The daily republic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1853-1853, 1853-07-19
Mexico and the Mesilla.

.
The recent telegrapbc news from Mexico
stating that Mr.. SALAzAR had declared his de-
termination rather to resign his Office than
consent to any concession in regard to the
Mesilla question, renders it more probable that
we may anticipate some difficulty in its ad
justment. If the government of Mexico shall
pronounce in advance against Cancellation or
concession, the pacific spirit with which the
Government and people Of the United States
regard the affair may very soon evaporate.
Indeed, in this country, the question is assum
ing every day an importance altogether be-
yond the value of the mere territorial area in
dispute The more recent "Reminiscences
show that the physical difficulties upon the
route to the Pacific through that pass Of the
Rio Grande are less than elsewhere, and the
value Of the fertile valley of Mesilla as depot
is fully appreciated.
We have observed that the barometrical OBJ
servations of both WIsLlzENus and Colonel
GRAHAM make the vicinity of Ell Paso nearly
one thousand feet lower than even ALBUqUER-
QUE, so that as the summit levels of any route
must to certain extent control the cost Of
constructing and working a railroad, this de-
preston must be of great importance, unless
there should be upon the same route other con-
trolling points of greater altitude. This can
not be Of course determined until a compare
tive survey shall have been made. In the mean
time the depression of Ell Paso is a positive
advantage. The further investigation Of the
subject has, however, enhanced the public in
terest, and to that extent rendered its adjust
ment more difficult, especially if approached
in the spirit now to be apprehended from
Mexico. We shall not restate the argument
to show that the report of the Boundary
Commission was inconsistent with the intent of
the treaty. The position taken by the Con-
gress and the Executive renders such a discus
sion unnecessary; nor will we repeat the views,
heretofore advanced, to show that the true
boundary was governed by landmark, and
not by line Of latitude. Indeed, we have
been SO much at loss to understand the rea-
soning by which the Mexican Commission
ers discarded the line traced upon the map
and substituted an astronomical boundary, that
we have sought in other circumstances some
explanation of the enigma. The origin of the
difficulty seems to have been this: The State
of Chihuahua was created and its boundary
defined by the ACT of the Congress of Mexico in
1924 The nothern boundary line commenced
upon landmark-the town of Paso, with its
ancient jurisdiction. In 1884 Messrs. STAPLES
and CoNDE prepared map in which they are
said to have laid down the northern boundary
of chihuahua upon the latitude of 800 80 N
In 1912 M. CoNDE Published statistical de-
the same boundary. In 1876 DR.. WrsLIzE-
Nust stated that the boundary Of 800 80 was
SO claimed by Chihuahua"
Now, the boundary of New Mexico was de-
scribed in the treaty Of Guadalupe as that
laid down in a map "entiiled map of the Uni
ted States of Mexico" as 'organized and de-
fined by various acts of the Congress of said
republic, and constructed according to the
best authorities" 1t SO happened that the
Mexican government appointed this M. CoNDE
commissioner to mark the boundary line Of the
treaty upon the ground. He at once laid claim
to the same astronomical boundary which he
had set up in his map and in his statistical
work And the American commissioner adopt
ed his opinion upon system of reasoning which
does not seem to have oeen satisfactory either to
the American astronomers belonging to the com
mission, nor to American statesmen taking
practical view of the subject.
It is not in evidence that the government of
Mexico had ever recognised the claim of Chhua-
hua, or repealed itsown law fixing the boundary
1t is shown by the testimony of persons who
claim TO know-by the statement of KENDALL,
a Texan prisoner delivered by the authorities
of New Mexico to the authorities of chihuahua
at Paso, and conclusively by the recent ad-
mission of the commissioners of chihuahua
that no jurisdiction had been exercised by tina,
State over the disputed territory until after the
report of the Boundary Commission. From
these facts it is evident that, although there
may have existed on the part Of chihuahua
latent t'claim" to the disputed territory the gov
eminent of Mexico still maintained her oripi-
nal jurisdiction over it as part of New Mexico
when that territory was transferred to the Uni
ted States.
Under this state of facts it is not surprising
that the Mr.. Commissioner CoKDE should have
set up as against the United States claim
which could never have been established
against Mexico; nor is it more surprising that
Mexico should have been willing to see the
State of Chihuahua establish claim to terri
tory as against the United States. If Mexico
had assented to the claim Of Chihuahua in
1912, she would have lost of her own terrific
rial appanage Of New Mexico about six thou
sand square miles. If she succeed in enforcing