The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-05-07
OREGON.
THE DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT.

In our paper OF Monuay, we nouceu inc cafc
with which the British government and writers sup
press all illusions to the voyages of the Spaniards
along the northwest coast Of America and we re-
marked, that statements from these sources were
unfortunately received with much more reliance by
our own felow-citizens than they deserved. sim
gular confirmation Of this remark is presented in
an article on Oregon, from the New "York CONNER
cial ADVERTISER republished in the Natonal Inteli-
gencern of Monday, in which the grounds of the
American title to that territory carefully refined
away and history and national law are ingeniously
distorted in order to exhibit the claims of the Uni-
ted States as having foundation in reason or JUS
.tice. The two most important voyages Of the
Spanisrds, Chose in 1774 and ITS, in which they
infinitely examined The coasts from their settlement
at Monterey northward to the 58th parael,) not
in any way noticed; and claim is assumed for
Great Britain, which has been pointedly disa-
vowed by the official representatives Of that pow
er--namely, that against all other nations ex-
cept Spain, Great Britain alleges that her rights
to the northwest coast are exclusive. The arti.
Gle, thus endorsed by the approval of the "Naton-
al Inteigencer," is indeed specious defence Of the
British title, partially yelled by the assertion, that
neither Of the claimant nations has any fair preten-
sons to the possession Of Oregon; and its views,
conclusions, and whole tone, are precisely such as
they should have been, if It had proceeded from an
organ of the British Ministry. We do not consider
ourselves bound, by what we have here said, to
view this article from the "Commercial Advertiser"
We have already, in our previous numbers on this
subject offered to readers the Of judging
as to the correctness of some Of its statements and
the respect evidently paid by the writer to British
authorities, viii doubtless prevent him from finding
fault with US, for preferring to continue obser
vations on Lord John Russell's speech in Parlia-
ment, which will answer the same purpose equally
well.
We come to transactions relative to the northwest
coasts Of America, which rendered them for the fret
time the subject of controversy between civilized
nations OF these transactions, the following sum-
mary is presented by Lord John Russell:
ssIn 1885, question arose with regard to the set
Element of Nootka Sound, which was held by Eng
lish subjects, and which settlement disturbed
and destroyed by the Spaniards, under Captain
Martinez. The English government, on that occa
sion, demanded redress, and the result of that de-
mand on the part Of England was, that the redress
which was demanded was given, the settlers were
restored to their possession at Nootka Sound, and
treaty was agreed upon with regard to the future
occupation Of that district. The claims of England
and Spain to settle in that district defined and
agreed to by that treaty; and find in Hirstlett's
Commercial Treaties, that the 9Th article of the
treaty to which am now referring which was sign
ed at the Escural the 26th of October 1870, Sc.
cured those rights BY the fifth article Of that treaty
il was agreed that sin all other parts of the north
western coasts of North America, or of the islands
adjacent situated to the north Of the parts Of the said
territory already occupied by Spain, wherever the
subjects Of either ftie two powers shall have made
settlements since the month of April 1885, or shall
hereafter make any the subjects Of the other shall
have free access, and carry on their trading without
disturbance or moestation' Now, that article
elbows clearly that all the part north of the part Of
the coast occupied by Spain, was part which was
subject to be settled by either power, and that no
separate jurisdiction was claimed by England or
Spain over the portion of the country to the north Of
that part of the coast. Spain allowed to carry
on trade in the district the west of the British set
Elements; but she was allowed no jurisdiction over
the subjects of England in those settlements and the
only part which left indefinite by the treaty was
the part of the coast occupied by Spain. II does
appear that at the period Of the treaty there
any settlements to the north of latitude 40 in the oc-
cupaton Of Spain, or at the Columbia river, Moot
ks Sound or in any Of the districts adjacent to the
Columbia river. Such, them is the state of the
ties between Great Britain and Spain that sub
ec and il is manifest that il remained open to Great
Britain or Spain to perfect their discoveries on the
coast by making such settlements as they thought
proper thear, hear. ]"
As the transactions to which this paragraph re-
fers most enormously represented in the hstori
cal works usually consulted with regard to them,
shall be under the necessity here of entering fur
ther into details than we should otherwise have de-
sired.
We stated in former number, that the observa-
tons made by Cook and his successors on the
northwest coasts Of America led to the fur trade be-
tween those coasts where the furs were obtained,
and China, where those articles were much in de-
mand; and that the people of various nations soon
engaged in the business. The British trade in the
north Pacific was then exclusively vested by law in
the two great commercial monopoes the East In
dia Company and the South Sea Company--with-
out the assent Of one, and in some cases of both,
Of which, no British vessel could legally navigate
the Pacific and Indian oceans In order to obviate
the difficulties thus occasioned, British vessels not
belonging to the East India Company (Which pos.
sessed the exclusive privilege of the China rade)
were obliged to obtain licenses at heavy COSTS from
both the companies; and such licenses were carried
by all ships under the British flag in the north Pa.
ci6c, between I7S5, when the fur trade was begun,
and 1875, when it was abandoned by the people OF
that nation This was the only mode in which the
fur trade could be conducted by British vessels
without exposing them to confscation, and their
owners and officers to heavy fnes--in evasion Of
which penalties, however, some British subjects en-
gagged in the business in Portuguese vessels, from
the port of Macao, near Canton, belonging to that
nation, furnished with Portuguese papers, COM
manded by Portuguese captains, and navgated by
crews composed almost entirely of Portuguese and
Chinese.
Two vessels were thus fitted out at Macao in
1857, under the direction of John Meares, lieu
tenant in the British navy, on half pay, who went
as supercargo in one of them Their captains were,
however, Portuguese; and they carried Instructions
wi''en only in Portuguese, authorizing their cap
"hs 10 take and bring To Macao for trial as pirates