The Athens post. [volume] (Athens, Tenn.) 1848-1917, 1853-05-13
THE MEXICAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE.

THE MEXICAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE
The Washington correspondent of the
New York Times, speaking of the difficulty
between Gov. Lane of New Mexico, and the
Mexican Governor of the State of chihuahua
respecting the Mescilla Valley, quotes a por-
ton of the fifth article of the treaty of Qua
daloupe Hidaldgo, and by this means and the
following remarks, sets the matter of dispute
in very plain light We quote as follows
To return again to the course pursued by
Gov. Lane, and the question of force. The
confidential friends of the Administration as
sumo that the Mescila Valley is territory sin
dispute" and according to international law
cannot be occupied by either of the claimants,
while its title IS in controversy Under this
plea, If Mexico shall attempt to occupy it
with troops-and thus offer force, pending or
prior to negotiation, tits asserted that they
will be met by force. |. is by this line of ar
gument the friends of the Administration
half hope to sustain Gov. Lane. An interes-
ting 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 lao have cited
The 9Th article of the treaty of Guadalupe
Hiddlgo relating to the running and marking
of the boundary line, after providing for APP
pointment OF a Commissioner for the purpose
by each Of the two Governments, directs rs
follows:
"They shall keep journals and make out
plans OF their operations; and the result agreed
upon by them shall be deemed part of this
Treaty, and shall hare the same force as if ii
icere inserted therein. The two governments
will amicaby agree regarding what may be
necessary to these persons, and also as to
their respective escorts, should such be ne
cessary. ~
The boundary line established by this ar
tcle shall be reigiOusIy respected by each of
the two Republics, and no change shall erer
be made therein, except by the cypress and free
consent Of 6o,h nations lawfully given by
the general government ofeach, in conformity
with its own Constitution
II 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 treaty
Itself. How, then, can the Territory in ques-
ton be in dispute, when we have Just settled
the boundary by solemn treaty stipuations,
in which we acknowledge the Mescia Valley
to belong to Mexico! Under the second
clause of the foregoing quotation from the
Treaty, 1t has been inferred that we have
power to reopen the question of boundary.
How! by a 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 Mexico
having been settled and fixed by one Treaty,
can no more be considered sin dis
pute" than could the title to the State of Son.
ora, or the Castle of San Juan d'Ulloa, while
we were lusting after, or negotiating for, the
one or the other Snch seems to me to be
an indisputabe view of the case. The ques-
ton whether Commissioner Bartlett was
right or not, does not enter into the discus
sion. The only inquiries can be, did he
agree toa boundary line!-does that line ex-
clude Mescilla Valley!-and are we bound
by his agreement! II these questions are
answered in the affirmative, General Lane has
no possible apology for his course and our
Government will be compelled to disavow it,
no matter what its ncinations-unless as q
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 foully
wronged red men of the North"