northern neighbor and the United States was indisposed to increase the number of its troops. It felt that the running down and punishment of the guilty was a better method of stamping out banditry than the adoption of extensive preventive measures.
On both sides the control of the marauders was rendered difficult by their methods of operation. A band might be collected in the United States, for example, with the intent of raiding Mexico, but it would cross the border casually at different points as individuals. Meeting at a rendezvous, the depredations would be committed, and the guilty would again disperse. The only time when the band could be met as a band, therefore, was when the wrongful acts were actually being committed.
The same circumstances surrounded raids from Mexico against the United States. In the latter country, at least, there was the added difficulty that the pursuit of the wrongdoers was a duty of the civil authorities of the government or of Texas and the troops could only aid the United States marshals as a part of their posse. Coöperation by allowing a reciprocal crossing of the boundary in pursuit of wrongdoers seemed an obviously desirable privilege and one that Mexico now seemed disposed to grant, while the United States held back. For both countries this was a curious reversal of position compared to the early '80s. The United States felt that the increase of settlement made the problems, which would arise under such conditions, more serious than formerly. The military authorities in charge of border affairs did not favor a renewal of the arrangement. It
