Year: 1873

Ol N1SAlCbA SO1A Dy ooA Uncle Samuel. The big and many little papers of the nation are now giving the subject an airing. The question of acquisition is not favored or opposed yet as partisan measure, and will not be until some adminis- tration commits itself for or against it. The Chicago Times, very saucy and independent paper intensely op- posed to Grants administration, had the following to say on the subject in its issue of July 25:

 What the United States needs to secure the peace which its position demands and is entitled to, is that we have no neighbors. west the Pacific. These boundaries afford us no difficulty. We never are troubled with raids from the direction of either of them. They never imprison our citizens or disturb us by their insolent comments or their impertinent interference.

 What we have on the east and west, we should have on the north and south. We should have no bastard monarchists on our north, or a conglomeration of nigger, Ind ian, and Mexican, on our south. We should push our northern and southern boundaries on until there remain no veXa- tious elements as our neighbors. There should be no Dominion one way or Mex ico the other. They should be annexed until there is water all about us. This done, we should take Cuba, and then our boundaries would be adjusted with refer ence to the best interests of the continent and for the free development of the worlds greatest republic.

 It will be seen that The Times is not only in favor of taking in Mexico but all the British and other terri tory lying adjacent to ours, including the great island of Cuba in the West Indies. It may be right but the peo- pie of the United States are not now to act upon its recommenda- tions.

 The Army and Navy Journal put its views before the people, July 19. are two extracts from its elaborate article:

 Still, we think that the admins tration which encourages war with Mexico will seriously hazard the continuance in polit- ical power of the party it represents. Those of our people who do not live on the border are opposed, on general princi- ples, even to the peaceful acquisition of new territory and would strongly dis war to accomplish such an @ d. We pointed out in our previous article that there was strong chance of war, for the reason that though the great mass of the people would oppose it, their voice would probably be drowned in the clamor of the borderers, who, living on the ground, would claim to have the best right 10 prominence in the discussion, and who also belong to that active and decided part of the community which moulds the policy of governments, especially when war is the subject of the day. < $

 It is very possible that the possession of Mexico is the destiny of this nation But

 

 haste to accomplish the union. For many reasons we think it would be we'll to wait one or two decades longer, and when the time does come, we doubt if the people of this country will not demand an effort to obtain the country by peaceful measures before violence is resorted to.

 The first of these citations bears 8 tone decidedly characteristic of The Army and Navy Journal. It has chronic dislike for "the borderers," and delights in treating them as con- stitutionally mischievous but in this instance, compliments them with be- ing "that active and decided part of " com immunity which moulds the pol "icy of governments, especially when " war is the subject of the day" If the voice of "the great mass of the people" of this nation is against the of Mexico or any other for eign territory, and it were drowned by the clamor of the borderers and carried, then " the border CTS" must be immense on "the clam or" and the great bulk of the na- tion's people of little account. We have some knowledge of "the border ers," but will not pretend to say how their vote on this subject would be