The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-31 00:00:00

2:)

Departnient of State; Weshiniton, Aug. 30,1845.
The 'Undersigned,' Secretary of State of the: United
States, deems it his .duty to .make some observations in
reply to the statement of her Britannic Majesty's Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, marked
P., and dated 29th July; 1845. •
PreliMinary to the discussion; it is necessary to fix
'our attention 'upon the precise question under considers=
tion, in the present-stage of the negotiation. The ques-
'tion simplY is, were the-titles of Spain and the United
States, when united by the Florida treaty on the 22d of
February, 1819, good as against Great Britain-, to the
Oregon territory as far north'as the Russian line, in the
latitude of 54 degrees 40 minutes ? If they were, it will
be -admitted that this whole territory now belongs to the
United States.

The undersigned again remarks that it is not his pur-
pose to repeat the argument by which hi 3 predecessor,
N.rr.. Calhoun, has demonstrated the American title " to
entire region drained by the Columbia river an I its
branches." He will not thusimpiir its force.
It is contended, on tzhe part of Great Britain, that the
United States acquired and hold the Spinish title, sub-
ject to the terms and conditions of the Nootka Sound
'convention, concluded between Great Britain and Spain,
at the Escurial, on the 28th of October, 1790.
- In opposition to the argument of the undersigned con-
tained in his statement, marked J. 8., maintaining that
this convention had been annulled by the war between
Sphin and Great Britain, in 1796, and has never since
been revived by the parties, the British Plenipotentiary,
in his statement marked R. P., has taken the following
positions -
1. "That when Spain co'ncluded with the United States
the treaty` of 1819; commonly Called the Florida treaty,
the convention concluded betWeeri the former power and
Great Britain, in 1790, was considtired by the parties to
it to be still in force."' ' " ' '
And 2. " Bat that;tovertifith:snektreaty had ever ex-
isted, Great Britain would stand, with reference to a
claim to the Oregon territory, inzn- position at least as
favourable as the United Stake— '

The undersigned wiii follow; step' by stepi the argu-
ment of the British-Plenipotentiarr hi support of these
propositions. _ '• • •
The British Plenipotentiary states, "that the treaty of
1790 is not appealed-to by the 'British Government, as
the-American Plenipotentiary seems to suppose, as their
4 main rdliance' in the present dise'ussion ; but to show
r that, by the Florida treaty of 1819,.tb,e United States ac-
quired no right to exclusive dominion -over , any part of
that Oregon territory." • , , •
The utfdersigtied hatl believed that ever since 1826
the .NOtka convention had been regarded by the British
GOvernment as their main, if not their only, reliance.
The very nature and peculiarity of their claim identified
it with the construction which they'have imposed upon
this convention, and -necessarily excludes every other
basis of -title. What but to -aecord'with this construction
could have caused Messrs. Huskisson- and' Addington,

the` British Commissioner*, ite specifying their title, on
the 16th of December," -1826i,'; 0 declare " that Great
exoltisive sovereignty over-any porton
Ofthat. territory: Her present claim,' not in respect to
any part; but to thewholt, is limited'to a right of joint
occupancy in common with other states, leaving the
right of-Occlusive dominion. irk .abeyance." And again a
• "'By that convention (of Nootka)' it was agreed that all
parts of the north-western coast of America, not al-
'ready oebupied the Aitae., by'eitlse of, the contracting •
parties; should thenceforward be v equally open to the
sttbjecti of both for all purpeses'of commerce and settle--
ment----4he sovereignty- ;remaining in abeyance."- .But
on' this subject,. we .are not left too mere inferences, how-
ever clear. .The British-t ommissioners,. in their state-
ment froin which, the undersigned has. just quoted, have,
virtually abandoned any other title'which Great Britain
may have previously' asserted .to the territory in dispute.,
and expressly declare'," thet,whatever -that title may
'have-been, however, either.on-the.pa-rt of Great Britain
'of On that of Spain; prior toltheeolvvention of 1790, it
Wes. thenceforward- no. longer4o be traced in' vaeauenar-
lativeii—Of discoveries, ‘several -of them admitted to be
,but in the text-'and stipulations of that con-
Writionitself."
—And:again, in summing up their whole case, they say:
—" Adinitting that the United,States have acquired Fall
the rights which Spain possessed up to the treaty of
eitbe, ;to,,art.m. It, to pre-
Lemma, in right of,Loastsiantr, -,Great Britain maintains
that the and extent-of these rights, as well as the
'rights' of Great Britain, are fixed' bard defined by the con-
Yention*Of Nootka, &c.
' The 'undersigned, literanareful 'examination, can dis-
' cover 'nothing in the, noteof the,preeent British Plenipo:
tentiary to Mr. Calhoun-, -of the, 112th of September last,
' the force- of these declarations and admissions
"or his predecessors. On the contrary,. its general tone
perfect accordance with them.
Whatever may be 'the consequences, then,-whether for
geed or evil—whether to strengthen or tb. destroy the
British claim—it is now too late for the British. Gotern-
meut to vary their 'position:. If the Nootka convention
confers Upon them no 'such -Tightt as .they claim, they
cannot at this late hourgo- behind its provisional; and set
gip claims which,in 1826p:they admitted had been merged
"in thelext and stipulations of that convention itself."
The undersigned-regrets that the British Plenipoten-
tiii'y has not noticed his exposition of the true construe--
lion Of the •Nootka convention. He had endeavoured,
'slid he believes suocessfully,, to prove that this treaty
was transient in its very nature; that it conferred
upon Gieat Britain no right but that of merely trad-
' Wing with the Indians whilst the country should remain
Unsettled, and making the necessary establishments
for this purpose; ' -and that it did not ' inter=
fere With the ultimate sovereignty of Spain over the ter-
' ritory. 'The British Plenipotentiary has not attempted
to reSikthesititmehlsinflit, If they be fair and legitimate,
then it:would-not avail Greaf Britain, even if she should

tordve` fife Nbotkaconeention to 'be still, in force. On
'the contrary, -thirconvention;ift the construction placed
4otkilt lymthsekr derisigne'd,bef correct, contains
tih tasclear
eVi'ith% levisentiinal righttf soart °vereriegantyrolvaenr'tthea 'whole
dispifted territory; and consequeßtly that it now belongs
los the United States. , ' • -
'''The,Value of this admission,. made in 1799, is the same
-Whetheior not the convention had continued to exist until
'ilie present day. But be is willing to leave this point on
the linebntroverted argument contained in his former
statement..- ~ - - :`' ' -, •*- ' " .
' ' Ifni' is the Nootka Sdut&erinvention still in force ?
The' British Pienipotentiary . does not cotitetst, the clear
general' principle oftniblio law, " that war 'terminates all
subsisting treatierbdtweett the bffligerent powers." ' He
contendS, however, in the first place, that this convention
is partly commercial ; , and that,V3'far as it partakes of
this character; ',ir 'was revived by the treaty con-
cluded at Madrid on the 28th of August, 1814, which
'declares " that al4 the •treaties•of cdnimerce which sub-
'siitecl lietweeir the tdVo parties (Great lAritain'and Spain)
inl796i were therebrtatified and confirmed •," ' and, se-
cond", "_ that in 'other-respecti it must be considered as an
#k, noWledgment of subsisting rights, an admission of cer-
taiApriiiciples'-of• Ititernational" law" not to be revoked
!111' "10% ''' '''' ' ' ' ''' ' •' • -
,In, regard to the first proposition,b the undersigned is
s
~ •a •
tis..fied, to leave the question'question'td rest upon his former
argument, at 'the' Brithfirlenipotentiary has contented
:laimaelf Mth Merely tie4errint'tlici-fact that the-commer-
cial ippitiontf tWe NootltaiSiititd'ConventiOn wasrevived
by.tlie treaty -of 1814; Wlthutit 'even Specifying what he
eonsulers to be that portion of the convention. If the
nutlet-Signet:l'W (leaked to Xlitengthen his former posi-
'tidn; he might have repited with great effect the ergo;
mesa,contaided in the' hole of Lord Aberdeen to the
Eiuke:24 Sotdmayer; dated tBtith June,: 1845, in which
his IJordship clearly eStablished that all the treaties of
comEngtee sabdiStitte,between Great Britain and Spain
previous to. 1796 were donfitied to' the trade with Spain
alone, and did not 'embrace her colonies and remote p05;...1„_.:
;...1„_.:- 1 ~,!, L !., . ,-. .„., ...
"!', u. 19:
The sicotirpropaition of 'the British Plenipoten
'
tlry ~ A./setves 'grtitifer attentibn. Does the Nootka
Sound s"cOntentiiti heiciartb that class of treaties con-
taining " abilicitritSwlefignient: of suaisting rights—an
adadesion of certain principles of international law"
not to be abrogated' by`war? ' Had Spain by this con-
vention acknoWledgedthe rights. or all nations to make
cliscoieri,s, plant settlerhents; .and establish colonies, on
the north-west Collet of America, bringing with them
their sOvereignjuristliction, there would have been much
forcein the arganient. ' But such an admission never was
made, and never wits intended to be made, by Spain.
The Nodtka convention is arbitrary and artificial in the
highest degree, end is' anything rather than the mere
acknowledginent of siinple and elementary principles
consecrated'by the'la* of nations. In all its provisions
it is expressly confined-to Great Britain and Spain, and
acknowledges' nb. right Whatever in any third power to
interfere with the north-West coast of America. Neither
in its terms, nor in its essence, does it contain any ac-
' knowledge-fent'of prediolislY subsisting territorial rights
in Great Britain, or any other nation. It is strictly con-
fined to fature engageMents, and these are of a most
peculiar' character. ' 1 -',' ' . .. .
Even under the construction of its :provisions main-
tained by Great Britain, her 'claim does not extend to
plant colonies, which she would have had a right to do
under the law of nations, had the country been, unap-
propriated ; but it iti limited' to a mere right of joint
oeduptincy, bot,.l.tYr4pcct.t9 any part, but to the whole,
the-sovereignty' rniaining. in'. abeyance. And to whist
kind of bcCupancy?" Not separate and distinct colonies,
but scattered seltlenients
:Intermingled with each other,
over.. the whole iniface Cif die territory, for the single
Volvos° of trailing Witlithe Indians, to all of which the

3 ?;

i~ : '.

,