The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-11-14
Il iii f. u MO N
CRY OF WASHINGTON.
FRIDAY NIGHT, NOVEMBER Il, Isas.
THE FoRTY-NINTH PARALLEL.


THE FoRTY-NINTH PARALLEL.
In recent editorial article, which discussed the
validity Of the claim Of the United States to Ore
gon, the assertion was made, that 'lhe fact is now
well established that under the treaty Of Utrecht,
no line whatever was either adopted proposed by
the ommissioners or by their governments, as the
boundary of the French possessions on the north,
or Of the British possessions on the south "
We cheerfully submit the following communi-
cation upon that point Of the argument In the pur-
suit of truth, and Of truth only, we recognise the
obligation to publish whatever may possibly lead to
the revelation ofimporiant facts Of public interest
To the Editor Of the Union;
In an editorial of the 18th instant, entitled "The
49h Parallel, you state: "lt may be proper to add,
that MIR. Monroe, when minister at the court OF
St, James, in 1904, seems 10 have been the first
American statesman who brought into our negotia-
tons with England this imaginary line Of the 49th
degree, supposed by him 10 have been run under
the treaty Of Utrecht. There seems to be no doubt
that MIR. Monroe was msled by an old map in his
possession," &c, &c.
An official letter Of Mr.. Madison then Secretary
of State under Mr.. Jefferson, to Mr.. Monroe, bear
ing date February IA, 1904, furnishes the following
extracts: "There is reason to believe that the bound
airy between LOUISIANA anu DrltlSn
res north of il, was actually fixed by commissions
ers appointed under the treaty Of Utrecht, and that
this boundary was TO run from the Lake of the
Woods weslwardly, in latitude 49o Annexed is a
paper, stating the authority icich The decision n The
commissioners underline treaty IF Utrecht rests, and the
reasoning opposed to the construction making the
49th degree of latitude the northern boundary OF
Louisiana with marginalnotes 10 support of that
struclion" To ''that paper" have not yet been able
to obtain access; but the above extracts seem suif-
cient 10 authorize qualification, at least, of the
mark that "Mr M. was the first American states.
man who brought into our negotiations with Eng
land this imaginary line," well as to show that
il che was misled, /" il was in company with others
including the most distinguished of American states
men. q.
We have to state to the writer Of the above COM
municaton, that have been enabled to collect no
information, independently Of the statement which,
he makes with respect to the character or the
existence, Of the s'paper" n,entoned,by MIR. Madi
son., We find Mr.. Madison's letter to Mr.. Mon.
roe in the large collection Of State papers, pub
lished by authority Of Congress, blu, not the
"paper" itself attached. We are unable to
gather from Mr.. Madson's words, either the
source from which the spaper' proceeds, much less
its character and the authorities on which it rests
We regret it the more, because, If il had emanated
from his own pen, 1t in all probability charac.
erzed by the greatness Of the intellect from which
il proceeded Itprobably contained the whole gisl
and force of the argument on which the proposition
reposed. Yet, at present, we see nothing even in
his great and venerable name TO shake our con vic
tons about the treaty Of Utrecht
But, from "the lights now before us" we are by
no means prepared (far otherwise y to abandon the
position which we have assumed--upon what, thus
far, seems to be impregnable authority.
We cannot probably do the public a greater ser
vice at presentso far as may be interested upon
this very important branch Of the Oregon discus
sionthan to present in detail the principal basis Of
our previous observations in relation to the sup
posed establishment ofhe 49th parallel by the rea.
Ivy of Utrecht We therefore refer TO the text
of Mr.. Greenhow's able work Oh Oregon and
California, at page 2sl, chapter xiii.
The writer, in calculating his general subject
remarks @
"a negotiation was at the same time in pro-
gress, between the government Of the United
States and that Of Great Britain, respecting
the northern boundary Of Louisiana, for which
the Americans claimed a line running along
the 49th parallel Of latitude, upon the grounds
that This pdraiiei had been adopted and detini.
ireIy settled By commssaries appointed agreeabiy 10
the tenth article Of The treaty concluded at Utrecht u,
l7l3, the dividing line bei,oeen The French possessions
Of iresis, Canada and Louisiana the south, and The
British territories Of Hudsois Bay on The north; and
that this treaty, having been specially confirmed in
the treaty Of 1868, by which Canada and the part
of Louisiana east Of the Mississippi and Iberville
were coded to Great Britain, the remainder of Lou
isiana continued, as before, bounded on the north
by the 49th parallel.
"This conclusion would be undeniable, if the
premises on which il il founded were correct. The
tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht does certainly
stipulae that commsssries should be appointed
by the governments of Great Britain and Fence
respectively, to determine the line of separation be-
tween their possessions in the northern part OF
America above specified; and there is reason to be-
eve that persons were commissioned for that OBJ
ect. But there Is epideace irhch be admitted as
establishing the fact that line running along the 49
parallel Of latitude, or any other line adopted
proposed byBose comnissaries, by their gor-
srnmenis, the limit Of any part Of The French possess
sions on The north, and Of the British Hadsons Bay
territories on tie soufh.n
Again, says that writer:
I'll is true that, on some maps of North
America, published in the middle of the, last
century, line drmrn along the 49h parallel
does appear as a part of the boundary between
the French possessions and the Hudson's Bay terri
tories rs settled according TO the treaty otrecht;
but on other maps, which are deservedly held in
higher estimation, different lin, Jooicig the course
efhe highlands encircling dons bay is presented as
The imt of the Hudson's Bay territory, agreeably to
the same treaty; and in other maps again, enjoying
equal, if not greater consideration, as having been
published under the immediate direction Of the Brit
ish government, no line separating those British pos
sessions from Louisiana or Canada is to be seem In
the other workspolitical, HISTORICAL and geographic
cali which have been examined with reference to
this question, nothing has been found calculated to
sustain the belief that amy line Of SEPARATION ,cas eper
settled, epen proposed has any trace OF such an
agreement been discovered in the archives Of the de
partment Of foreign affairs Of France, which have
been searched with the view of ascertaining the
fact.n
Mr. Grecnhow goes on TO state, upon this sub
jeci, good deal of that which we, acknowledging
our obligations to him, have already advanced.
A more important matter now to be attended to
is, to supply, from the appendix of the work which
We quote the evidence upon which the writer relies
to sustain the declarations which he had made