The sun., 1878-12-30
The Mexican Business.


Few more arrogant documents ever bore
the imprint Of the Department of State than
the letter now just made public, which.
under date OF Aug. H. 1873, Mr.. EvARrs sent
to Mr.. FOSTER. II taunts the Mexican Cow
crnmcnt with obtaining recognition from
HAYES under false prctences; il charges
that the condition of affairs upon the Rio
Giandc remains substantially the same as
prior to the act Of recognition. although the
contrary appears in the reports Of military
COMMANDERS 1t declares that no effective
step seems to have been taken on the part Of
Mexico Ia check the raids, although de-
spatchcs from Gen. ORD were then In Wash
ington notifying HAYES of Gen. TREvINo's
campaign, which has since destroyed the
Lipans ~ n combative force. Finally, this
letter says:
"Thc rniicd states. instead OF receiving redress en-.
counters DELAYS. dcwais. and posiponcmen,s at the
capital white in ur disturbed localities its officers
with active opposition 80 far the auth, rites of
MrNco-mttry aud c,yi-iu the vicinity ot the border
appcar not only 80 aic no step. to 'ecNcr check the
raids puu. the raiders hut demur and object TO steps
taken by the United states
As at the time this document reached
Mexico the expedition had already been
begun by Mexican troops against the raid
ing Indians, Mr. FOSTER was obliged TO call
Mr.. EvARTss attention 60 that fact In his
reply. Thus existing events made the as
sertions Of Mr.. HAYEs's Secretary all the
more exasperating To the Mexican Govern
ment.
Nor was this all. Mr.. EvARTs's letter de-
clarcd that these marauding attacks "seem
to show that the Mexican Government ia
unable to rcpress them" and that Accord
ingly Mr.. HAYES proposed TO continue 10
scnd his troops into Mexico. About that
time. as Mr.. FOSTER was forced to note,
Indians from United States soil had been
ravagng chihuahua. Docs Mr.. EvARTs
hold that this misdced gave President DINH
the right to send the Mexican army over
into Texas, under the plea OF pursuing the
Indians To the reservations from which they
broke away? II so. he may well review the
testimony of Gems. SHERMAN and SHERIDAN.
last winter, that even "a mutual agreement
for the troops of either country TO raid upon
the territory OF the other would bring on
war
Slr. EvARTs argues that because raids
into Texas continue with impunlty the
| Mexican military force takes no active part
in repressing them, but contents itself with
watching United States troops" Now, in
| the nearly twenty-five months that have
passed since HAYES seized the reins Of gov
ernnent not n single instance has happened
Of one Mexican raider being captured or
| killed by our forces while In Texas Never
! thcless. the troops there assembled for this
express purpose are numbered by thousands
| II these thousands Of well-cauipped regular
III
expense to the American people, have never
caught one raider from Mexico, what Is
Mexico entitled to conclude? Why, accord
ing TO EvARTs's own logic that these troops
are not there for effective work in repress
ing raidng, but to provoke conflict with
their weaker neighbor
Mr.. EvARTS announces to Mr.. FOSTER that
HAYES having promised protection to the
! Texans, he " Is not solicitous about the
methods or ways in which that protection
shall De accomplished" whether by judi
cial tribunals or military forces-and that h6
does not propose TO be baillcd by" the plea
OF the integrity of the soil of the Mexican
| republic Had HAYES been sOlctOus about
methods. had he been scrupulous about
| rights he would have found in the treaties
of Dee. 1. 1882, May 30, ls4s, and May 81, 1854
the rcitcrations of an express prohibition o
what he has done, and an express compact
on the part Of the United States which h'
has violated, " not 10 resort to repTiSals
aggression, or hostility Of any kind" 81
long as the two countries are not formally
at war The orders OF invasion issued by
HAYES, which the letter Of Mr.. EvARTs re
fuses to revoke, not only llagrantly violate
treaty obligations, international courtesy
and United States laws, but tramplc ON tina
love of country which does not depend Ol
size on domain, and which is mingled with
an Indignation all the more intense whcl
armed resistance 90 foreign aggression
would be playing into the hands Of the as
salants.
Mr.. EyARTs is pushed TO hotly deny tina
HAYEs's raids are inyasiOns. He says:
There no such inyasionS Mexican cattle tile No
invade IcAns. Mexican rnyoluonsts, in violation o on
laws, invade Mexico from this side uf the Rio Grand,
according 10 the eKgences OF their desutory wArar,
But no American force the Rio GrAnde
cep In pursuit Of invaders who have aready invaded IN
soil Of the United States AMI escaping with the
, | booty
What trivial Quibbling in logic; less cred
table even than the erroneous assumptio
of facts! To what stress has HAYES
} Mexican policy come when documen