From he ". o. 1rop,c.
{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 1711, "word_count": 304, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9452000260353088], "ccnet_perplexity": [1205.0999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
IfoH Hte ~. O. IFOp1c.

 VR RELATIONS WITH MExIco.-Oddly

 sa' as It seems to Us, says the N. Y.

 ieF and Enquirer, in all the discussions

 Sernlng the probable effect upon Mexico,

 ae course of this government in regard

 'Anexatlon, no reference seems to have

 a made to a very peculiar provision in

 aealy ot Amlly, commerce and Naviga-

 now subslsting between the two coun- s' and which has been brought before

 public in the Globe of Monday.

 al treaty was negotiated in April, 1881, 4@e third clause of the 34th Article reads

 Su. Ii (what indeed cannot be expected) } O lhe articles contained in the present [ay snail be violated, or infracted in any t aaaier Whatever, 1t is stipulated that neither | |s, me contracting parties will order or au- n S.1e any act of reprisal, nor declare war s sl'ls' the other, on complaints of injuries s,,ls dlsemages, until the said party considering ss S''' ollended shall first have presented to ~ ~ o'''er a statement of such injuries ol lsmo ases' verified by competent proofs, and s.aa'laed sms justice and satisfaction, and the sue ss snail have been either refused or un- as0nably delayed"

 bs :. c resentment, national or individual, says s ss G;ourier, 4. were governed by laws or trea- s., . Il mlght be inferred from the provision s ,,ioa ,eclled' that, however great the provo .e .'n we have given to Mexico, she should s$ sSinake reprisals, nor resort to hostilities ,ss ,ss0a' U, notice. Bnt as war ipso facto abro- 'u' 'Il treaties, Mexico, if otherwise ready ," ,s hardly stay her hand out of respect fol ss D. oae provision, when she has made ur .nh, n,'id to do away with the treaty altogeth- cap sau 'he amlc able relations it was designed