New-York tribune., 1886-08-16

-,c.vcrnmcnt to which appeals ior rlen' nnu
federai Ucr. never made VAN, and tnai as r,o
Jusueo could get the same measure w !us'Wo ~ ~
the courts of Mexico Ssng %i ra and rnnnng over with
cans. in,oatepents and conclusions equai'v In'se'
other san-cut logic of the report may Dc n%ius %
The c,eaii. s.atement that the Government OF Mex,
trateo pS ,;iitary dcspoiism In fact" followed
icois statement that the local governments are ,e
SYby SY Of and de she poTe Se said op
Natonai 'o the fore leg of the problem, II Is
believe Vo,n of all men of intelligence, tnat It's
tac. leg is bold fiction wl,hout sius,e es;ti
"binu Ws nt IN rest upon. and cannot loSSioIy
stantlal ;aaDv ~ with its companion. IL Is hgh
tIaVe, " s,av the rystalliza'on OIL suchlogc' ho'o
aanS ignorance IN our legislative ,hot thcra are
IL rougb S' and Ill-iisposed persons along e tns
Han,oon HaN horder who have commilteu raIus ano ,,a
wrongs upon both sideS , y, rnughs and rowdles on
same Ihe latter may justly regard III aS an iin-
o o"tat,on upon their profession anu pioNVIS' ~
pncgestion that they are unapie 10 Cow m,.n ~
es mon the other side. know nothing OF ine
annon the borders ot the two kepuoncS o.ioW
paso on the American side, ana Paso uei NV'te
IN the Mexican side OF thG iS ul af Wsxiso the
,ihcunjaTv ihc,, between Mexico and Texas. Inc Two
rns he opposite each other ana eacn p'S
alton of about 1000. lhe people Oh h~ctnel ~
~ 40 ius,lv charQeabe with the low ana laWlcss
Snrocier ,lven them by irresponsible Congressional
narts and sensational newspaper correspondents
The peope of the two towns were living 10 'l.I d
T lm f,endv relations, with increasing sociai anu
annss anu niercourse. until the unfortunate, advent
ns Sonsnl Brigham and Editor Cutting. arINea
:: EI Pasp from Mexico in the miuSt oi
the excitement Ia thousand fold exaegera'eu
oansed by the peremptory demand Tor the ieioiso
Of Cuttiug took SPECIAL pains to ascer.aiu ,,, 'n"
FACTS involved in the controversy. ana 1ounu .o s
90 he Substantially as summarized in your issue OF
today from the bidrio OffcdI. OF Mexico lrepca'
fhem IN href as foll0wS ,;o;lad
Cutting was and rs a American citizen 1oiiiiclieu
In Mexico Paso del Noriel and was puol,snug d
newspsper there. Medina. a man OF even ch;lraoieI
with Cutting citizen OF Nexeo' issaou
for s;InGs siaT1Ps fherespon Cutting published
in his paper a criminal libel, as uehneu Nv
the laws of the State of chihuahua, for whi9n uo
was arrested and arragncd. The Court touhh nun
gniltv of the offence charged. but lcniently waVen
The fine and costs 10 winch he was ilaoic. upon
condition that he make retracton Go"c''s'"OIn'i ni;h
termed in Mexican law, of the libel, ana pupillsn
the same IN his paper. That alternative ne gauiy
assented to- but instead of making far. mahIy
Ietracion in ms paper as ihn latter IT, by max
ing the publication IN an opsc,io S,
mart of his paper, in form and type as nearly ileg
Hic as nossible Not satisfied with that contemp,
of court he then crossed the river TO ~ faso, anu
there had printed III The Sunday H@G'd "Eci ,hoI
own signature an aggravated renewai oI , VIZ 80 -:
against Medina. for which he had maze oomcao",'Dn ,
IN Mexlco coupled with anmadverslons up9h tue
court Copies OF the papers cohttiiuins u" D. 80
newed libel he then took back 10 ms hoiS ~ aho
del Norte and there distributed aud Pn1nShtd the
same in chihuahua. For that continued, renewed
md aggravated offence he was again aITesteu
m SoDeu and has Justly Dtcil tIcu
and sentenced as would have been done under Ike
circumstances in any of our state courts. Cd.
tained nv facts from several OF the best cllzens o
III Paso. including one able lawyer all OF whom
concurred IN the opinion thai our UoveIino .t H.
nlaced Itself In untenahle position. ana that
The Mexican courts and authorities were rlght III
the Cutting case, and all concurred IN the oplnloh
that the difficulty was the Outgrowth OF the Dlun-
deripc metfcienc. and folly OF Consul Brlgnam anu
The precipitate action ofSecretary Baymd. suppose
The same state of facts had arlscn between a
citizen of New-YOrk and an English court BET Weeh
New York and liverpool. Does anybody DeneNe
that we should have heard a word OF proteSt from
our State Depart ment as now administered No!
Onr tastidiOus Secretary would have instantly
"smeled fish" and cautiously kept OUTSIDE 9I "a
thousand-mes limit drawn from ~, ~ headiant 10
beadland" of the controversy. lhe important
question now Is Shall we be drawn INTO an unjust
and unprovoked war with Mexico coh-
trary to every principle of good neish,
borhood and treaty obligations by tt the
political purposes of the Solid South ard the Demo
cratic Dartyi The issue lies alone with the fiesl-
dent OF the United States. have falth TO n9heve
that he will crush out lnciplent rebellion III Texas
and preserve the honor of the Nation.
In closing this article (alreadv too long desire
TO say that every personal interest have IN Mex
leo would be best promoted in the acquisition py
the United States of Northern Mexico but
as an American citizen. looking to
the future welfare of the whole country,
would oppose it upon any terms
whatever. We already have enough OF the race
question TO grapple with In the South ana IN the
West. without trading or hlbusterlng Tor more
Indians in Mexico The governing classes there
are largely descended from the indians. and so
understand them better and treat them better, ana
can govern them better than we do or can. There
fore the two Republics should preserve thelI
boundaries as thev are and each honestly and
earnestly strive 10 understand and help each
other. JOHN H. ME"
Nelc- York. August If, 1856
s---------