and according to inter
national law cannot be occupied by either Of
the claimants while its title is in controver-
81. Under this plea, if Mexico shall attempt
to occupy it with troops-and thus QGer force,
pending or prior to negotiation, it is asserted
that they will be met BY force tis by this
| line Of argument the friends Of the Admin
istration half hope to sustain Gov. Lane
An interesting question arises here Is the
territory claimed By Gov lane territory
in dispute in the sense which makes it
subject to the principle Of international lar
have cited? The 9TH article Cf the treaty
Of Guadalupe Hiidalgo relating to the run
ming and making Of the boundary line, after
providing for appointment Of Commission
er for the purpose by each Of the two Govern
ments. directs as follows:
''They shall keep journals and make out
plans Of their operations; anil the reSalt
agreed atpon by them shall be deemed a
part Of This Treaty, anil StdX hare lie
same farce as If 10 ncrc inserted therein.
The two governments will amicably agree
regarding what may be necessary to these
persons, and also as to their respective e.
corts, should such be necessary.
The boundary line established by this ar
ticle shall be religiously respected ~ each
Of the two Republics, and no change shall
ever be made therein, except by the express
and free consent Of both nations lawfully
given by the general government Of each, in
conformity with its own constitution
If the language of the passages quoted
means anything, understand that the Joint
Commission having agreed upon and fixed
the boundary line of New Mexico-the line
as agreed upon is already part Of the trea-
ty itself. How, then, can the Territory in
question be in dispute, when we have just
settled the boundary BY solemn treaty stip-
ulations, in which we acknowledge the Mes
! III l.
the second clause of the foregoing quotation
from the Treaty, it has been inferred that
we have power to reopen the question Of the
boundary. How! BY new Treaty, and
BY Treaty only-just as We would propose
negotiations with Mexico to yield Us the port
of Vera Cruz, or the Castle of San Juan d
Ulloa, or the State of Sonora
In the meantime, the boundary Of Mcxi-
co having been settled and fixed by one
Treaty, can no more be considered "in dis
pute" than could the title to the State Of So
while we were lusting after, or negotiating
for. the one or the other. Such seems to INC
to be an indisputablc view Of the case. The
question whether Commissioner Bartlett was
right or not, does not enter into the discus
sion. The only inquiries can be, did he
agree to boundary line9-dces that line
exclude Mescilla Y Valley?--and are we bound
by bis agreement If these questions are
answered in the affirmative, Gen. Lane has
no possible apology for his course, and our
Government will be compelled to disaTow it.,
no matter what its inclinations-unless as a
people We are to take one step further, and
subject our swarthy brethren Of the South,
and our compacts with them, to something
of the same sort Of treatment we have visited
upon the still more helpless and the loully
wronged red men Of the North