The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-12-11

territory belonging TO another power, should nave
been dlsobeyed.
In what did this alleged violation of territory con-
sist Assuredy in some attempted acts of discoye-
| ry, exploration, or settlement.
| AT that time, Russia stood in precisely the same
position with reference 10 the exclusive rights Of
Spain the United States; and any acts in contra
| ven,ion of those rights, whether emanating from
Russia or from the United States would necessarily
be judged by one and the same rule.
How then, can it be pretended that acts which,
IN the case Of Russia, were considered as criminal
violation of the Spanish territory, should, in the case
Of citizens OF the United States be appealed to as con-
shutting valid title to the territory affected by
them and yet from this Inconsistency the American
plenipotentary cannot escape, fine persists III con-
sderins the American title to have been perfected
by discovery, exploration, and settlement, when as
yet Spain had made transfer of her rights, II,
to his own words, 'that tile is older than the
Florida treaty, and exists independently of its pro-
| visions.n
According TO the doctrine of exclusive dominion,
the exploration of Lewis and Clarke, and the es-
adjustment founded at the mouth Of the Columbia,
must be condemned as encroachments on the terri
torial rights ofSpan
According to the opposite principle by which dis.
coyery, exploration and settlement are considered
as giving valid claim to territory, those very acts
are referred TO in the of the same paper as
| constituting complete title in favor of the United
States
Besides, how shall we reconcile this high es,ma-
ton of the territorial rights OF Spain, considered
independently of the Nootka Sound convention,
with the course observed by the United States in
their diplomatic transactions with Great Britain,
previously to the conclusion of the Florida treaty
The claim advanced for the restitution of Fort
George, under the first article of the treaty OF Ghen
the arrangement concluded for the joint occupation
of the Oregon territory by Great Britain and the
United States and, above all, the proposal actually
made the part of the United States for partition
of the Oregon territory all which transactions took
place in the year 1878, when, as yet Spain had
made transfer or cesson of her rlghts--appear
to be little reconciIabe with any regard for those
rights while still vested in Spain, the claim
founded on discovery, exploration, and settlement
accomplished previously TO the transfer of those
rights to the United States.
Supposing the arrangement proposed in the year
1918, or any other arrangement for the partition Of
the Oregon territory to have been concluded in those
days, between Great Britain and this country, what
would, in that case, have become of the exclusive
rights of SPAIN
There would have been no refuge for the United
States but in an appeal TO the principles OF the
Nootka convention.
To deny, then, The validity of the Nootka con-
vention, is to proclaim the illegality of any title
founded on discovery, exploration, or settlement,
previous to the conclusion Of the Florida tssaty.
To appeal to the Florida treaty as conveying to
the United States any exclusive rights, Is to attach
character Of encroachment and of violation Of the
rights of Spain to every act to which the United
States appealed in the negotiation of 1878, as giving
them claim to territory on the northwest coast.
These conclusions appear to the undersigned to
be irresistible.
The United States can found no claim on discov-
cry, exploration, and settlement, effected previously
to the Florida treaty, without admitting the prnci-
Piles of the Nootka convention, and the consequent
validity. of the parallel claims of Great Britain
founded on like acts; they appeal to any cx-
elusive right acquired by the Florida treaty, with
out upseng all claims adduced in their own proper
right by reason of discovery exploration and set
dement, antecedent to that arrangement
The undersigned trusts that he has now shown
that the convention of 1890, tthc Noa,ka Sound
conventon,) has continued in fall and complete
force up to the present moment
By reason, in the first place, ot the commercial
character of some of its provisions as such express
ly renewed by the convention Of August, 1914, be-
tween Great Britain and Spain:
BY reason, IN the next place, OF the acquiescence
of Spain in various transactions to which II Is not
to be supposed that that power would have asseed,
had she not felt bound by the provisions OF the con-
vention in question:
| Aud, thirdly, by reason of repeated acts Of the
government of the United States, previous to the
conclusion of the Florida treaty manifesting adhe-
renee to the principles Of the Nooka convention or
at least dissent from the exclusive prctcnsions of
Spain.
| to the observations Of the American penipotentary
with respect to the effect Of the Nootka Sound con-
vention and the Florida treaty, bearing upon the
subject of the present discussion, the undersigned
| must endeavor to show that even If the Nootka
Sound convention had never existed the position of
Great Britain in regard her claim, whether TO the
| whole or to any particular portion OF the Oregon
territory, is at least good us that OF the United
States.
This branch Of the subject must be considered,
first with reference to prncipeto the right OF either
party, Great Britain the United States to explore
or make settlements in the Oregon territory without
violation of the rights of Spain; and next, suppos-
ing the first to be decided afrmatively, with refer
ence to the relative value and importance of the acts
of discovery, exploration and settlements effected
by each.
As relates to the question of principle, the under
signed thinks he can furnish no better argument
than that contained in the following words, which he
has already once quoted from the statement OF the
American plenipotentiary:
"The title of the Uuited States to the valley Of
the Columbia is older than the Florida treaty Of
February, 1919, under which the United States
quired all the rights of Spain to the northwest coast
of America, and exists independently of its provis-
ions.n And again: "the title Of the United States
to the entire region drained by the Columbia river
and its branches, was perfect and complete before
the date Of the treaties of joint occupancy OF Octo-
Der, 1918, and August, 1921"
The title thus referred TO-, must be that resting on
discovery, exploration, and settlement.
fthis title, them is good, or rather was good, as
against the exclusive pretensons of Spain, previous
y to the conclusion of the Florida treaty, must
the claims OF Great Britain resting on the same
grounds, he good also.
Thus, then, it seems manifest that with or with
out the aid of the Nootka Sound convention, the
claims Of Great Britain, resting on discovery, ex-
poratioD, and settlement are, in point of princi-
pie, equally valid with those of the United States
Let us now see how the comparison will stand
when tried by the relative value, importance, and
authenticity of each.
Rejecting previous discoveries north Of the Add
parallel Of latitude as not sufficiently authenticated,
il will be seen on the side of Great Britain, that, in
l77s Captain Cook discovered Cape Flattery, the
southern entrance Of the straits of Fuca. Cook
must also be considered the discoverer of Nootka
sound in consequence of the want of authenticity
the alleged previous discovery OF that port by Pc
rez.
In 1851, Captain Berkeley, British subject, in a
vessel under Austrian coors discovered the straits