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

is can admission Of certain principles Of interna-
tiona law" sacred and so perpetual in their ma.
ture as not to be annulled by war. On the contra
ry from the character of its provisions il cannot be
supposed for single moment that II was intended
for any purpose but that Of mere temporary ar
arrangement between Great Britain and Spain The
law of nations recognises no such principles in re-
gard to unappropriated territory as those embraced
in this treaty; and the British plcnpoteutiary must
fail in the attempt to prove that il contains can adj
mission Of certain principles Of International law"
which will survive the shock Of war.
But the British plenipo,entary contends that from
the silence Of Spain during the negotiations of 1918
between Great Britain and the United States respect
ing the Oregon territory as well as "from her ST.
lence with respect to the continued occupation by
the British of their settlements in the Columbia ter
ritory subsequently TO the convention Of 1874" IL
may fairly "be inferred that Spain considered the
stpulatons of the Nootka convention, and the prn-
ciples therein laid down, to be still in force.'
The undersigned cannot imagine case where
the obligations Of a treaty, once extnguished by
war, can be revived withouta positive agreement TO
this effect between the parties. Even il both par
ties, after the conclusion Of peace, should perform
positive and unequvocal acts in accordance with its
provisions, these must be construed merely vol
untary, to be discontinued by either at pleasure.
But IN the present is not even pretended that
Spain performed any act in accordance with the
convention of Noolka Sound, after her treaty with
upon to revive that convention.
The undersigned asserts confidently, that neither
by public nor private law will the mere silence Of
one party, whilst another is encroaching upon his
rights, even if he had knowledge OF this encroach-
ment, deprive him of these rights. If this princ-
pie be correct as applied to individuals, il holds
with much greater force in regard to nations. The
feeble may not be in a condition to complain against
the powerful; and thus the encroachment of the
strong would convert itself into perfect title against
the weak.
In the present case, it was scarcely possible for
Spain even to have learned the tendency of nego-
tiations between the United States and Great
Britain in relation to the northwest coast Of Amcri
ca before she had ceded all her rights that coast
to the former by the Florida treaty Of 22d Feb,
1919. The convention of joint occupation be-
tween the United States and Great Britain was not
signed at London until the 20lh October, 1873
but four months previous to the date Of the Florida
treaty; and the rati6cations were not exchanged,
and the convention published, until the 3Oth. of
January, 1919
Besides, the negotiations which terminated in the
Florida treaty had been commenced early as
December, 1915, and were in full progress on the
Goth October, 1918, when the convention was
signed between Great Britain and the United States.
1t does not appear, therefore, that Spain had
any knowledge Of the existence Of these negotia.
tons and even If this were otherwise, she would
have had no motive to complain, as she was in the
vel act VI HOi W s'o C"'Se
States.
But says the British plenipotcntiary, Spain look
ed in silence on the continued occupation by the
British of the settlements in the Columbia territory
subsequently to the convention of 1914 and, there
fore, she considered the Nootka Sound convention
to be still in force. The period Of this silence, so
far as it could affect Spain commenced on the 28th
day of August, 1914, the date of the additional ar
cles to the treaty of Madrid and terminated the
25d February 169 the date Of the Florida treaty.
Is there the least from this silence to infer an
admission by Spain Of the continued existence of
the Nootka Sound conventions. In the first place,
this convention was entirely confined ito landing on
the Of those seas, in places not already occu
pied for the purpose Of carrying on their commerce
with the natives of the country, or of making set
Elements there" II did not extend to the Interior
At the date Of this convention, no person dreamed
that British traders from Canada, or Hudsons Bay
would cross the Rocky mountains and encroach on
the rights Of Spain from that quarter. Great Brit
ain had never made any settlement on the north
western coast of America, from the date Of the
Nootka Sound convention until the 22d February,
1919; nor, so far as the undersigned is informed,
has she done 30 down to the present moment.
Spain could not, therefore, have complained of any
such settlement In regard to the enchroachments
which had been made from the interior by the
North west Company, neither Spain nor the rest OF
the world had any specific knowledge Of their OK
stence But even if the British plcnipotcntary had
not aitempted-she had been exhausted by one long
and bloody war, and was then engaged in another
with her colonies and was, besides, negotiating for
a transfer of all her rights on the northwestern
coast of America to the United States. Surely these
were sufficient reasons for her silence, without in
ferrng from it that she acquiesced in the continued
existence of the Nootlka convention. If Spain had
entertained the least idea that the Nootka conyen-
ton was still in force, her good faith and her
tonal honor would have caused her to communicate
this fact to the United States before she had coded
this territory to them for ample consideration.
Not the least intimaon Of this kind was ever COM
municated.
Like Great Britain in 1918, Spain in 1919 had no
idea that the Nootka Sound convention was in
force II had then passed away, and was forgot
ten.
The British penipoentiary alleges, that the reason
why Great Britain did not assert the existence OF the
Nootka convention during the negotiations between
the two governments in 1873 was, that no occasion
had arisen for its interpretation, the American gov
eminent not having then acquired the title Of Spain
Il is very true that the United States had not then
acquired the Spanish title; but is it possible to i'm
agine, that throughout the whole negotiation, the
British commissioners, had they supposed this con.
venton to have been in existence, wond have re-
manned entirely silent in regard to a treaty which,
as Great Britain now alleges, gave her equal and
coordinate rights with Spain TO the whole north
west coast of AMericai At that period, Great Brit
covery and purchase from the Indians. How vast
ly she could have strengthened these claims, had
she then supposed the Nootka convention to be in
force with her present construction Of its provisions
Even in 1924 il was FIRST Introduced into the nego-
tiation not by her commissioners, but by Mr. Rush,
the American plenipotentary.
But the British plenpotentiary argues, that "the
United States can found no claim discovery, ex-
ploration, and settlement effected previously to the
Florida treaty, without admitting the principles Of
the Nootka convention;' 'nor they appeal to any
exclusive right as acquired by the Florida treaty,
without upsettng all claims adduced in their
own proper right, by reason Of discovery, exploa-
ton, and settlement antecedent to that arrange
ment"
This is a most ingenious method Of making two
distinct and independent titles held by the same ma
ton worse than one-of arraying then against each
other, and thus destroying the validity Of both.
Docs he forget that the United States own both
these titles, and WELD them either separately
conformity against the claim Of Great Britain at their
pleasurei From the course Of his remarks, 1t might
be supposed that Great Britain, and not the United