Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-02-04
THE NEW MEXICAN TREATY.

Messrs EDITORS: Alloy word Of reply to the COM
ments of your correspondents "C and " Co. on my re-
marks upon the new Mexican treaty.
fully admit the Importance of the United States being
released from the obligations Of the 18th article of the
treaty of Guadalupe Hidago 1t highly ipjudcous
into the treaty and it should have been ratified
1t obvious to every body at the time that it would
lead to exorbtant and unreasonable claims from Mexico
and is sincerely to be hoped it will be lesson to the
present as well as all future American never
again protectorste OF the territory Of any
foreign country. 1t the first deviation from that fun
damenta policy of the country established by Washing
and always acted upon by every succeeding Admin
israton to interfere with the affairs Of other
TONS and to avoid enangng alliances with them ALL
Whilst both your correspondents and myself therefore,
agree as to the Importance OF riddng ourselves of the
obligation of that article Of the treaty cannot acquissce
in the propety of paying for such release an unreason
able and most exorbitant amount.
Where does &C.. find authority for saying that Mexico
was offered by two American Ministers five and eight
millions Of dollars as indemnity for Indian depredations
and refused it? speak advisedly when say that her
first demands for indemnity entirely rejected by
Mr. Webster in his opinion they were not OF nature
to be legitimaely covered by the l1th article and
cannot understand why he should subsequently have
changed his views the subject that either of his
cessors, Mr.. Everett or MIR. Marcy, should have been
willing allow the large of eight millions for any
spoations which the Indians could possibly have COM
mited in that quarter What is there in the whole Of
that country within the range Of the Indian tribes which
they could possibly destroy carry off that would be
worth eight millions the half the fourth proba
bly, even the tithe of that amount?
The demand of Mexico (if she really has made
such demand) Of thrty-fve millions indemnity for
Indian spoliations in such wild, barren, and very
sparsey settled country that is profound humbug
and she might with equal propriey have asked for
hundred millions have and converscd with intel
igent and observing Americans who have been in that
country and from their description of it and its settle
ments and improvements, much less than FIVE millions Of
dollars would greatly exceed the entire value of oil the log
cabins property, and improvements within the access
BILE and usual range Of the wild tribes of Indians admit
ting that they had made vast and ndiscrimnate de-
sruction 1t almost insult to the common Of
any man to say him that any such depredaons could
have been committed to the extent of even Eve millions Of
dollars and it is doube-refned absurdy for Mexico to
put forward claim Of thirtyfve millions She might
indeed, make up claim Of the kind by charging for
log cabin the price of Windsor Palace and for each wild
horse the value of an Eclipse" or q" Henry" but in
other mode could she pile up such ridiculous amount
But, utterly repugnant to me is the idea that we
should be under national obligation to fight the battles
and defend the territory Of another nation even against
wild savages, that would cheerfuy pay literally to OBJ
tain release from such unusual obligation, which has
been SO njudiciousy assumed. STILL however, wish
the amount to be within some reasonable limits. we