The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-29 00:00:00

the state of the question. Mr. Calhoun desired a propos a
from Mr. Pakenham, who said be would be able to make a
definite one at the next conference, and desired Mr. Cal-
houn to be also ready with his proposal. Adjourned to the
26th of August, when it again assembled. Mr. Pakenham
made a proposal to Mr. Calhoun, which Mr. Calhoun de-
clined. They then agreed that a more full understanding
of their respective views was necessary to facilitate future
proceedings, It was agreed that written statements of the
views of both parties should be given before proceeding fur-
ther. It was also agreed that the American plenipotentiary
should make his statement at the next conference, and,
when ready, give the necessary notice.
Attached to this protocol is the offer of Mr. Pakenham to
take the 49th parallel of latitude to the Columbian River,
and the river to the sea ; and also to make free to the United
States any port or ports which they might desire on the main
land or on Vancouver's Island south of 49 deg.
Sept. 2, 1844, the third conference was held at the office of
the L nited States Secretary of State. The American negotiator
gave his views of the claims of the United States to the
portion of the territory drained by the Columbia as his grounds
for declining the British Minister's proposal.
Sept. 12, 1844, the fourth conference was held at the same
place, and the British Minister gave his views.
Sept. 20, fifth conference, Mr. Calhoun delivered a re-
joinder.
Sept. 24, sixth conference.
The British Minister stated that he had read with due at-
tention the rejoinder of the U.S. plenipotentiary ; that he
did not feel authorised to enter into any discussion relative
to the territory north of lat. 49 deg. which was understood
by the British Government to form the basis of negotiation
on the part of the United States as the line of the Columbia
formed that of England. That his former proposal was
offered by Great Britain as an honourable compromise, and
that it was made with the proviso that in no case in any
further negotiations should it compromise or weaken the
claims of Great Britain unless accepted by the United States.
September 3d, 1844—Mr. Calhoun to Mr Pakenham—

declines Mr. P.'s proposal ; as it would limit American pos-
sessions to narrower bounds than what it had a clear right to.
Mr. Calhoun then enters into an argument on American
claims to the territory drained by the Columbia, arising
from right, and those derived from France and Spain. The
former he grounds as against Great Britain, on priority of
discovery, exploration, and settlement. The prior discovery
is claimed for Captain Grey, a citizen of the United States,
May 11, 1792, who gave the river its name. This discovery
is opposed by those of Meares and Vancouver. The
former sailed along the coast through which the Columbia
flows, in 1788, in order to ascertain whether the river laid
down in Spanish charts as " St. Roc " really existed, and
he declares "we can now safely assert that there is no such
river."
Mr. Calhoun then proceeds to consider the discoveries of
the Columbia's branches by Lewis and Clark, and asserts
America's clear right by the discovery of the mouth and
head waters of the Columbia river.
He next describes the question of settlement by American
citizens in 1809, 1810, and 1811. The taking possession by
the British during the war, and restoration after peace.
Ile then proceeds, " We have added to our claims those of
France and Spain by the treaty of Louisiana arid the treaty
of Florida. The cession of Louisiana gave us undisputed
title to the summit of the Rocky Mountains and by conti-
nuity to the Pacific, founded on the treaty of 1763."
He then dwells on the argument of continuity, instancing
the contest between Great Britain and France, which was
erminated by the treaty of 1763.
He then examines the treaty of 1763.
He then takes up the restoration of Astoria, and he con-
cludes by stating that the same cause which peopled the
valley of the Mississippi will yet cause emigration across the
Rocky Mountains, and that the whole region drained by the
Columbia is destined to be peopled by us. Mr. Calhoun
closes his able paper by stating that he refrains "from pre-
senting the claims which the United States may have to
other portions of the territory" than those drained by the
Columbia River, and by renewing assurances of high consi-
deration, &c.
Sept. 12, 1844, Mr. Pakenham writes to Mr. Calhoun in
reply to the above, that he has no evidence that Louisiana
extended west to the Pacific, but that the Rocky Moun-
tains was the western boundary, for which opinion he
quotes Mr. Jefferson. Even if the boundary did extend
westward of the Rocky Mountains, that France transferred
to Spain in 1762, and Spain to England, by treaty between
Great Britain and Spain in 1796, which abrogated the claims
of Spain.
Ile denies that the claim of continuity can affect the claim
of right. He acknowledges that Spain, in 1819, transferred
her rights north of 42 deg., but that it did not invalidate her
former concessions in 1790.

In regard to the discoveries of Heceta and Gray they con-
flict, and if lleceta's claim be good it favours Great Britain,
owing to the treaty of 1790.
The United States had no claims when they became a
nation. Those of France were worth nothing. He urges
the commercial intercourse of Great Britain with the north-
west coast, the voyages of Cook and Mears, the survey of the
coast by Vancouver, which makes Great Britain's claims to
discovery and exploration very strong. He sets the accuracy
and authenticity of Cook and Vancouver's survey against
the discovery of the mouth of the Columbia by Captain
Gray. Of the exploration of Lewis and Clarke he says that
M'Kenzie, a British subject, crossed the Rocky Mountains
to the Pacific in 1793, and discovered the upper waters of
Frazer's River, near lat. 49 deg., and puts this against Lewis
and Clarke's.
He meets the authority of Lord Castlereagh by the dis
patch of Lord Castlereagh himself to the British Minister at
Washington, when giving up Astoria, claiming the whole
territory.

Great Britain and the United States are in joint occu-
pancy ; one cannot divest the other but by an equitable divi-
sion of what is jointly occupied.
In claiming the Columbia as the boundary, Great Britain
is not influenced by ambition of possessing large territory,
but by considerations of utility if not of necessity, which
cannot be lost sight of.
Mr. Pakenham concludes by requesting a proposal from
the United States and statement of further claims alluded to
by Mr. Calhoun.

Sept. 20, 1844, Mr. Calhoun rejoins to this rebutting the
British claims on the discoveries of Cook,•Mears, and others,
on the Nootlia Sound convention, and on 11PRIenzie's explo-
ration. The Frazer's River is an inferior stream and cannot
affect the discovery of the Columbia.
Jan 15, 1845, Mr. Pakenham to Mr. Calhoun states that

he has sent the discussions already bad to his Government,
but that, in the meantime, he is authorised to offer arbitra-
tion, leaving the choice of arbiters for after consideration.
Jan. 21, 1845, Mr. Calhoun says he has laid the offer
of Mr. P. before the President, and he cannot accede to the
proposal. lie hopes the question may be settled by nego-
tiation. Arbitration might rather retard than expedite the
settlement.

July 12, 1845. Mr. Buchanan having been appointed
Secretary of State, and seeming to overlook the later pro-
ceedings, and replies to Mr. P.'s letter of September 12,
1844, rests the American title on that of Spain, contend-
ing that, at the date of Spain's transfer of her rights to
America, she had a good title to the whole of Oregon
against Great Britain. The Nootka Sound treaty conferred
no right on Great Britain but to trade with the Indians,
was transcient in its nature, and did not touch the sovereignty
of Spain over the territory. That it was annulled by the war
between Great Britain and Spain in 1796, and has never
since been renewed, and consequently that Great Britain is
destitute of any claim to the Oregon territory. Having
defended these views at length, and enforced the American
title to the whole of Oregon, he says the joint occupancy
treaty excepts the American title from being impaired.
In this view of the subject the President, considering the
action of his predecessors, and embarrassed by their offer, to
show also to the world that he is actuated by a spirit of mo-
deration, has authorised him (Mr. Secretary Buchanan) to
offer the 49th parallel to the sea as a boundary, with any
port in Vancouver's Island south of that latitude.
July, 29, 1845, Mr. Pakenham replies to Mr. Buchanan;
combats strongly Mr. B.'s position, particularly the claim
of the United States to the Valley of the Columbia to be
older than the treaty of 1819. He examines the Spanish
title--the American offer to divide the territory—•the United
States can found no claim on discovery, or exploration or
settlement, prior to the treaty of Florida, without admitting
the principles of the Nootka Sound convention, and the pa-
rallel claims of Great Britain, He contends that the Nootka
Sound convention continues in force, and even if that con-
vention had never existed, the claims of Great Britain are as
good as those of the United States.
He then goes into a history of the discoveries, from which
it might appear that American citizens discovered the Co-
lumbia River, while British navigators discovered Frazer's
River and Vancouver's Island. He repeats the British
claims to the territory, and declines the offer made by Mr.
Buchanan.

August 30,1545, is the date of the last dispatch. It is from
Mr. Buchanan is reply to Mr. P. He quotes the declaration
of Messrs. Huskisson and Addisonton that "Great Britain
claims no exclusive sovereignty over any part of that (Ore-
gon) territory." Mr. B. makes a very long argument in re-
ply to Mr. P., maintaining the rights of the United States to
the whole of the territory, and concludes by withdrawing his
offer.