The Daily Union

From Mexico.

The New Orleans Picayune gives the following synopsis of the statement made by Governor Lane, and published in the Mexican papers, of the views in which his proclamation in regard to the Mesilla valley was issued:

The letter is dated Dona Ana, March 23, 1853, and is addressed to Señors Jaques and Zuloaga, commissioners of the State of Chihuahua.

The governor acknowledges the receipt of their communication of the 19th, same month, which has received his respectful attention. He asserts that the news that the President and Congress of the United States had disapproved and repudiated the provisional line run from the Rio Grande to the Gila, (a fact, we fear, too broadly stated,) amply justifies his proclamation, and that the want of instructions from Washington does not in the least invalidate his official act. He claims that his authority for the course he pursued is to be found in the constitution and laws of the United States, in the law of nations, in the treaty with Mexico, and in his appointment as governor of the Territory. Even had the line been run in conformity with the treaty, (which no one asserts,) the fact that the government of the United States had refused to acknowledge it imposes upon all its officers and citizens the duty to pursue a similar course. He says he is aware that a different opinion holds among some, and has even been made the basis of official conduct, and that he is surprised that the inhabitants of the territory in dispute, and even the Mexican commissioners themselves, were aware of this fact before it came to his knowledge.

He calls the line a provisional one, because it was run ex parte by Mexico, with the sanction of Commissioner Bartlett against the opinion of Major Graham, (and he thinks without that of Lieut. Whipple,) and under protest of Surveyor Gray, whose consent was necessary to make the line a valid one. Were the commissioners and himself to run any other line, which they might do without impropriety, it would not be valid until sanctioned by both countries. He tells them their admonitions to him about the law of nations and faith of treaties are entirely unnecessary, as no one has any authority to give these voluntary admonitions, and that the only infractions of the treaty have been on the part of Mexicans.

In his proclamation he stated only what he believed and still believes to be facts, and he had not the most remote intention to wound the feelings of any one, or to take any advantage of the revolutionary state of the country. He asserts that the civil discord of the Mexican republic is a cause of pain and not of joy to the United States; that they do not wish to see the country fall, but rather prosper and be happy under free trade and friendly relations; that they do not desire any territory which is not theirs by right.

His proclamation was issued under a conviction of duty and with legal advice, and opposition to it subjects any one to the penalty of the law. This fact should be made known to the inhabitants of the Territory, whom he believes to be badly advised as to their duties and rights. He sent a copy of the proclamation to Governor Trias, requesting that he should make a provisional cession of the territory; and other copies to the President of the United States, and to the commander of the troops in New Mexico. He says it does not become him to anticipate what will be the action of the President, and affirms that the Mexican commissioners knew before the publication of the proclamation the course which the commander of the troops in New Mexico would pursue. The conduct of his successor may be different.

The following paragraphs we translate literally:

"You have affirmed that the southern limit of New Mexico is at San Diego, twenty-two miles north of the provisional line of Mr. Bartlett, while a decree of the Mexican Congress places that line at El Paso; and I have never learned that this decree has been revoked.

"In your communication you frankly admit that Chihuahua did not exercise jurisdiction over the territory in dispute until after the line of Mr. Bartlett had been run, notwithstanding that the inhabitants asked for it. Why did she not exercise that jurisdiction? Because it was well known that the territory belonged to New Mexico and not to Chihuahua.

"The mistake of Mr. Bartlett, when he determined upon that line, has led Chihuahua into an error, and it is for her to correct it.

I send you a copy of the said decree for your examination:

"Decree of July 6th, 1831.-Chihuahua is declared a State of the federation, and New Mexico a Territory of the same.

Decree of July 27th, 1834-Demarcation of the territory of the province of Chihuahua. The sovereign constituted General Congress of the United States of Mexico has seen fit to decree:

"The territory of the province of Chihuahua shall comprise the extent between a right line drawn from east to west from the point, or town, known as Paso del Norte, with the jurisdiction which it has always had, on the one side, and the hacienda of Rio Florida, with its respective appurtenances, on the side of Durango.

"This decree fixes the boundary between New Mexico and Chihuahua, and I am aware that the jurisdiction of El Paso never even extended to the dam of the feeding irrigating canal, and consequently it must be apparent to you that the provisional line which I have endeavored to establish is further north than the line established by the decree. And deeming it thus, complying with the generous spirit of the citizens of the United States, I have left to the town of El Paso jurisdiction over the dam, which is a matter of vital interest to it."

He admits that the line on Disturnell's map places the boundary further north than is done by the decree, but denies that even that includes Frontera; and says that if a future commission should place the true line south of the dam, they must attribute this loss to their own conduct, and not to the government of the United States. He denies that the present line has been run in conformity with the treaty, or that it has been duly ratified by the United States, or that the territory has been formally delivered by competent American officers, as affirmed by the Mexican commissioners, and cites Mr. Bartlett's own official communication to the Secretary of the Interior at Washington to prove this fact.

The communication cited was written by Mr. Bartlett in May, 1851, and acknowledges his want of authority without the concurrence of Major Graham.

Gov. Lane also cites the protest of Major Graham, and the fact that the government of the United States had repudiated, not approved, the conduct of Mr. Bartlett. He says that Lieut. Whipple was only the astronomer and surveyor, without authority regarding the boundary, and quotes a letter of his to show that he also approved of Mr. Bartlett's line. He then argues that El Paso, which is mentioned among other points in the treaty, being one that cannot be mistaken, the intention was clear that the line should run a certain distance from it, and that that point should be the initial point, that being the most literal and most practical interpretation of the treaty. The message of President Fillmore and the act of appropriation are also cited.

He says that until they can tell him when the territory was formally delivered, he will not take up their time rebutting that assertion.

He also alleges that there are abundant witnesses to prove that New Mexico has exercised jurisdiction over the territory, and that the records of the tribunals of Dona Ana, of which it was an integral part, will sustain the fact. The governor reflects severely upon the conduct of the curate Ortez, and other priests, who have, in his absence from Dona Ana, come to that village and openly threatened his personal safety.