The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1843-10-21

land and build houses for the purpose oil
trade. at Noo,ka Sound, par, Of Oregon
Territory, (unfounded as we shall present.
ly show that to be-, is an acknowledge
inent Of the wan. Of title to the sover-
eighty to the whole. If they had title to
the sovereignty Of the Whole territory,
why was it not disclosed, as it would
have been a sufficient warran, for Occur
plying par1 No reason can be assign.
ed, except the consciousness that none
then existed; and yet England has the ef-
fron.ery noS to assert tile BY virtue off
discovery prior 10 tina, discussion, in point
of time.
So the ground upon which the yight to
trade was made, viz, one which admitted
The exclusive right Of sovereignty in Spain
to Oregon, is proof that England, at that
period, when the facts were all fresh in
mems memories, did not venture upon q
claim so unfounded; but which they no."
Sc. forth. But no nation or Individual is
allowed thus to blow hot and cold, Gas il
is called or to Sc, up contradictory claims
From all which it plainly appears that
Great Britain never had any right to Ore
gon, by discovery prior to .ha. of Spain,
under whom e claim
But thirdly, on the 9TH of June. 1890,
the Spanish government published de-
clarAtion or manifesto, directed to all Eu-
ropean Courls.sel,ing forth their exclusive
right of sovereignty to Oregon territory,
founded upon their prior discovery. This
manifesto was never conlradicled or de-
MED BY Great Britain, either publicly or
privately, that has ever been known or
heard. Hence, it would follow that,even
if England had had a right of sovereignty
by discovery prior to those Of the Span
lards above cited (Which is no. abmil.ed.)
that it has been absolutely and irre,rievab-
y aband oned by them (the British) so
far as regards the United States, who are
a bona fde purchaser of Oregon. When
a claim to anything is publicly made, ma
ture prompts those who have conflicting
ones to make them known; hence, s., lence
10 construed into an abandonment of rip hit
and an acquiesence in the conflicting claim
made public; and what is once formally
abandoned can never be revived, e.peci =
ally to the prejudice of bona fide pur.
chaser. Had the claims of England and
Spain heen originally equal, the law Of
nations, in deciding between England and
the United States, would prefer the latter,
who have been guilty of no lstches. to
The former, who have been guilty of latch
CO. S, that, were il admitted that Eng
land had made the discovery of Oregon
prior to Spain, { hich is denied, yet. IN
asmuch as Grea, Britain admitted the pri
or discovery sci forth by Spain in their
manifesto, and no, denied al the time, The
United States, as assignee of Spain, may
now claim sovereignty of that territory
by 4 more perfect title. The principle
of the law Of nsllons, upon which this is
founded, will no. and cannot be denied.
Having thus shown that Great Britain
has no u'le to the sovereignty of Oregon
territory, lie. us examine more particularly
rhat pas advanced by her in regard TO
Nooika Sound.
The British government mig have had
right OF sovereignty 10 Noo,ka Sound,
IN particular, without having any right OF
sovereignty TO Oregon territory, iE gene
raj; but, had ,ha. been the case, it would
have been distinctly stated, inasmuch as
that partial right of sovereignty to the
whole territory by Spain, and also, tina,
RICH, OF partial sovereignty would have
hsen greater than the right of trade and
traffic which was complained of being in
vaded, and which would therefore have
been merged therein. But Mr Puts COM
plains ar. of the "ships" having been ia
ken, moi the 'land." In calling in cues
lion SPANS "exclusive CLAIMS" denies
those only which relate to the "trade,"
''claims Says Mr. Piu) which are totally
inconsisten, with the "righ,s of inderen-
dent navigators to lands;" which, being
before unappropria,e1, they should make
their own occupancy and labor"
The "righls" Of ''independen, naviga-
tors" Who are 'independent navlsa-
tors2" Neither Mr.. PIT nor historian has
condescended to inform us. or wha, are
they independent OF the law ofnations?
II that was the minister's meaning, the idea
might have been suggested 10 his mind by
recollecting the claims to be knigh,ed, of
mis- coun,rymen ''Dlaks." Independent"
Johnson says) is ''no. supported by any
controlled," (Sonth)-''no.
relating to any superior power" Bentley.
naviga.ors" must then be
hose "gentlemen of the sea-" who roam
about the world uncontrolled, holding
themselves responsible to no superior
power; the same Who, Blackstone tells
us, are HOSTS humani generis;" in vul
gar language, "pirates." Bu. it seems
Ina. these "indcpendent nasagators' have
'rghta.,' Indeed! The law teaches tina,
there is no right without a corresponding
duty; hence those who acknowledge no
dptios ron claim r,n,,t, IT, ..:z,