Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, W.T. [i.e. Wis.]) 1843-1844, 1843-11-11
mo. 35.

u III.
under whom we claim.
But thirdly, on the 4,h Of June 1890. the
Spanish government published declaration
or manifesto. dreced 10 all European Courts,
setting forth their exclusive RICH, Of SOVEREIGN
~ to Oregon Territory. founded upon their
prior discovery. This manifesto was never
cou,radic'ed or denied by Grea, Britain, either
publicly or privately, that has ever been known
or heard. Hence, il would follow that. even
il England had had righ. Of sovereignty. by
discovery prior to those Of the Spaniards
above cited, (Which is no, admitted y that il
has been absolutely and irrerievably abandon
ed by them Ohe Bri,sh) so far as regards the
United States, who are a bona tide purchaser
Of the Oregon. When claim 10 anything 10
publicly made, nature prom pts those who have
conflicting ones TO make them known; hence,
silence is construed into an abandonment, of
right. and an acquiescence in the conflicting
CLAIM made public; and wha, is once formally
abandoned can never Do revived, especially TO
the prejudice Of a bona fde purchaser, Had
the claims of England and Spain been origin.
ally equal, the law of nations, in deciding be-
tween England and the unlied States. would
prefer the latter. who have been guilty of no
laiches. TO The former, who have been guiy
Of lalches. So that. were it admitted ,ha,
England had made the discovery OF Oregon
prior 10 Spain. which is denied. YET, mas.
much as Great Britain admitted the prior dis
coverv sell forth by Spain in their manit s,c,
and no, denied a, the tine. the United Slates,
as assignee Of Spain may now claim he soy.
ereigniiy Of that territory by more psriecl
urle. The principle Of the law OF nations NJ.
on which this is founded, will mol aud cannot
be denied.
Having thus shown that Great Bfi'aln has
no title 10 the sovereignty OF Oregon Territory
lei US exaiaine NOR. particularly ,chaf tpds nd
vanced by her in regard TO Nooka Sound.
The BRUSH Government nigh, have had a
right Of sovereignty to Noo,ka Sound, IN par
ticular, wi,hou, having any righ, OF sovereign
" 10 Oregon Territory. Ia general; but. had
that been the case. il would have been dis.
,incily stated. inasmuch as that partial ngh,
Of sovereignty would have been az answer 10
the claim of sovereignty 10 the whoIe territory
by SPAIN and also ,ha, right of partial sover-
eighty would have been greater than The right
of trade and traffic which was complained Of
being invaded, and which would therefore have
been merged therein. But Mr.. Puts con-.
plants are Of tho ..ships" having been taken.
not the "land." Ia calling Ia question SPANS
exclusive claims, he denies those only which
relate to the "frade." 'claims tsays Mr.. Pu)
which are totally inconsistent with the rights
of independeni napigoiors TO lands; which. be.
ing before unappropriafed, they should make
their o,on by occupancy and labor"
The .righis' Of ''independent navigaiors."
Who are .ndependent nGrigafors?" Nenber
| Mr.. Pin nor his historian has condescepded TO
inform US. OF whaf are they independent
| OF the law Of nalonsl If that was The mlnis.
lers meaning. the idea might have been sug-
gesied l., his mind by recollecing the claims
10 be knighled, of his counirynsn Drake"
..Independeni" johnson saysj is "not snp.
ported by any o,her"--"not controlled" South
.-.'no, relating To any superior power" Bent
ley. "lndependent navigaioTs" mus, then
be those "gentiemen Of the sea-" who roam
about the world uncontrolled. holding them
selves responsible to no superior po~eE tho
the same who, Blackstone tells US, are "Hos.
fis human generis;" 10 vulgar language. 'pi-
rates" But il seems that these ''independsnt
navipa,ors" have rights" Indeed! The law
teaches tina, the re is no right without cores
bonding duty; hence those who acknowledged
no duties can claim no right. 10 enjoy rights
and perform duties implies responsibilities,
(..dependence"J but he who is 'independent.
firesponsibleJ can know neither The one nor
the other. But The right OF these "inde.
pendent navgstors" 10 to lands! How were
they scqniredi by prior discovery! No. BY
cessionl No. BY conques.i No. The right
Of these independent Bsvigaiors was ITO land
Mey could make their oDa By occupancy and
hb0r." "Occupancy is The taking possession
of those things which before btiongtd TO no
body" Blacksione.J But the occupancy Of
these independent, navigaiors was ''ihe 5eizing
upon what before belonged to sOmebody"
Qt.0d nuiLus est I'd rafione nafayah occupant
conced,tur." says the law oil nations; but II
would be impovslbIr so TO translate this maxim
As TO Justify the Engilshmao who nespas-ed
on the soil and right of sovereignty which The
SpsniArds had gained by their prior discovery
Of Oregon.
No such subordinate or inlefIocuiory right
of trade and traffic upon ground TO which
mother has d night Of sovereignty ~ know 70
the law, II The land before belonged 20 no,
bodv. the discovery and taking possession con
ferred the right Of sovereignty; but # the Pre-.
vious belonged 70 anybody. the entry upon
them TO trade or traffic was tmfnOus. end 20
right, OF any kind was thereby acquired
Nor j. the condition OF such ifssposseis a.
al improved BY any db,r ltoy sAy perform
upon the ,ands. as Sit. Pit's language esut
seem to imply. On tie conlsa each aev
act performed on the soil l. caplrualiaa q
the uespass; and is By the law 'ei"nrd oaes
10 the iortuobs entry. 40 that these En2Ish
inlruders were not only irespass"fs ID min.
bot nd metas Bot perhaps II unav be -s'i
that Mr.. Pin qualified The rights 81 'bf'e M
dependent nayigaiors TO iands thef"'"ipfe hH'
appropriafed IL 30. II becomes nere'safg u
inquire what vas meant by ''UnaPPrpfiA''d
!. IL not being a legal term. i's meaniug must
3 -. 1,.,,ooattes 70 ..sn.