The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-06-24


the world complete and consecutive collection Of the
and papers OF the adventurous and
who first explored the western territory Of North America
PursEr, May %, ls4o.
Observations on the abors, by Robert Grssnho,c.
Having presented Mr.. Falconer's reply to my
answer, in full, shall proceed, without further
preface, to offer remarks upon il, agreeably to
the order in which he has examined the several
points:
l. Mr.. Falconer, in his book on the Discovery of
the Mississippi, to which my answer applies, and
OF which his pamphlet the Oregon question is in
part an abrdgmcnt, produced quotation from the
History Of the Federal Government, by Alden
Bradford, of Boston, a stipulation in the trea-
ty of 1903, whereby France ceded Louisiana to
the United States; and he occupied many pages
of his book with assertions and arguments to
prove the premeditated bad faith and treachery of
the American government, upon the strength of this
passage. In my answer, l showed-what every
one who pretends to write on this subject should
have known-that no such passage, nor any like it,
existed in the treaty; and ended by saying that it
was "most charitable to suppose that he never saw
the treaty, as he must otherwise stand amenable to
the charge Of having falsely brough; forward the
passage forming the subject of these remarks, as
one Of It's stipulations, with the object of defaming
the American government"
Mr.. Falconer, in his postscript" does not seem
willing TO admit that he never saw the treaty. He
did, indeed, las he says refer ito the passage
part of the terms Of the treaty." in his first work.
but, in his pamphlet, he had altered the word treaty
~.
"though the citation is not in the treaty Itself IL does
not oo,o that is not part Of the agreement whieh
the treaty is founded" This is wretched quibbling
The only agreement known, or believed by any
one, to have been made between the United States
and France relative TO the extent of Louisiana, is
contained in the first article Of the treaty. quoted
by Mr.. Falconer in his book; and he is fully as
much authorized to consider Guver's voyage to
Lilliput as part of that agreement, the passage
which he has been pleased to represent such. at
is thus represented" he says, "by DR.. Bradford"
Thss not the fact: Bradford, whose work is now be-
fore me, says nothing whatever calculated to induce
that suppositon; and if he had man protesting like
Mr. Falconer, to enlghten the world on questions
momentous, should have consulted the treaty
and documents relating to it himself and not have
depended on others, as others again may now de-
pend on him for its contents Mr. Falconer ends his
paragraph by declaring that 'sMr. Greenhow does
not say that the passage is, in any respect mac
curate." This is most strange assertion; for, in my
anscer which must have been before him at the
time, pronounce it to be sincerely gratutous, and
certainly unfounded, opinion to the limits Of Lou
isiana"
2. On the rights of nations to occupy vacant ter
ritories, l cannot here enter into an argument.
Many pages Of my History of Oregon are devoted
to this subject-par,s of which are copied by Mr..
Falconer in his book with judiciou alterations and
other parts are omitted to suit his convenience. l
leave him to reconcile as he can the opinions ex-
pressed in the first sentence ofthis paragraph, mo
81 the subject of stalking possession" with those
the subject, in the last sentence but one of
the same paragraph His concluding assertion,
that "such Cor any other) possession of Oregon,
companied by occupation, was first made under the
authority Of the British government" deny in
toto. The coasts Of Oregon were first explored by
the Spaniards, who, in l774 and TITS, landed there
in many places, and "took possession" for their
sovereign, before they had been by the people
Of any other civilized nation; and the first settlement
made in any part of the regions now known as Ore
gon, was that of the Spaniards at Nootka, in May,
1888. The next in point of time were those of the
Americans, on the Columbia in 1909, and the subse-
quent years to 1914 The earliest British settlements
west Of the Rocky mountains, were made in 1906, in
the region north ofOregon. The taking possession
by the Spaniards, afterwards by the British was
as have termed it in my history, can empty pageant
securing no real rights to those by whom, or in
whose names, it was performed" but the priority
in this point belongs to the Spaniards. The settle
ments at Nootka and Astoria were meant to be per-
manent; but did not prove so, any more than those
made in old times, at Babylon, Palmyra, or Thebes
3. Here | have only TO leave Mr.. Falconer To
reconcile, as he can, his assertion, that the British
government had right "to instruct Vancouver Ia
take possession Of Oregon (Which the British gov
eminent, however, did not do,) with the terms Of
the convention of the Escural--which was binding
at that time on both Great Britain and Spain.
A. did complain that Mr.. Falconer had entirely
misquoted the passage in my history relative to the
northern boundary of louisiana; and do now com
plain that he has, in his POSTSCRIPT" left it to be
of which he now speaks. Those last lines he pre-.
scented between quotation marks, in words totally
different from mine; and, although they referred
specially to the condition and limits of Louisiana
in 1900, he made them the object of an argument
relative to the condition of things in 1863. Under
these circumstances, am fully authorized to sup
pose that the variation not accidental, and that
the omission was made with an object. In his
postscript" he has, however, acted directly and evil
IDENTIFY without candor l never said that 'tLouisi-
ana extended indefinitely northward," at any time.
On the contrary, have proved in my history that
it was bounded, in that direction by the Hudson's
Bay territories. showed that its boundaries on
the east were defined by the treaty of 1868; and
that, on the north and northwest, they unde-
fned-that is, they had not been defined by any agree
ment between the parties interested.
Mr.. Falconer could not possibly be mistaken as
to the difference between what said, and what he