Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1850-1854, 1853-06-24
United states and Mexico.

States and Mexico. We have waited in ex-
pectancy of seeing the portentous cloud pass
away, and the threatened storm averted; but
the tempest still seems to lower and grow
more angry in its aspect. The difficulties be
tween the United States and Mexico have un
necessarily been made to appear complicated
sndstheir' Importance has. been greatly mag
nitied. The matter may be simply stated as
follows:
At the close of the last war with Mexico
there was an unsettled boundary line between
the two countries. BY the treaty of peace, g
new boundary line was proposed, and com
missioners agreed upon for its demarkation.
Unfortunately, the treaty was equivoeal in its
language, affording no definite guide to the
action of the commissioners. The commits
soners finally agreed upon compromise,
and transmitted the result of their doings to
their respective governments. In the mean
time, Mexico has sent an armed force to take
possession of the disputed territory, declared
by the boundary commissioners to belong to
her. To this movement of Mexico, the Go
yernment of the United States takes excep-
ton. 1t is contended that the boundary
commissioners had no authority to make a
compromise in respect to the dividing line,
and that the whole matter is still open to ne
go6ation. Our Government, in accordance
with this view of the case, has ordered Gen.
Garland, with armed troops to enter upon the
disputed tract and take possession of thesam
The latest advices from Mexico, affirm that
the government of that country will persist
in themaittenanceo It's claims.at all hazards.
On the other hand, the government at Wash
ington has given notice to Mexico that the
occupation of the territory in question, must
be abandoned by her troops. Thus the mat
ter now stands.
The prevailing opinion seems to be that
hostiIities will inevitably ensue from the pre-
sent condition of things 1t is certainly to
be hoped that our government will use every
possible forbearance towards weak and COM
paratively defenceless nation.
The Washington Union, which is ,presu-
med to speak the sentiments of the present
Administration, says that our government
will use every means, consistent with the ma
honm honor of this nation, to avert the ca
lamlty OF war. Unfortunately, national hon
or is regarded as quite another thing from
individual honor. Were governments actu.
ated and controlled by the same rules of mo-
raj action, as individuals are expected to be.
in this enlightened age, the idea Of a war with
Mexico would be absurd and even ridiculous.
The code of national honor is the rule of the
duelist and the bully; it is essentially desti-
tute fmoralprinciple. If communities neigh
borhoods and individuals were to observe the
code of national honor, as sanctioned by civ
llized nations-were they to govern their ac-
ton according pits maxims, brute force would
be the tribunal to which all disputes and diff
ficulties would be referred; equity and moral
right would be unknown in the settling of
controversies.
The strip of country known as the Mesilla
Valley which forms the disputed tract be-
tween Mexico and the United States, is said
to be comparatively valueless--scarcely worth
the expense already involved in sending dis
patches and diplomatic agents to Mexico and
on business pertaining to it. 1t is
conceded that it is not the vahte of the dis
puted piece Of land, which induces the Uni
ted States to insist upon its claim to it; but
1t is said there is great principle of nation
al honor involved, whiclpcannot be yielded
without disgrace to the nation.
Let US illustrate this principle: Suppose
two farmers have misunderstanding respect
ing piece of property, worth small pecu-
mary consideration, They have written
agreement, but unfortunately. it is vaguely
expressed, and liable to different construc-
tons, and they differ as to its just interpreta-
ton. Suppose further, that instead of re-
ferring their difficulties to an equitable tribu-
nal, the stronger should say to the weaker
"neighbor, the property you claim is of small
importance; | can live quite as we'll without
it; but | do not care to submit the matter to
arbitration, and | dare not give it up to you
peaceably, for | shall be disgraced by so do
honor is at stake. therefore have
no alternative left, but to fog you. When
L shall have given you sound drubbing, it
viii net matter then as to the property, for
my honor will be indicated.
Wherein does the foregoing supposed case
differ in principle from the matter now at is
sue with the United States. 1t will per-
haps be said that Mexico and the United
States are two nations, and the supposed case
is that of only two individuals. The differ